(1/2) I believe in Omnicidism (A similar, but distinct idea is Efilism which is against creating any life, but it can lead to Omnicidism which is why I have mentioned it) which is a moral philosophy where the most ethical course of action is the instant and painless annihilation of all life in the universe with no chance of it coming back. Of course, this is impossible for now but I am arguing it as a thought experiment, not as a pragmatic idea.

I will introduce why I believe in this by starting off with my definition of suffering. Suffering is any negative experience experienced by a sentient being. It is bad because it is everything that is bad. Suffering is good only when it prevents future suffering. Otherwise, nobody enjoys suffering because it is not suffering if it is enjoyed.

Adding onto this point, I would like to introduce Negative Utilitarianism. In this ideology, not creating suffering is valued above creating happiness/pleasure. Hard Negative Utilitarianism is a concept where not creating suffering is the only thing that matters. This relates because omnicidism is against all procreation because all procreation creates suffering. The fact that most people report being happy is irrelevant because we only need to focus on not creating suffering. You are not unethical if you do not give resources to the homeless, but you are if you decide to take resources away from them. Taking someone's life is unethical, but not creating life is not unethical. The logical conclusion of this is to prevent all life from being born, and to prevent all life from being born you must kill all life so that it does not reproduce.

On that note, you may be thinking "According to your philosophy, wouldn't murder be ethical? Shouldn't everyone kill themselves then?" to which I say no to both. Murder is unethical because it inflicts grief-related suffering on those who care about the person who was murdered. Suicide also follows, being a net negative. However, this can lead to unfortunate implications to those unloved. For example, if we kill the homeless, then people would be more stressed about becoming homeless.

Another argument is that procreation is gambling with someone's life without their consent. If you forced someone to go into a room where they would have a 90% chance of winning a large sum of money but 10% chance of getting cancer, most people would be understandably upset at you gambling with their life like that. Why would life be any different? When you give life to someone, you're risking an innocent person developing suicidal depression, being kidnapped and tortured, getting an incurable disease and much more. They may still think that their life was worth living, but why would that make it okay to let someone else suffer as much as they did?

Non-existent people cannot miss or want pleasure. By bringing someone into existence, they become a slave to their instincts, fears, and desires. Wanting to live does not mean life is good, much like wanting to drink does not mean alcoholism is good.

My final argument is that life is generally a negative sum game. It may not look like it for humans, but it is very probable that most animals suffer more in their life than not. If you want a demonstration of this, compare the suffering of an animal being eaten to the pleasure an animal gets from eating it. The suffering is much greater. Not only this, but imagine being a prey animal. Mortal terror is a very common occurrence for these.

if you upvote my thread good blessings and loving girlfriend will come to you


if you like my thread on facebook you will experience 5 months of good luck =)

it'll come to you ==))

Anyone heard this theory?
>the Soviets made the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to start another war between France and Germany
>the Soviets wouldn't've even joined the war, except Germany was going to lose to Poland (ending the war without weakening the Western powers)
>Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike; Hitler never had a choice to avoid war with the Soviet Union, only whether to attack or to be attacked
>the Soviets lost a shitload of personnel and materiel to Barbarossa because they had an offensive force on the border, waiting to blitz all of Europe

https://youtube.com/watch?v=IU3kyF6rQtY [Embed]

Often, probably even most of the time, cats have some kind of camouflage patternation on their top halves but their underside is white. This doesn't make sense for a terrestrial hunter, the only reason one would have a white underside is if they are flying in order to camouflage them against the sky if they are being looked at from below. So the ancestors of cats must have at one point been capable of flight but have sense lost this ability. You can say what you want but the evidence is there.


Also, there may be fellows that doubt this hypothesis based on a 'lack' of evidence and who are going on what the skeletal remains tell them BUT. If the wings were made of cartilage they would not be left for us to find after all of this time and being an aerial predator it would probably nest high up and live in the mountains and so maybe there remains would not be left intact up there or the bones would get blown away, plus we currently are lacking in the amount of archaeological digs that we do in places like that.

Additionally, cats can have incredibly large ranges Tigers can have ranges up to 4000km2 and they don't even have wings, if they had wings they would have larger ranges and so maybe they would be quite rare and it would be even harder to find remains.

I figured a lot of the things I wanna talk about are fairly mundane and cannot fit into any topic at all so I'll make this thread for the mundane things in life no one can pinpoint and make a thread with.
You can talk about anything in this thread that you don't feel making a thread over