Debunking usual replies to
Not only single people are (at least in some cases) the victims of the
society's cruel obstacles to finding love, they are also somehow denied
the right to complain, as any attempt to complain will be ridiculised
by pseudo-arguments that may superficially sound wise and even
sometimes nice, but in reality the repetitors of these arguments are
the stupid ones. Let's show how.
Well you may say, what the fuck does it change that our complaint
right and the deniers are stupid ? This will not bring us the love we
need, and they are in position of force anyway...
Well, maybe it's true that humans have no fucking care for the truth,
and the stupid happy will always feel superior to the wise victims of
destiny, no matter the evidence. But...
Let's try anyway, debunking the stupid insults that singles are usually
facing, one by one.
"By the method X or Y you should be feeling okay without a
girlfriend; moreover, girls would not like a man that is not feeling
well with himself."
Wonderful ! So let's take the boyfriend of a wonderful girl, separate
him from her in order to let her to me, then, let's apply your method
to him. If he is a good man, he should feel okay with it so there will
be no problem. But if he protests, this means that he is not sane,
unable to feel well with himself, so that he was not good for her
"I'm sure you will find your wife ! it will come in its time"
Same as previous case: it should then be no problem to take someone
else's girlfriend, you just need to have a strong faith that it will be
the chance for him to find a better girl instead, and that he would be
stupid or negative-minded if he
does not join this faith and rejoice in it.
Indeed, such a remark makes much more sense when applied this way to
someone who already found, as this is the very indication of a higher chance
for him to find again, than for the case of someone who could never
About the necessity of a collective organisation - the firefighters
Imagine a world in which the job of firefighter still never existed
beyond amateurism or generally at a certain level of incompetence, and
would be generally uncommon.
People there would argue against the idea to develop it, by the
When facing someone whose house is currently burning or has already
burned, the reaction would be to look through such a
- "Believe me, my house has never
burned! And I know other people whose house did not burn either !
So, it should be possible to live okay without firefighters."
- "I saw a flame one day or another and it stopped after just 2
minutes, or by pouring a glass of water above"
- "A fire
is something that occurs only inside a
private property and only affects the private affairs of the owners of
this property, due to wrong actions done by the concerned people. It is
thus not a public concern."
- "I cannot see
what firefighters could do better than the concerned people. Moreover,
they won't be staying at the place where the fire happens."
- "Have confidence, sooner or later the fire will eventually end."
- "It's your problem, it's up to you to solve it"
- "Keep cool and stop thinking about it, as it is usually when you
panic and worry the hardest that it will burn the
- "You have no right to expect anyone to help you stop your fire
for free. So, if you want anyone to do something, you must first pay
him/her a lot of money. (And then don't come to bother anyone if after
payment this person is not able/willing to effectively stop the fire,
as it is but your house burning, which nobody else is responsible for)"
"Is this the goal of your life ???" the starvation analogy
Imagine that you live in a world where you have nothing
to eat, for example for lack of money. For two weeks you did not eat,
cry famine, you spent some time looking for food in vain. And you
have objectively no reason anymore to believe that you can find, so
probably tomorrow you will die. And you see before you a lot of people
pass by who could eat as they wished, who have never experienced
hunger, or only a little, and who then
found to eat without any problem. These people pass by, some of them
even eat before you and ask you, without ever offering you the
piece: "Hey, what's this fucky damned expression ? Life is beautiful,
the sun shines! I promise you that life is beautiful! You do not have
to eat? Why? There is some food in abundance! You will find some ! And
do you need food? It happened to me to skip a meal or two when I was
sick and this is not a problem. In fact sometimes when I eat something
I find it disgusting and I spit it, so that eating it not always
something good either."
Question: is eating the purpose of your life ?
The hostage analogy
In a similar way the situation can be compared to the one of being kept
hostage: people commented in my Hospitalityclub profile "finding a wife
seems to be the main thing for him in life".
False: the first main things for me in life were to try in vain to
escape the persecution by bad mates at school, to understand the
General Relativity (which I succeeded at the age of 16), to program the
Mandelbrot set and the movement of a particle around a black hole when
I was a teenager (which I did successfully), to rewrite all the
fundamental theories of maths and physics to make it much easier to
hundreds of thousands students to learn physics, and to make a global
revolution of internet and politics. I wish so much I could dedicate my
life to it, but I can't because the society prefered to keep me hostage
of depression and loneliness.
Now, if you are kept hostage since all your life, the main thing for
you in life will be to try to escape.
The fact that it currently your main concern does not characterize your
personality, but it only characterizes the hypocrisy and cruelty of the
rest of the world that feels good to let you jailed there and to not do
anything about it.
"Do you think you are the only one facing this problem ?"
Nice argument: it should be no problem to be tortured, provided that
many other people are being tortured too.
Stalin said: one death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistics.
Stalin's philosophy visibly dominates this world, and
at least the minds of the people who come with this objection to the
"There are miseries in the world
much worse than that"
The comparison is absurd. It assumes that we have
a defined amount of money to spend on humanitarian causes with which
one would be in a position to choose, either
one relieves the world out of material misery, or out of the fate of
suffering of celibacy. But we are not facing such a choice. Indeed:
- The resolution of a large part of the celibacy problem would cost
almost nothing financially, except perhaps for the psychological cost
some deeply rooted common conceptions of life, and would therefore not
be done at the expense of traditional humanitarian objectives;
- How can you claim to know, by the way, that's suffering celibacy
is negligible, while there is currently no
alarm signal to measure it? Indeed it is
currently a taboo problem, and the well-thinking reflex is to
turn to ridicule the complaint of victims, claiming that everything is
going well, that it is up to the singles to put themselves in question
to find love, that love ought to be given rather than requested and so
- The suffering of celibacy can lead to suicide or at least to make
suicide something worth considering, in other
making life worse than death. Rather than just pretending that life
must be worth living for everybody by physically and morally obliging
all people to stay alive at any cost (in particular at the price of
environmental destruction to
millions of years) and no matter their suffering, would it not it be
better to concretely give the present lives the concrete means to truly
become worth living ?
"You're not speaking about love !"
Certainly. I only focus on a certain type of heavy obstacle that
currently prevents love, and how to remove it.
This obstacle especially consists in the fact that people who
could love each other, often don't have enough practical opportunities
to meet or even know the existence of each other. This is a kind of
problem that poetry and litterature are intrinsically unable to
understand: no story of litterature can be written to express the idea
that there are currently many potential wonderful stories that are not
Only scientific minds can understand such a concept, as mathematics is
(as some say) the science of all possible worlds, contrary to
litterature that is reduced to tell only one story at a time happening
among a reduced set of people.
- Nobody has any opportunity to be aware that it is possible,
the people who would have loved each other have never met, or at least
don't have the contact address of each other
- The world is big and for everyone there would be a very large
number of people that could potentially be met, and the good
opportunities are lost among this large number, which is too big to be
properly known and handled by a single human person; considering that
all choices depend on each other (no two people can marry the same
person), and what anyone does affects all the people that he might meet
and so on... that if we consider in some continent N men and N women
(consider N= 200 million), then the number of possible abstract
pairings (disregarding any preferences) is the very large number N!, so
that no poet can ever represent it.
The problem of putting them
in contact is not a human or poetic one but a practical one.
It reminds me of one of the themes of a book on capitalism (by Bruckberger
). Namely that, in the early 20th century, two society models
opposed in response to the misery of workers. The Soviet model which talked about the dignity of
workers, and the
capitalist model symbolized by the Ford company, which by the
remarkable efficiency of its working methods has once suddenly doubled
the wages of its workers which was already the highest in the world;
thus providing the real dignity to its workers in practice.
You can not effectively run after two hares at the same time:
the dream or the reality of solving a problem.
The Soviet have so well talked about the dignity of workers
that they have left them in misery.
Now, some people reproach me not to talk about love. Admittedly, my
main goal is not to
provide you dreams. But only to provide the real means for love
to be accomplished. The people who only care about dreams, are the ones
that refuse to see beyond the tip of their noses. They are
hypocrites who pretend to incarnate love, but maintain the world
deprived of it. This is ultimately irresponsible criminals.
"Love should be
something to give rather than to ask for; there is no right without
1) One of the primary goals of these propositions is
provide more dating opportunities, among which will be more chance to
find a better match, and such chances will also be given to the timid
(unlike what is currently happening). In other words, denying these
is: on the one hand, a way of forcing some people to make their choice
among the first coming people, thus resign themselves to a less good
choice; on the other hand, a way to particularly deprive many timid
from any reasonable chances, therefore giving priority to the machos
and unscrupulous people, who rush more
easily and lead their future partner to accept them, not caring about
moral rules and the rest of the world. As a result, the macho men who
beat their wives and who at school age mock their mates, have a
priority to reproduce. So you should explain how this
law of the jungle will promote the principle of "love is something
that is given" on the behalf of which this law of the jungle is
course I know perfectly well, since in all this
research and web development I precisely devote myself to a
quasi-monastic duty to provide love to humanity. If I was trying to
catch for myself I would not spend my
time trying to change the society: I would just commit suicide to go
back to God's love (since
it's too late for my life to be worth being considered satisfying on
this earth) or I would spend my life travelling or
exploring dating sites. But now, it seems that I am but one of very few
people in the world to conceive this
duty to bring love to others. And with that, there are those who
believe to have a good argument against my positions, by stupidly
throwing to me the idea that love
shoud rather be something to give, as if I'd
not considered this. That takes the cake.
"Consider monks, who can live happy without love. Their example
proves that you should be able to feel well too without love if you
follow their spiritual path"
The lives of monks are not the solution. In fact, precisely they are the problem.
For many generations, religions (Catholicism and Buddhism) have been
this way leading as many they could of the most talented and virtuous
people that would feel a natural ability of living okay without
love, to do so.
As a consequence, these people did not reproduce, so that the
genetic characteristics that made possible such a life, were
continously selected away. This is what progressively destroyed the
likeliness for the intelligent and virtuous people to be able to feel
well without love.
Back to Singles Union's main page