> Example: children are about the future, friendships are not commitments, parents are a compass, spouse is life insurance. (I am simplifying to make a point.)

If you're simplifying you're missing the point of this. But I suspect you're not just simplifying to make a point, but this is actually what you believe.

Maybe you've never had a really close friendship that you've felt obligated to keep alive. That requires work to fix something about it. It's absolutely a commitment. You can make any level of commitment to anyone. It's not a sexual commitment, but for example how many people have you wronged if you sleep with a friend's spouse? It's not just your own spouse.

You've also wronged your friend in that. And I can tell you, if you have children, that the fallout from that likely means you've wronged your children. The same act functionally affects all of those people in a similarly meaningful way. That makes them all reasonably commitments in the same way that you see marriage as a commitment.

There are pieces of a friendship that you are agreeing to or the friendship will end. That makes it a much weaker contract, but also means it requires a lot more work to keep alive. Parents/family are the opposite of that. Because the contract of parenthood/family is so strong, it's a lot less work to keep that bond well. But you can absolutely fuck it up and cut people loose.

* * *

Yeah, first off there's nothing special about "blood" relationships. It's just the people you grew up around, so you're more partial to those people, because time in = time out.

My siblings and I aren't close because we're related. The proof of that is my parents and I aren't close. They rely too much on thinking they don't have to show up for the relationship because "they created/raised me." My siblings, friends and romantic relationships know I could end the relationship if I'm unhappy with it. They are all the same, and all invested in it. They don't think they deserve anything special from me. They know they have to earn it.

I don't feel obligation to keep these relationships alive. I just do because I've gotten good things out of them in the past. If you think there's something special about the contract of marriage... I gotta tell you, that divorce is a thing.

There is no difference between any of these. I can join or leave any of these relationships as I like, and I do for the same reasons. Maybe not the exact same reasons, but the same general reasons of "I'm getting less out than I am putting in".

Depending on the laws of the state you live in, divorce is not exactly a thing you can pick off a shelf.

Sorry that your world is so deeply broken where blood relationships don’t mean anything to you. Family is family and that matters more than friendships. Even if you find greater acceptance in other social circles, family is always going to be different.

Joining and leaving relationships isn’t the only kind of relationship that exist. Some are bonds that you cannot break. Some are contracts that you enter into. And some are transient and fleeting, like you described.

Virtually all relationships are a trade. No trade means no relationship.

1. Yeah, so? Different people live in different states. That doesn't make my point about divorce less valid. 2. Who said my world is so deeply broken? That feels like an unnecessary assessment to force your worldview to match why my outlook is so different from yours. Frankly it's a little rude. I have meaningful familial bonds. They aren't inherently different from friendships just because they're family. I am closer to my siblings because we all understand that there is nothing more special about our bond than what we have already put into our relationship (which is a lot). I have less of a relationship with my parents because they don't understand this. I live a pretty happy and good life as I see it, partially because I've learned this. 3. Every bond is breakable, it's just that the more you put into it, the harder it is to break (or more extreme the action that would break it).

4. I don't know what you mean by all relationships are a trade, but it's the most similar thing I see to my other assessments except that you have a strange carveout for points 1-3.

You are too young to know any better. And too angry to understand what everyone is saying to you. You make your own world of explanations to feel like everything is ok.

This person is angry at you. This is because you are being rude to them.

But this single conversation isn't representative of the entire rest of their life! Just because they are angry with you does not mean they are angry with everyone else! If you can't see that, it's because you are a narcissist.

You think what you are saying is what everyone is saying? On the contrary! I'm a person, and I'm right here saying something else!

> You make your own world of explanations to feel like everything is ok.

We've just illustrated that is what you are doing right here. This is a pretty clear-cut case of projection.

Are you just too old to know any better? I don't buy that sentiment at all: if you can read, you can learn.

* * *

> Whether it be at me or at someone else, rationality does not follow.

Nah, I'm angry with you, as a rational reaction to your narcissism. You should do something about that.

* * *

You seem to think you're an emotionless robot. And I think I have found that the people who think they are emotionless rational robots, are the must subject to the whims of emotions.

Something to consider working on...

At minimum, a person should be capable of keeping their emotions separate when drafting text.

If you can’t, that’s something to work on.

I mean, I'm not taking advice on this from you. You have done nothing to convince me you're worth listening to.

same can be said vice versa.

lol, wasn't angry to begin with, but I definitely was angered by the dismissive response. Like if I'm giving them the time of day, it would be nice of them to at least pretend like they're gonna give it to me...

> And too angry to understand what everyone is saying to you.

Just gonna jump in here and say, I was not angry in this post. So that's just a wrong assessment...

> You are too young to know any better.

I don't know how old you are, but if your argument depends on me being in a specific age range, I'm going to guess you're too conceited to have an actual conversation with. In practice, I think the signs of this were there from the start but I engaged anyways, so that's my bad. But uhh, stop being rude on the internet? It sounds like you should know better for however old you might be...

I too have felt “not angry” even when I was. It was cloaked in something else far more damaging to personal growth. I feel you suffer from the same.

Careful you don't hurt yourself getting down from that high horse of yours. I guess alternatively you could just keep living up there, but it sounds lonely.

OOC, what in the initial message makes you think I was angry when I'm telling you I was not? (Oh all-knowing-being who can tell me what's inside my head that I cannot even see)

the other person also thought you were angry.

You said it first, they were responding. That's not an answer to the question.

they still thought you were angry.

Right, the question was, "what made you think I was angry?"

> Trying to equate them all as relationships is a misdirection. Relationships with your friends, parents, children, and spouse are not going to be comparable ever.

Certainly not with that attitude!

I don't require commitment, therefore I am not interested in a spouse.

Remember: I am not you.

You are human. And humans are social creatures. Every human requires five social elements: Communication, Mentorship, Teamwork, Dependence, and Servitude. Commitment is just a framework holding some or all of the five elements.

It's "a" framework, not "the" framework. Therein lies my entire point.

Your argument was, you are not me. But you are.

I'm so confused how this could be the case unless you're actually arguing with yourself across 2 different accounts.

Obviously the individual is unique. Nevertheless some common rules pervade across all individualisms. The OP tried to argue certain rules don’t apply to everyone because everyone is different. I think the OP is wrong on which rules don’t apply. Social creatures are social, and even if a person is an unsocial natural hermit, that person still must be a social creature. No form of individualism or uniqueness can take that away. The OP tried to argue he was different. We are the same.