I also tend to share this phlegmatic approach to opinions. I can't remember the last time I felt offended because of one. It certainly helps with the blood pres

I also tend to share this phlegmatic approach to opinions. I can't remember the last time I felt offended because of one. It certainly helps with the blood pressure. That said, my original point before I got lost in the details is just that I found it intriguing that you expected antinatalism to be so neutral a statement that it shouldn't warrant a response from others. >The world is full of people with opinions that disagree with those you may hold closest. On a basic level, I don't understand why you'd be offended by someone else's opinion as long as they're not forcing it upon you/being a dick about it. On a more complex level, the "you do you" approach is a denial of choice. Since the status quo is a certain way, and has certain consequences, then passiveness is in fact a deliberate and non-neutral action. That's not to say that you should conspire to offend and feel offended at every turn, just that moral relativism as a way of evading the responsibilities of free will is a fantasy. To give an extreme example to illustrate this, let's say we replace the word circumcision above with a far graver issue: "Slavery, in my opinion, is a barbaric and silly practice, but why should that matter to you if you chose to sell your kid into slavery? You're you, and I'm me. We can think about things differently."