No you are correct that elimination of suffering is an unattainable goal. At the same time is it attainable to stop the creation of life? Also no and you'll even see anti natalists in this very thread admit that. What's the point of antinatalism if someone believes at the same time that suffering cannot be eliminated and the creation of life cannot be stopped?
Also the idea that the next best thing to do is remove the sufferers is some serious lib shit. I can absolutely see libs saying "we're not killing the homeless, we're stopping their suffering"
Comparing alive people to nonexistent ones is a slippery slope and not what I said, but you're right in that you can always count on libs to misconstrue. The point of antinatalism is that it's purely a personal choice. It isn't an evangelical belief, but a discussion to help people who have those opinions see that it's a valid lifestyle, in the face of a lot of hounding and condescendence from people with children.
No you are correct that elimination of suffering is an unattainable goal. At the same time is it attainable to stop the creation of life? Also no and you'll even see anti natalists in this very thread admit that. What's the point of antinatalism if someone believes at the same time that suffering cannot be eliminated and the creation of life cannot be stopped?
Also the idea that the next best thing to do is remove the sufferers is some serious lib shit. I can absolutely see libs saying "we're not killing the homeless, we're stopping their suffering"
It's the exact word games they love to play.
Comparing alive people to nonexistent ones is a slippery slope and not what I said, but you're right in that you can always count on libs to misconstrue. The point of antinatalism is that it's purely a personal choice. It isn't an evangelical belief, but a discussion to help people who have those opinions see that it's a valid lifestyle, in the face of a lot of hounding and condescendence from people with children.