"Marriage and family is essential for a full and happy life."
This is the original claim and it is false.
Discussion
The original claim in this post has been independently reviewed and verified by real Nostr patriots, and has been determined to be accurate with a high degree of confidence.
I’d reword it myself. However, I think he’s still capturing the point.
I’d say that happiness isn’t the point. Fulfillment is.
Can you survive without it? Sure. Can you be content? Maybe. But you’ll never know the fullness of what it means to die to yourself and discover life on the other side.
The exceptions you listed didn’t disprove this. They lived it out differently, but they still poured themselves out for something beyond themselves.
That's where all of this NOSTR discussion is stemming from:
nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs is too arrogant to backpedal and admit he communicated imprecisely and his lack of precision is patently un-Christian and un-loving towards people who, for various unique reasons, are unmarried or childless.
> But you’ll never know the fullness of what it means to die to yourself and discover life on the other side.
This is incorrect.
Biological progeny isn't the necessary ingredient for this.
Surrendering to something greater than yourself is the key point.
Surrendering to “Something” greater?
Yes.
What’s that some-thing?
The free will of others
Depends on the person doing the surrendering doesn't it?
If "something greater" depends on the person, then it isn't actually greater. It's just subjective preference.
You're using transcendental language (greater than yourself) but grounding it in individual opinion. That collapses the very concept you're appealing to.
The question isn't whether people feel they've surrendered to something greater…it's whether that "something" actually exists outside their own mind.
No. That's false logic.
You're saying there can only be one thing that is greater then the person and that all people must recognize that one thing.
That's the exact same judgmental, one size fits all thinking that you and HODL and the rest of the people who don't understand the Golden Rule have been spewing that caused this controversy in the first place.
You already admitted the issue was that HODL communicated imprecisely.
That's it. Debate over. I win.
All other discussion from you on this is moot.
That was the point and you've already stated your perspective on it.
It varies. I spent five years with a girl who I thought I could have a family with. Life and health didn’t allow that to happen and yet I grew far more from that than many parents I’ve known. I’m still only 32 and have time for a family but I’ve discovered many possible paths to continuing fulfillment in my life. There are higher forces and consciousnesses that are leading me and I don’t know for sure where I’ll end up. If the original post had only gone so far as to say that a family is the “best” way he would have had little controversy and engagement, but at least have been much closer to the mark.
Yes, it really boils down to HODL walking back his original claim, which he's too arrogant to do.
We don’t live in a time or culture that values being non-controversial. It only feels controversial because our culture has lost touch with what it means to be human.
That's because people are dishonest and poor thinkers. If people learned how to be honest, think and communicate precisely, we wouldn't have as much controversy in the world. We are in a position now where the only way out of the global state of controversy is to engage in controversial exchange of ideas with the goal of quelling the controversy. That's EXACTLY what my research aims to do, but apparently that won't make my life happy or fulfilling. Apparently taking aim at world peace and ending religiously motivated violence is a goal not worth pursuing because I need to spend 18 years dealing with bullshit.
Sorry, but some people have bigger fish to fry.
Nurses gonna nurse. Surgeons gonna do surgery.
"And in that day men will be weary of life, and they will cease to think the universe worthy of reverent wonder and worship.
They will no longer love this world around us, this incomparable work of God, this glorious structure which he has built, this sum of good made up of many diverse forms, this instrument whereby the will of God operates in that which he has made, ungrudgingly favouring man’s welfare; this combination and accumulation of all the manifold things that call forth the veneration, praise, and love of the beholder.
Darkness will be preferred to light, and death will be thought more profitable than life; no one will raise his eyes to heaven; the pious will be deemed insane, the impious wise; the madman will be thought a brave man, and the wicked will be esteemed as good.
As for the soul, and the belief that it is immortal by nature, or may hope to attain to immortality, as I have taught you, – all this they will mock, and even persuade themselves that it is false.
No word of reverence or piety, no utterance worthy of heaven, will be heard or believed."
We can always contribute to the correction of that by valuing non-controversial contributors ourselves. I know plenty but careful where I share them as there are always people who will find them controversial if brought unwilling into contact.
That doesn't work.
Read about the paradox of tolerance and then apply that logic to controversy in lieu of tolerance and make sure to account for the present and persistent state of global controversy in which mankind finds itself mired.
I’m not trying to control lots of people. We have plenty who will engage in controversy without my help. Those few of us with the sense to stay out of useless fights have more important things to do than contributing to the noise. The soldiers would starve without the farmers and every idiot without self control and a keyboard thinks he’s a warrior. We have plenty of garden laborer positions to put the idiots to better use if we could get them. That’s not the same as burying your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away.
I’m not advocating for rage posting. I’m advocating for saying true things that make people uncomfortable because comfort has become our civilization’s fatal weakness.
The farmer feeds the soldier, sure. But if no one’s willing to defend the boundary between wheat and weeds, you’re just farming for invaders. You can tend your garden. Someone still has to name what’s trying to kill it.
And as a gardener (literal) weeds are not the issue. They are often valuable contributors to correcting the imbalances caused by destructive farming practices like killing anything that’s not the one crop you are trying to grow. Also my comment was not about No soldiers but that we have too many specialized in attacking the other and not near enough building value. A tribe that has to attack its neighbors to feed itself is not contributing to this world by creating more mouths to feed.
I’m not talking about attacking neighbors. I’m talking about defending principles that hold civilization together when the culture actively works to dissolve them.
You can permaculture your way to balance all you want. That doesn’t change the fact that some ideas are parasitic, not symbiotic. Relativism about family formation isn’t a “valuable weed.” It’s poison dressed as tolerance.
Building value and defending truth aren’t opposing strategies. They’re the same work.
How about I use a real life instance. My dad works for a rental management company. He got a service order from a house with 3 airforce guys to Tighten the screws on a couple cabinet doors. The guys of the “smartest” branch can’t operate a screwdriver. (Or are too self entitled) I never said anything about No controversy or No soldiers, but a different balance that is not leaving so many necessary jobs unfilled. We have more than enough people saying “the sky is blue” which is what saying “we need to have babies to keep the population up” is. If you really think that most people don’t know that then you’ve fallen for a psyop. People know and some can’t, some have other purposes, and some don’t care. Most of the last don’t need to reproduce or need the powers that be to stop sabotaging the economy/culture so they can see it being reasonably achievable for them.
PS it’s not men that don’t want to have kids. They don’t want to fight the brainwashing of the women they can get on top of all the other challenges. Few men would choose their video games over a decent woman who wants kids.
Your airforce story proves my point. We’ve raised a generation so incompetent they can’t tighten screws. That’s not a labor shortage. That’s a formation failure.
“We need babies” isn’t obvious anymore. Birth rates are collapsing. The culture celebrates childlessness as liberation. If it were common knowledge, we wouldn’t be watching demographic suicide in real time.
Most opting out aren’t facing insurmountable obstacles. They’re facing a culture that made comfort more appealing than continuation.
Your PS is half right. But “I don’t want to fight female brainwashing” is still a choice. Your grandfathers fought actual wars.
Waiting for perfect conditions before building families is how you get extinction with air conditioning.
The Amish are doubling in population every 20 Years. We have other cultural groups that also have high birth rates that are also competent. There are more than 8,000,000,000 people on this planet and still growing. Extinction 😜 we are going through a phase where parts of the culture which are not heading in a sustainable direction are having a birth rate change. We don’t need the population to grow forever. Again I will state that I am still hoping to have a family myself, but we need other things too. In order for the population of the US and Canada to return to pre European estimated population we would have to loose 97% of the population. We were no where near extinct then…
The point is that zero controversy is a no go.
Virtue is couched between two extremes which are vices.
I’m a lot happier with children than I was without 🤷♂️
1. Great for you. I'm happy you're happy with your situation.
2. Happiness is subjective.
3. I never said that having children or being married makes a person unhappier, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
4. The original claim was "Marriage and family is essential for a full and happy life". Try looking for a counterexample. They exist.
5. Since counterexamples exist, this is a false claim and HODL should restate it in a way that is not controversial and unloving to many people who are unmarried and have no children.
The issue is that HODL spoke imprecisely and then all of the morons who don't know how to argue chimed in and started creating chaos. I'm guessing you never participated in any formal debate processes ever in your life and neither did most of the other morons chiming in.
Arguing is different than debating/conversing. Sounds like we’re “formally” debating now
Then their psy-op has worked on you.
Argumentation is the same as debate.
Conversing is different.
I've always been formally debating.
Most people here seem to have dogshit wrapped in catshit for discernment.
Sorry dude I don’t have the energy to battle your autism. Having kids is exhausting
Have fun staying spiritually and intellectually poor
Make your points and then we can respond. Otherwise your simply poisoning the well and using the condescension fallacy
How am I poisoning the well or the condescension fallacy?
You already weighed in on the point that was controversial and agreed that HODL needed to reword his initial claim.
All other discussion is chaotic noise.
That was the point I was debating but HODL and the rest of you clowns populating clown world don't know how to debate or argue or speak precisely.
You misinterpret things. You blur lines. It's like herding cats.
It's not my fault I have spent time learning how to debate and you all have not.
If you think stating truth is condescension, you need to think hard about the nuanced line that runs between those things.
If you did something embarrassingly stupid and I state what you have done, I'm not insulting or condescending you at all. I'm stating truth. I'm reporting facts. The person who is being reported on might not like the fact that they are being reported on, but that's the case. It's a report. It's an observation.
🫡. Guess I’ll go back to my cage now