>> he era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance.
> No it's not. Those things help to define a person.
When you try to refute someone's position, it's expected that you will offer a counterargument, not a different topic. Yes, relationships help define a person. No, that doesn't mean the era hasn't ended in which one's relationships are central to one's identity.
Sure, I'll bite.
You argue that family is no longer important (or, 'optional', in your words) because Wikipedia does not elevate the status of, or obsess over the details of the family of a notable person in the same fashion. This is a ridiculous argument [1]. Who cares what Wikipedia thinks? Who cares what google thinks? Who cares what society thinks? A relationship is a very personal connection between two people. Perhaps it doesn't translate well to Wikipedia, but it's absurd to assert that they're not worth having just because they're not preserved for all eternity.
You are making the same fallacy that your parent post accused another poster of making, you're failing to address to argument at hand.
Eras are defined by society at large (as much retroactively defined by future generations as defined by the present). Disregarding what society thinks refutes your entire argument. Two people caring about a certain thing is an anecdote, not an era.
Note that he never said "relationships are not worth having", merely that "The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over".
Your GGP's post's conclusion holds, even if what you are saying is true.
> No it's not. Those things help to define a person.
When you try to refute someone's position, it's expected that you will offer a counterargument, not a different topic. Yes, relationships help define a person. No, that doesn't mean the era hasn't ended in which one's relationships are central to one's identity.