We were all born to be slaves to society

Seriously,

I went through it all but right off the bat, this girl known as Lifeningblog (lifeningblog.wordpress.com/about/, link found in the OP's article) is using some unusual definitions and somewhat expecting people to acknowledge them as universal truth or common yet at the same time she doesn't to define a few other details that would solidly anchor the argumentation.

For example, in point #1,

Who is the group, persons or entities she is making reference to by "Their"? Then she goes on with "We signed a lifetime contract to society (..)" First nobody did and even if I understand what she means, it's not really the way it's define usually yet she seems to want us to accept it as it is.

In the same idea, in point #2:



Yes, socialization is usually defined as learning and internalizing all she listed but does she realize that animals do it too? So are animals part of our system or do they have another slave system of their own? That process is something that comes naturally and is/was always there, even before we actually had a civilization. Unless you're living on your own planet and you're the only living organism on that rock, socialization will happen from interacting with others. It's not something that was created. Sure some processes might have been added by our civilization but at its core, it's not an invention.

Then :



It's blatantly false that there are no physical scars to prove it. From getting in a fight and getting beaten for not following the social norms (like not touching kids? I'm not saying it should be accepted. I'm just highlighting that it's not socially acceptable.) to being homeless there are physical signs of the things done against you if you won't fit in.

And even then after all this, there are still some people who won't accept things a being said. The best example is her own text. How come she could even criticize it if she was humiliated, degraded and had fear in her, to the point she accepted what was being said to her as The Truth?

From point #3, she starts using "They" again but quite a lot without defining it. I don't want to get into speculation but this seriously seems like simply an anti-capitalist rant (not defending capitalism, just stating what it is) at this point. She should define it or avoid using the word.

She seems to really oblivious to one thing. The system she is talking about, while it's true that you have to give to be in, it also offers the exit if you play it well. Let's use her words, currency. If you have enough (being wealthy) you have enough options to be out, or not, of that system she is describing.

At point #4, is she serious?


Is she really oblivious to what choices (or no matter the word you want to use to define the concept she is referring to) imply? Even if you live as an hermit or recluse, if you make the choice to do something, it will imply some conditions. There is no way around it.

In point #5, again, who is "They" ?

The conclusion is shooting in all directions and that 22 years old should probably read more before talking as if she had it all figured out.

From her About section:



She sounds like an arrogant wannabe philosopher and revolutionary. From the way it's phrased it seems like she also somewhat misunderstood the quote from mister Wilde.

Wow! What a bunch o' curmudgeons you all are! Life is beautiful!

It's nice for you if that's how you feel.

I imagine you are wise enough to know that not everyone feels that way.

I think I would prefer this vs being eaten by a lion at the ripe old age of 25 if given a choice of the two lives before being born. Not sure how I would "feel about things" if I were feral.

We are born with a survival instinct. It has nothing to do with beauty, and you know that.