Debunking usual replies to singles'complaints

by Sylvain Poirier

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 is 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 anyway.

"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 find yet.

"You may tend to overthink some issues, especially when it comes to love"

I understand stupid people can suffer overthinking, so they are naturally tempted to project that pain others. But there is no such thing as overthink for intelligent people like me. For me, thinking much and deeply is normal and vital like breathing. Like seeing. It is like being the only person seeing well and easily in a world of people whose eyes are painful to use and defective. So whenever they hear someone complaining they will naturally give the kind advice to close eyes as the best way to end or reduce the pain. But if I suffer from other problems then it is vital for me to have a good look to see what the problem is even if it does not bring immediate solution (however it remains the only way to bring true solutions in the long term if possible ; if not in one's lifetime then for others). But however well I see it, others won't believe me, and will keep blaming me of looking too much. Of course they cannot see, and they cannot understand the possibility for me to see better than them, so they cannot guess that I may be right. See also Eckhart Tolle criticism by Joseph Waligore

"if you open yourself to the possibility it will occur"

Really insulting is this well-intended "kind advice" (just as kind and well-intended as most genuine evils) of saying such things. It is the same logic which I explained here under the title "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".

About the necessity of a collective organisation - the firefighters analogy

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 following arguments:
When facing someone whose house is currently burning or has already burned, the reaction would be to look through such a person, saying:

"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, you 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 that 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 will even eat before you and ask you, without ever offering you the slightest 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 why 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 singles'complaints.

"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 the suffering of celibacy. But we are not facing such a choice. Indeed:

"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 happening because

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.

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 duty"

1) One of the primary goals of these propositions is to 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 solutions 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 will 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 maintained.

2) Of 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