Replies (106)
Man, so well said my friend.
🫵🏻🫡
No, he's not. Focus on the original goalposts.
He said that you cannot live a happy and fulfilling life if you're not married and you don't have children.
That's provably false. It takes 12 seconds to run a search on influential people from history who were unmarried and had no children.
People like Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Paul Sartres, and Susan B. Anthony all lived unmarried lives and had no children.
In 100 years, people will still speak their names but no one will remember the random pleb who had a few kids who never did anything to change the world.
He's ignoring the individual circumstances with which other people must contend...circumstances he has never considered like war injuries, child abuse, sterility, etc.
One size fits all is bullshit and if you're a Bitcoiner, as an Austrian economist, you should understand that. It's pathetic that you do not.
This hits hard
🫵🏻🙏
get a room gents
Big Reddit energy on all of this guys posts lol
We’re all locked into a room with them
Better than your small brain, no logic, little dick energy that has you seeking validation. You're a textbook example of the hedonic treadmill.
You have a hole in your life and that's why you're trying to seek validation.
The problem is that you're doing so in callous ways.
Keep digging your hole deeper.
In your next incarnation, you will not be this rich, and you WILL suffer.
You are missing a huge opportunity.
Have fun staying spiritually poor.
Those names you listed are remembered because other people’s children learned to read, built universities, and carried forward civilization. Genius outliers don’t sustain societies. Normal people building families do.
Your exceptions don’t disprove the rule. They prove you’d rather optimize for being remembered than for actually mattering.
And yes, some face legitimate barriers. This wasn’t for them. It was for those hiding behind philosophy when they’re really just hiding from commitment.
lol cope
"Marriage and family is essential for a full and happy life."
This is the original claim and it is false.
lol projection
You make your own experience. Having kids is not a prerequisite.
You are one of the rare individuals here who are not in the herd mentality, I congratulate you
I have a 10 week old, my first, and there are times when he's been fussy for like 2 hours straight for different reasons, and I'm finally hitting my limit (it's really high but it is still there) but then he smiles and I'm replenished so I can give him more again! His huge smile melts my heart every time!
It's so cool and totally worth it! Watching him learn new things makes other things kinda meek in comparison.
This is hilarious, and it's an ad hominem.
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.
As someone who talks to people who have kids vs talking to Tesla, I'd rather talk to Tesla. Having Tesla's mind would be world changing. Would I give up my kids to have Tesla's mind? Of course not, but I don't have kids right now so I have nothing to give up. This is talk of oxytocin, not logic. Forget it Red, you will never get through to these people.
That's where all of this NOSTR discussion is stemming from:
@HODL 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.
I’m a lot happier with children than I was without 🤷♂️
Family > Fame
> 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.
Yes it's for the greater good...
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.
Surrendering to “Something” greater?
Again, happiness is subjective.
Yes.
What’s that some-thing?
The free will of others
Depends on the person doing the surrendering doesn't it?
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
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.
Have fun staying spiritually and intellectually poor
TIL influential = happy + fulfilled
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.
No idea what that means unless you spell out the acronym.
Make your points and then we can respond. Otherwise your simply poisoning the well and using the condescension fallacy
Yes, it really boils down to HODL walking back his original claim, which he's too arrogant to do.
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
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.
The point is that zero controversy is a no go.
Virtue is couched between two extremes which are vices.
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 noticed that too
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.
Oxytocin isn’t the enemy of logic. It’s the biological mechanism that makes you care enough to build anything worth leaving behind.
Tesla died alone in a hotel room, in love with a pigeon. Brilliant? Absolutely. The blueprint for human flourishing? You tell me.
There is no greater gift from God than a child! They are a blessing!
What does the acronym mean?
I think it means, “Today I learned”
I’d rather die alone in a hotel room knowing I impacted the world in significant ways
than
die surrounded by descendants who will never amount to anything.
It is better to be of service to all than it is to be of service to a select few simply because those few are genetically attached to your ego.
Unconditional love means loving your neighbor as yourself. If you love your own children more than everyone else in the world, you don’t get Christ’s teachings.
Yeah well, if I had kids you wouldn't want to meet them so... 😂
It’s honestly pretty simple, so I don’t get why people are arguing about it.
Being and experience are basically art. Art is always subjective and open to interpretation, and being works the same way. If you’re against subjective interpretation, you’re basically against free will. Some of you are trying to claim there are objective rules for what makes life meaningful or fulfilling, but we’re not machines. We’re human with endless forms of imagination, creativity and perspective. You could even call it a kind of quantum mind. In quantum physics there’s the no-cloning theorem, meaning information can’t be perfectly copied. Our experience is the same, it can’t be duplicated. Trying to force some predetermined definition of what life “
"should" mean goes against how the universe even works.
Instead of arguing nonstop, maybe just appreciate the fact that we get to choose. The truth doesn’t need anyone to agree with it. Bullshit does.
If all meaning is subjective, then your claim that “we get to choose” is meaningless too. Why should I value choice or your interpretation over mine? You just said it’s all art.
You’re borrowing from objective truth (free will matters, truth exists, the universe “works” a certain way) while denying objective truth exists. That’s not quantum physics.
The moment you said “the truth doesn’t need anyone to agree with it,” you abandoned relativism. You admitted there’s a standard outside subjective interpretation.
Either truth is objective and your quantum poetry is irrelevant, or truth is subjective and you have no grounds to tell anyone they’re wrong, including me.
You’re not arguing for freedom. You’re arguing for a world where nothing means anything
Cool
Exactly
Strawman logical fallacy. You're misrepresenting his position then attacking that misrepresentation.
He did not deny that objective truth exists. He said "Some of you are trying to claim there are objective rules for what makes life meaningful or fulfilling".
That's not the same thing. You're the one trying to impose objective things into a conversation that is inherently subjective.
No strawman. He said (being and experience are basically art) and (art is always subjective). That’s not about preferences. That’s a claim about reality itself.
Then he used quantum physics to argue experience can’t be duplicated, as if that proves meaning is subjective. He wasn’t making a narrow claim. He was making a universal one.
But even your charitable read fails claiming (there are no objective rules for what makes life meaningful or fulfilling) is like saying there are no objective rules for what makes a fish thrive. Try raising one outside water and call it subjective interpretation.
Either all meaning is subjective (self refuting), or human flourishing has no objective standard (ignores human nature). Pick one.
:) have a wonderful day brother🤙
I’m not claiming nothing, I know fucking nothing.
Having fun in life’s mystery though, less hate more love.
Up to you if you want to claim that to be an objective truth, I think it is.😎🤙
You just claimed to know nothing, then immediately claimed (less hate more love) is an objective truth.
So which is it? Do you know nothing, or do you know that?
You can’t retreat into mystery when challenged and then make truth claims when it’s comfortable. That’s not humility. That’s just dodging accountability for your own position.
Either stand on something or stop telling others they’re wrong for doing so.
"You’re borrowing from objective truth (free will matters, truth exists, the universe “works” a certain way) while denying objective truth exists."
Creation is predicated upon will. Creation exists. Therefore the Creator desires for Creation to exist. Creation exists because being in a state of omniscience as a singularity is boring. There is no novelty and no discovery. Those experiences only occur in beings with finite, limited perspective who are self-aware.
There are objective truths.
There are objective rules for what makes life meaningful. Every religion has a variation of the Golden Rule.
Do you know why?
Because most humans SUCK at abiding the Golden Rule.
If we were nailing the Golden Rule, every religion wouldn't be trying to teach it to us. That would be redundant.
The "rule" that HODL came up with is wrong. You already agreed that he should have worded the initial post differently, yet you continue to argue moot side points.
Why?
I’ve said what I’ve needed to say, not to fussed about being right or wrong.
🤝
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.
The Golden Rule exists across religions because it’s written on human hearts. The universality proves the objective standard, which is my point.
I didn’t agree HODL was wrong. I clarified two separate arguments.
Either there are objective rules for meaningful life (making HODL’s point correct), or there aren’t (making your Golden Rule appeal meaningless).
Yeah you did.
“I’d reword it myself.”
False dichotomy.
There are objective rules for meaningful life.
That doesn't mean HODL identified them.
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.
I just said I’d reword it. Not that he was wrong. I said he’s still capturing the point.
Same thing. Saying it in a way the needs to be reworded means saying it wrong.
I wouldn't have argued with him if he had worded it well, but he didn't and then he pompously wouldn't backpedal and restate it in a way that was correct.
I didn’t say HODL identified all of them. I said his broader point about family being central to human flourishing aligns with those objective rules.
You’ve spent this entire thread arguing against that point while simultaneously admitting objective rules exist.
I’ll leave HODL to defend himself there. I understood where he was going.
I didn't say you said that.
You said he identified an objective rule though and he did not.
He didn't even word it in a way that you would have.
That means you object to how he worded it, just as I do.
That's the main point here.
The whole time you've been arguing something that was never the debate.
2 hours straight, just wait till they are sick, it will get worse but the smiles and laughs will I’ll continue making it get better
Not good enough. You're both fake Christians.
Ad hominem isn’t an argument.
If you have a theological critique, make it. Otherwise you’re just throwing rocks because the logic didn’t land
HODL's statement doesn't satisfy the very simple WWJD test.
Christ said to give up everything you have and follow him.
If you don't understand what everything you have means, it's because you don't want to think it through because you have things to give up including family.
All attachments must be released in order to do what Christ said.
Also, it was more of a "No True Scotsman" if you want to try to do formal debate call outs, but in this case, it's true.
Modern, mainstream Christians don't understand Christ's teachings.
They think they do, and to be fair, they understand some of it but most wouldn't recognize Christ if he was walking the earth today preaching.
I’m not a mainstream Christian brother. I would agree with that sentiment of sorts.
Do you think that a society that structured around that interpretation would be a strong one?
Christ said “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.” That’s about priority, not abandonment
“Leave everything” was a specific calling to specific individuals, not a universal mandate. Paul distinguished between those called to celibacy and marriage (1 Corinthians 7).
You’re weaponizing a particular calling against the general design. Christ upheld family under His Lordship. That’s covenant faithfulness, not idolatry.
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…
Do I think that a society based on WWJD would be a strong one?
Yes, but that yes comes with a caveat. That would require having a strong vicarious connection to Christ and his teachings. That would require understanding Christ's teachings. Most people conflate Christ's teachings with modern mainstream Christian teachings and do not even consider the idea that Christ's teachings have been hijacked, redirected, and dogmatized into something that Christ would have rejected.
Now we're getting somewhere.
No, it was the same teaching as Buddha taught.
Attachments are the cause of all suffering is the same lesson as give up everything you have and follow me.
I would be curious to understand your vision of how that society looks in practice, given the original argument that one must give up everything including familial relationships.
Oh, welcome back.
Jung was a brilliant psychologist and a terrible theologian.
The Incarnation wasn’t God’s crisis. It was His rescue mission. The cross wasn’t God suffering for Himself. It was the Son bearing the penalty for human sin to satisfy divine justice.
Jung turned the Gospel into cosmic therapy and the cross into existential angst. That’s Gnosticism with a psychological veneer, not Christianity.
The eternal promise isn’t abstract mystical consolation. It’s the Holy Spirit indwelling believers, regenerating hearts, and conforming them to Christ.
Quoting Jung on theology is like quoting Freud on quantum mechanics. Sounds deep. Completely wrong.
Terrible theologian 😂
I suggest you watch this:
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you but it seems to me you're only thinking about physical possession.
Attachments are mental and spiritual, not just physical. Giving up everything means being willing to let go of false things that we were taught, often by people who had our best interests in mind who knew not what they were doing.
To give up all you have is to honestly acknowledge to one's self that there is more out there in the world worth exploring than that which I've already experienced. To follow Christ is to go out in search of all that there is that is worth exploring. The eye of the needle parable was applicable here. If you don't take the saddle bags off of your camel, it wasn't fitting through the opening in the city walls called the eye of the needle. Your camel is your transport. Can't lose that. It needs food and water. That's inside the city. A wealthy man would have lots of possessions (attachments) in his saddlebags and would be unwilling to enter the city knowing that, if he leaves his saddlebags outside with the guards, they're going to tax if not steal outright everything he left and if the guards don't, a band of thugs will come by and overpower the guards and take it all.
Christ was saying that you have to be willing to pay the price to enter the city and see what's there but the rich man will assume he knows that there is nothing in there worth experiencing and will choose to miss out. That's being non-receptive. That's antithetical to truth seeking.
The world would be a much more receptive and graceful place.
No thanks
Sure thing.
Ephesians 4:18.
It means today I learned. Do you know how to look things up? Only takes 10 seconds to not look like a retard.
6653 English words start with the letter T.
1768 English words start with the letter I.
4155 English words start with the letter L.
That's 48,873,204,120 possible combinations.
If I go to an acronym search engine, I still get 25 search results.
I can guess what was intended but it'll only be a guess.
Idiots use undefined acronyms and think they're communicating.
Read a scientific research paper and notice how they define their acronyms the first time before using the acronym in the rest of the paper as a shorthand convenience.
First result, retard.
still a guess
Appreciate the reply. I think I understand your position better after reading this and some other posts.
