/lit/ - Literature

>>19718376
>>19718437
>>19718440
>>19718466
Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves? OR, better yet, why don't they murder other people? Why don't they just go on a shooting spree? Why don't they just end dozens of people and their own's misery early?

>inb4 "B-B-BUT THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT! YOU REPEAT THAT CONSTANTLY! IT'S BULLSHIT! DYING IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT BEING BORN!"
>inb4 "B-B-BUT LE HECKIN' LOVED ONERINOS! THEY WILL GRIEVERINO IF I SUICIDE OR COMMIT MURDER!"
Cope

We repeat it because it's true, and it makes you LARPing faggots cope and seethe endlessly because you know we're right, all else is cope on your part. If life is unquestionably bad then ending a life is unquestionably good, whoever grieves after the fact is IRRELEVANT because that dead person would have still died eventually anyways, so they would have had loved ones grieving eventually regardless, you just brought it earlier; And if life is unquestionably bad, then the suffering prevention of stopping someone from living decades further outweighs bringing about grief for that life's loved ones earlier than usual.

The only logical conclusion of antinatalism is commiting a mass murder-suicide, and not a single antinatalist philosopher has a solid refutation of this, only circular logic, they have literally NO answer that doesn't revolve around playing stupid semantics games with "muh asymmetry".

If you radically reject existence but are unwilling to commit suicide, then you're just a whiner LARPing for attention

If you consider life unquestionably bad, and yet you think exterminating life is immoral because "muh grieving loved ones", then you're a hypocrite idiot not thinking ahead far enough, loved ones would have grieved eventually anyways

It's that simple, your philosophy is garbage and nobody who's currently living is actually taking it to its' logical conclusion

The only antinatalist i respect is Mainlander, atleast he wasn't an insufferable LARPer