NationStates

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:50 pm**

Italios wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:Lol. So I guess Copernicus and Einstein were also delusional.

i mean, i never did see them try to deny the notion that genetic evolution is the biological meaning of life, which requires offspring from a majority in a species.

So you have changed the conformist definition of "delusion", right?

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:50 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Italios wrote:you really need to learn the definition of delusional lol just stop

Yeah, Copernicus and Einstein were delusional for disagreeing with the fucking crowd..and in a hypothetical mantis world any male mantis who doesn't want to be eaten would be fucking delusional again for mere nonconformism.

FUCK THIS DEFINITION.

Your hypothetical mantis world includes sentient praying mantises that can experience delusion and (ir)rational thought processing? Neat

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:51 pm**

Italios wrote:it baffles me how anyone would ever think that it's a "delusion" to listen to the primal animal desire to spread your genes as much as possible.

It baffles me how anyone would want to do that as much as possible. The lizard brain works well when it comes to fight or flight, not so when it comes to deciding whether or not to have a family.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:52 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Italios wrote:i mean, i never did see them try to deny the notion that genetic evolution is the biological meaning of life, which requires offspring from a majority in a species.

So you have changed the conformist definition of "delusion", right?

for their time they could be (and were) considered delusional

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:53 pm**

Gagium wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:Yeah, Copernicus and Einstein were delusional for disagreeing with the fucking crowd..and in a hypothetical mantis world any male mantis who doesn't want to be eaten would be fucking delusional again for mere nonconformism.

FUCK THIS DEFINITION.

Your hypothetical mantis world includes sentient praying mantises that can experience delusion and (ir)rational thought processing? Neat

Yes. I'm just using mantises as an example.

The purpose is of course showing the fact that organisms are generally willing to sacrifice a lot of self-interest including life for the sake of reproduction.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:53 pm**

Italios wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:So you have changed the conformist definition of "delusion", right?

for their time they could be (and were) considered delusional

OK then the world would be better off if fewer conformists are around to persecute such people.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:53 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Gagium wrote:Oh dear, we have a microcommunist in here guys. How delusional.

I agree though. How are basic evolutionary functions and needs delusional?

How is male praying mantises voluntarily agreeing to be cannibalized NOT delusional? It's a basic evolutionary function, right?

Mantids are not capable of higher-level thinking. Dictyopterans are intelligent relative to other insects, but not intelligent enough to be "delusional." Nor is mating a guarantee to be cannibalized.
Seriously, stop trying to appropriate biology for your edgy pseudointellectual bullshit.

Human sexuality is similar, just less harsh.

No. It isn't.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:54 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Gagium wrote:Your hypothetical mantis world includes sentient praying mantises that can experience delusion and (ir)rational thought processing? Neat

Yes. I'm just using mantises as an example.

The purpose is of course showing the fact that organisms are generally willing to sacrifice a lot of self-interest including life for the sake of reproduction.

New haven america wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:How is male praying mantises voluntarily agreeing to be cannibalized NOT delusional? It's a basic evolutionary function, right? Human sexuality is similar, just less harsh.

Actually, they only do that (Cannibalism of their partners) when they're under a large amount of stress.

Like, you know, when other really large animals are watching them fuck.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:55 pm**

Gagium wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:Yeah, Copernicus and Einstein were delusional for disagreeing with the fucking crowd..and in a hypothetical mantis world any male mantis who doesn't want to be eaten would be fucking delusional again for mere nonconformism.

FUCK THIS DEFINITION.

Your hypothetical mantis world includes sentient praying mantises that can experience delusion and (ir)rational thought processing? Neat

Ngl, it would be pretty terrifying if mantids were smart enough to do that.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:55 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:
Yes. I'm just using mantises as an example.

The purpose is of course showing the fact that organisms are generally willing to sacrifice a lot of self-interest including life for the sake of reproduction.

New haven america wrote:Actually, they only do that (Cannibalism of their partners) when they're under a large amount of stress.

Like, you know, when other really large animals are watching them fuck.

Yep. And it's less likely if the female is well-fed.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:55 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Italios wrote:for their time they could be (and were) considered delusional

OK then the world would be better off if fewer conformists are around to persecute such people.

You might as well get up and say “the world would be better off with no humans) at this point.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:56 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Takso wrote:
You sound like you've had a lot of unfortunate experiences. If that is so, I am really sorry you had to experience that. There are people out there with certain kinds of personalities that will exploit your kindness and use you to their maximum gain at your maximum loss... But there are also people out there that wish no harm upon others... And love their spouses, children, and others like you wouldn't believe. You know, I used to share a lot of your pessimism, so I can understand where that might come from.

The problem is that I tend to ATTRACT malicious women for whatever reason, hence not dating is the safest choice for me.

I understand. Sometimes the best thing to do is to be a lone wolf because the available options are worse than abstaining. I don't know your specific circumstances, but whatever harm anyone did to you I am sorry that happened. I know others might disagree with me on this, but to me partners deserve respect and love from each other. Love is a human need, and it sounds like you have been deprived of that too many times than anyone should have to experience. My only hope is that you can find someone eventually in your life that can give you the love and respect you need and deserve as a human being. Once you find that person, believe me, it is like living in an entirely different reality.

You've got a lot of controversial views and there are going to be people who are going to attack here... I have criticized you myself, but I just want you to know that I am open to hearing you out. I think shutting you down, despite your views would be a mistake. There are going to be those who will hate you for what you believe and think. While I very much disagree with you, I see no need to add to any of your suffering. I wish there was something I can do for you besides from listening.

If you'd ever prefer to let your thoughts out on telegram, be sure to do so.

Socialist Heronia wrote:
Takso wrote:
You sound like you've had a lot of unfortunate experiences. If that is so, I am really sorry you had to experience that. There are people out there with certain kinds of personalities that will exploit your kindness and use you to their maximum gain at your maximum loss... But there are also people out there that wish no harm upon others... And love their spouses, children, and others like you wouldn't believe. You know, I used to share a lot of your pessimism, so I can understand where that might come from.

I've never had the good fortune of ever meeting a kind and caring person like you've described, and that has driven me to try to become one myself. Strange way the mind works.

You are very right about good fortune. I am by no means a particularly "good" person or admittedly an ideal partner for most I suppose... I am very, very imperfect. Maybe not on the surface for those that don't know me, but internally I am broken. Somehow, despite my imperfections, my partner loves me for who and what I am. They are not perfect either, in my opinion less imperfect than I am, but whatever challenges they have, I embrace them.

Unfortunately making yourself a better person is by no means a guarantee of finding love. I mean, if you knew me personally, especially my social standing (which is practically zero), you'd be pretty surprised. You'll never be perfect, no matter how hard you try. There's always going to be someone else who is on the surface at least "better" than you... But all I can say is that at least for me, my relationship is only possible because my partner and I are fully aware of each other's challenges. They know I'm imperfect. They know my situation. I know theirs. We love each other regardless. Social status, money, and whatever have you beyond doing what we can to survive in the future is not important.

I think it also helps that both of us are romantics and extremely loyal... Sort of the "love conquers all" type and maybe a little old fashioned. No matter what we face, we love each other regardless. We both have been through a lot and no matter our disagreements we know it's better to be in this life together. These are not assumptions I have made because my partner and I have spoken openly about a wide variety of topics, from having children to other views. Direct and open communication is vital. I wish it could be that simple for everyone.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:57 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Italios wrote:for their time they could be (and were) considered delusional

OK then the world would be better off if fewer conformists are around to persecute such people.

i think you're reading too much into what i'm saying. they were considered delusional because they went against commonly accepted acquired knowledge. now that further research has confirmed what they discovered is most probably, almost definitely true the contemporary world doesn't regard them as delusional. i'm calling your statements delusional because you have this weird shtick with evolutionary biology. its 2 sides of the same coin homie.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:57 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Italios wrote:for their time they could be (and were) considered delusional

OK then the world would be better off if fewer conformists are around to persecute such people.

Copernicus and Einstein weren't visionaries fornbeing different. They were visionaries by presenting coherent thoughts based on sound factual evidence amd argument.

You are spouting nonsensical drivel with no coherent thought, little logic, and at the end of it all just angry opining at the clouds based on a truly astonishly low level of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:59 pm**

Seangoli wrote:
Neko-koku wrote:OK then the world would be better off if fewer conformists are around to persecute such people.

Copernicus and Einstein weren't visionaries fornbeing different. They were visionaries by presenting coherent thoughts based on sound factual evidence amd argument.

You are spouting nonsensical drivel with no coherent thought, little logic, and at the end of it all just angry opining at the clouds based on a truly astonishly low level of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

Sigged.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:00 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Gagium wrote:Your hypothetical mantis world includes sentient praying mantises that can experience delusion and (ir)rational thought processing? Neat

Yes. I'm just using mantises as an example.

The purpose is of course showing the fact that organisms are generally willing to sacrifice a lot of self-interest including life for the sake of reproduction.

Yes, though I fail to see how nonsentient organisms committing die for the others survival or reproduction so that the species continues to survive is delusional, nor do I see how this in any way proves that familism is delusional. Wanting to take care of those you love (Call love a delusion all you want..) and raise your kids isn’t delusional in the least. You can disagree with it, sure, but that doesn’t make it a delusion. You don’t decide what’s a delusion and what’s not.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:01 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Italios wrote:for their time they could be (and were) considered delusional

OK then the world would be better off if fewer conformists are around to persecute such people.

Do you drink water, by any chance?

Conformist.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:06 pm**

Neko-koku wrote:
Gagium wrote:Your hypothetical mantis world includes sentient praying mantises that can experience delusion and (ir)rational thought processing? Neat

Yes. I'm just using mantises as an example.

The purpose is of course showing the fact that organisms are generally willing to sacrifice a lot of self-interest including life for the sake of reproduction.

A great deal of organisms also consider their resources though when reproducing. Some will eat their own young in hard times.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:37 pm**

Debating on whether Hitler killing himself was an act of atonement, is less of a mindfuckingly bad joke than this thread. It's pretty obvious the OP has an objectively bad idea regarding the purpose of a family (and a species) and is now attempting to defend it like they've discovered the Universal Truth.

Sorry, Godwin.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:47 am**

I've never before heard of feeding one's children described as microcommunism. Does the OP think toddlers who can't hunt for their own food should starve? Or should they be given food but then start working 12 hours a day after their fifth birthday to start paying off their food debt?

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:41 am**

Page wrote:I've never before heard of feeding one's children described as microcommunism. Does the OP think toddlers who can't hunt for their own food should starve? Or should they be given food but then start working 12 hours a day after their fifth birthday to start paying off their food debt?

It's been asked. The OP has been asked a great many things that they have ignored because it exposes fatal flaws in their argument.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:36 am**

I’ll preface this by saying I don’t want to hurt you, only pull you out of your delusion. As we shall see, you have had some poor experiences with family and especially women, which has given you the impression that the universe is against you and that this is a universally valid point. In turn, that leads you to concluding that people who disagree with you are deluded. What has actually happened seems to be a failure of understanding what has happened to you (Which, given you’re on the spectrum, is understandable) and how to react to it, at which point you have externalised it as you being the only rational being and the rest being sheep.
I’ll also just inform you, if you didn’t know already, that this is not a necessary state of affairs. The field of psychology has developed immensely in just my lifetime, especially as it comes to autism. ‘Mastering’ your difficulties is possible, to the point where adult autists today can regularly experience distrust in their diagnosis – personally, I experience that every time I tell a new person of mine.

With that out of the way, I’ll try to collate several of your arguments and group them. As I allude to above, some groups are your reported experiences, some are just some bullshit you put to text or words you apparently don’t know the meaning of.
Bad experiences

Praying Mantistan wrote:
Takso wrote:
That's your view. Plenty of men are married happily to feminist women. Whether or not you consider a feminist "wifely quality" is your subjective opinion.

Haha. That inherently can not happen regardless of whether the women are feminist lol. Paul Erdos was right.

This view of happy marriages is simply at odds with reality. It’s inherently impossible to be happily married? So any happy marriage instantly disproves you – no matter how anecdotal? OK: My mothers second marriage is happy. Her new husband is a good man and they support each other. There.
People growing apart, or barging into unhappy relationships, is also potentially a good thing, as long as people can get out of them again. I’ve had relationships that convinced me of types of persons I wouldn’t want to be with, types I would like to be with, and everything in between. While I don’t have the exact criteria (And I don’t think those are ever possible) for what makes me happy, I’m close enough that I was able to tell after just an afternoon and evening spent talking with my last courtship.
However, if you have only experienced abusive relationships, of course you don’t know what you want; and if you don’t think about why you have had only abusive relationships, perhaps you won’t even know what you don’t want.

Praying Mantistan wrote:
Takso wrote:
What you are describing is an abusive relationship and generalizing all committed relationships as such. That is false. Let me tell you that my partner and I are very much in our relationship together... We don't play mind games with each other... And we aren't taking advantage of each other. It is very much a matter of wanting to share a life with someone that you can trust. There's enough pain and suffering in this world already, all we want to do is make each other happy. How does that suck?

I have no idea how this could work. Usually if you treat someone well they abuse you.

“Usually”? In my experience people generally repay you in kind. Either you have a knack for finding abusers (Or people with dissocial personality disorder), or you need to take a hard look at how your relationship (Friendship or romantic) with these people was.
Question yourself: Did you go into the relationship on equal terms? If romantic, did you talk about it as you progressed? Did you talk about how each of you wanted to be treated? If so, what did you do? If, e.g., you treated her as you thought she wanted to be treated, rather than how she wanted to be treated, that may have been abusive. There’s also a chance that they didn’t intend to abuse you, or even that what you felt was abusive was meant in a wholly different way.
Another line of questioning: Did you become friends honestly, or because you wanted an avenue to start a relationship? Could you have misinterpreted a friendship?
These kinds of introspections are what you ought to have done instead of opening this thread. If you conclude that there’s nothing you could have done, that the people were abusive through no fault of your own, you can then learn to recognise those traits in others, and, though the pain may never fully go away, avoid repetition.
Of course that would require your own actions to be decent. I think the best payoff for your time would be introspection in order to find out why people may repay you in kind; either what behaviour you’ve shown that was itself abusive, or how to actually behave in a way where people repay you with kindness.

Praying Mantistan wrote:
Takso wrote:
Sorry you feel that way. I suppose marriage isn't for everyone, but you're wrong that a happy one isn't possible. There are many, many happily married people. Yes, there are also very unhappily married people, it varies you know.

My reasoning is that marriages inherently suck because humans tend to harm each other and oppress each other. They may claim to love each other but all they do is maximizing self-interest at each other's expense and playing the dominance game.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed. Your personal experiences may be true (Though I think it more probable that you’ve misinterpreted something and acted like a jerk, based on your behaviour here), but most people don’t play the dominance game, maximise self-interest or oppress each other in families. You also repeat the ‘inherently’, which means any positive example will refute your “logic”.

Delusions and universalities

Praying Mantistan wrote:
New haven america wrote:I know we're all busy arguing, but I'd just like for everyone to take a second and redirect your attention to the current shape of the poll.

That is all.

Because it is a very deep delusion shared by essentially all organisms. This ratio is expected. For most humans rationality or even self-interest can not override evolutionary instincts.

You’ve tried to claim rationality or self-interest throughout the thread, but so far you haven’t even been able to define either (And given how you’ve consistently mis-defined words, I’m not going to ask you to), let alone explain how your ideas qualify. Rather, one might ask if evolutionary instincts work through (broadly) rational acts or (enlightened) self-interest. That is, are people generally good to their kids, spouse and neighbours because of rationality or self-interest, or because they evolved as social animals to do so? Personally I am firmly on the culture side of this debate, but the point is they both arrive at the same point: Do you (self-interestedly) promote your kids’ wellbeing because they will support you when you’re too old to work yourself; do you (rationally) promote your kids’ wellbeing because you desire good citizens and a happy family life; do you (evolutionary) promote your kids’ wellbeing because you instinctively seek to pass on your genes? The result is the same.
You keep saying that other people are deluded. This is not just a delusion on your part (Some Messiah complex where you are the only one who knows The Truth™!) but also a deluded way of arguing. You’re not trying to engage people and convince them – this thread is ample evidence of that – but rather to assert that people who disagree with you are deluded or <bad>. It’s ego-stroking in an echo-chamber that can only be an echo-chamber because any voice disagreeing with you is automatically deluded.

Neko-koku wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Put down the strawman.

It's not a strawman. You have to admit that families are inherently

1. Collectivist

and

2. Feudal.

I will explain how you don’t know what either of those words mean below, but I’ll just reiterate that you find these traits to be universal in families. All families, in your opinion. This massive flaw in your “logic” is rather stupendous: Any counterexample, no matter how anecdotal, will disprove your claim. So, fine: My family is neither collectivist nor feudal, under either the actual uses of those words or your mangled definitions below.

Neko-koku wrote:
Takso wrote:
How is your parents giving you life and raising you delusional?

Yes..because that's not good for them. Nobody should have kids.

Obviously you shouldn’t have kids (At least not yet). And no one should try to pressure you into having them. Given what you have presented here, you’d be a quite terrible spouse and parent, so unless you change, you’d end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, this externalisation of your own feelings onto people who are good spouses and parents is something you keep doing, even though so far you haven’t shown how it is not good for them, and your attempts have either been laughable (Like your praying mantis debacle of an “argument”), nonsense or (As is your go-to, it seems) assumed based on no argument at all.

Words have meaning

Neko-koku wrote:Feudalism: A system where a person has absolute power over another

Communism: A system where a person is forced to transfer resources to another for free

Collectivism: An ideology that individuals must be subjected to some collective

Like on the first page, you’re simply not using these words correctly if you ever want to communicate with other users of the English language. Feudalism, for example, was a system of a feudal contract, of mutual obligation, and thus the opposite of one person having absolute power over another. You’re using “feudal” here in a way that is antithetical to the actual meaning of the word.
Communism, as I already explained, is an economic system where those who actually produce the added value, that is the workers (In Marxist analysis, anyway), take ownership over the means of production. The way you’re using “Communism” here is a 5th-grade level of understanding of the Social-democratic systems.
Collectivism is also a misunderstanding. A collectivist will (Usually) not see themselves or others as ‘subjected to’ some collective; rather, that the collective is their means of agency and self-actualisation. Participating in a collective and through that being lifted up is in so many ways unlike the way you’re using the word here. Collectivism is also not an ideology on its own.

Neko-koku wrote:
Socialist Heronia wrote:okay where did that come from...
Mass murder would also work against the good of the species as a whole (fewer people that can make more people and therefore make it slightly less likely that the species is wiped out entirely by some random event) and therefore mass murderers are people that have malfunctioning biological triggers that make them think it's okay to hurt the species by hurting its members. (These triggers are the objective part of morality.) I suppose in that sense each human matters.

I just exposed the completely hilarious idea of collectivism.

No, you made a strawman based on your own lack of understanding of simple words, then followed it up with a complete red herring…

I mean...if someone believes that they can live through kids..maybe we indeed need to ask whether they are willing to get lots of clones and die lol. Most aren't lol so they acknowledge that they aren't the same as their genes. What about decriminalizing murder of parents cuz parents never die as long as they still have kids? That's evil, right? So parents do die and can not live through their children. If that's the case then they have demonstrated that even they themselves don't believe in this hilarious ideology which should be summarized as "people are immortal as long as at least one of their offsprings remain alive".

… This inane tangent is a complete misunderstanding…

The funny thing here is that these beliefs about infinite bloodlines, collectivism and other nonsense are selected for by evolution..and that humans are predominantly fairly irrational..so hilarity ensued.

… And everything you said here is wrong.

Neko-koku wrote:I don't in fact have a philosophy. All I do is exposing others' common nonsense.

While I’m willing to accept the first sentence, you have yet to demonstrate the second. You’ve poked more holes in your own “arguments” than you have even presented coherent arguments yourself.

Neko-koku wrote:I'm just someone who is unusually consistent.

This is either a sincere misunderstanding of what “consistent” means, a massive misunderstanding of what you have presented here, or bait. Given your lack of understanding of other words, I’ll go with option A, but won’t write off B.

Neko-koku wrote:
Takso wrote:This point has probably already been made... But if it wasn't for sex, reproduction, and taking care of family, none of us would exist today. That is not delusion, that is fact. What you think of that or if you value your own existence or others is up to you.

Then you admit that you are a collectivist.

That does not follow. Your misuse of words, and unending supply of strawmen, does not constitute either an argument or a retort. We’ve been over this.

Neko-koku wrote:
Solarist VZ wrote:In which way a family is "harmful" (aside from being "commie shiet")?.
At least a ton of far-righters understand about it's importance and yell "STOP LARPING, GROW UP AND MAKE A FAMILY".

Because it robs a man of what he earns.

I choose to spend a lot of my money on books and alcohol. Nobody is “robbing” me of what I earn; it’s a choice I have. Likewise, when people decide to become parents, they aren’t “robbed” for spending their money on kids; it’s a choice they’ve made. This abuse of words makes almost all your statements incoherent. You may dislike kids – and sure, so do I, which is why I don’t have any and don’t plan to – but your notions and justifications for that come across as pre-teen. You try to universalise your own dislike of families, kids or whatever, and then wreck the English language until you can combine words to support your “arguments”. That’s simply nonsensical. Just look at this:

Neko-koku wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:It doesn't rob him at all. Robbing requires it to be a crime. It isn't a crime since he is consenting to it.

Seriously, stop brutalizing the meanings of words.

The effects are basically the same. Paul Erdos was right. A married man is a slave. A single man is free.

There’s no argument here. A reference to a mathematician, and some misused words. You’re not trying to convince anybody.

If you honestly feel all the relationships you have had can be summed up as you being nice and they abusing you, I invite you to do some introspection: What did you do, what did they do, what commonalities were there in your relationships? How can you improve yourself, and how can you avoid abusers in the future?
However, I don’t think you’re honest. It comes across as being a post-hoc justification; if all your previous relationships have been shitty because all people are shitty and you’re the only genius who has figured it out, then no self-evaluation is needed and people arguing against you are either also abusive or stupid sheep.
That will leave you as a lonely, anti-social wreck, though. Denying a social animal any meaningful social interaction can be a form of torture (Indefinite isolation, for example), and you’re inflicting that on yourself.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:13 am**

If OP haven't already tried and done so.... Get help. I don't mean that as some snarky joke. I mean it, seriously. Get help from a professional. If you don't want to see someone in person or that's too expensive, try online therapy from registered and licensed professionals. I can't give you any recommendations and you shouldn't take such from me anyway... Just do some Googling and find a credible service. On there... Well, they might not solve your problems... But at least you'll have someone trained hear you out. They might help you better understand yourself.

I have issues myself, while I'm not on the spectrum, it is definitely personality-related. Cluster A. I don't really care to disclose exactly what... And that isn't the point anyway.

Whatever you do... Don't resort to self-diagnosis... See a mental health professional.

Misery isn't worth it. My former self would call my current self delusional... But I am A LOT happier and that counts a lot more than feeling smarter than everyone else.

Do whatever you can to get out of it. What has happened and is happening isn't your fault... There are some things out of our control... Most things in life you don't really have much control at all unfortunately... But fortunately we live in an age where there are treatment options available for mental illness.

I want you to know that no matter what extreme views you hold... I think you deserve a happy and fulfilling life. You and the rest of society have only to gain from your well-being.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:31 am**

Rejecting the importance of family and love I think are one of the greatest delusions of modern times.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:39 am**

Ethel mermania wrote:Rejecting the importance of family and love I think are one of the greatest delusions of modern times.

He is saying reproduction in general is harmful to species. You cannot have a family without reproducing lol

NationStates

Is familism the worst delusion in the world?