Replying to Avatar RedTailHawk

Welcome to the conversation. You're late and confused so allow me to catch you up.

A lot of people on NOSTR are apparently idiots when it comes to logic and language so let me explicitly lay out my position:

I'm not anti-marriage.

I'm not anti-children.

I'm not anti-family.

The original claim that HODL made was "Marriage and family is essential for a full and happy life."

Paraphrasing the claim into If-Then statemene:

IF a person is to live a full and happy life, THEN that person must live a married life and build a family'.

That claim is false. For one thing, happiness is subjective. As an example, masochists exist and what gives masochists happiness, if delivered to non-masochists, would yield the opposite of happiness. I'm not a masochist but I can understand how one-size-fits-all doesn't fly merely as a result of that one example.

There are people who are contending with wartime injuries, workplace injuries, psychological traumas, childhood abuse, and straight up sterility that might prevent them from having kids. Not every being is meant to reproduce.

The reason I fired a shot at HODL is because his statement was incredibly cruel to people who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot have children, even though they would love to have children. I'm thinking about them and how they would feel reading HODL's post. He's an asshole pumping his own bags trying to seek validation from a bunch of morons online because despite his successes, he's still got a huge hole in his life that he doesn't know how to fill. Maybe if he wasn't such a fake Christian, that hole would fill.

This a whole lot to say so little. You're being pedantic and unable or unwilling to see what he's at: marriage and kids are normative because they're fulfilling in and add a dimension to life that is irreplaceable; not to mention it's the best way to sustain civilization . Are people unable or unwilling to get married for a variety of reasons? Yes. Should this be the norm? No.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Let's get one thing straight. Words mean things.

If HODL used words imprecisely, that's on him.

It's not the referee's fault that the player committed the foul.

This is not new. In contract law, ambiguity in the contract favors the party who did not draw up the contract.

You are responsible for the words you use. So is HODL. He spoke imprecisely and unfairly.

Thank you for agreeing that he fucked up and needs to communicate more precisely.