Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>Meaninglessly and incorrectly. There is no such thing
>>>>as "need" in an absolute sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>Deja vu. We disagree about absolutes again.
>>
>>You have no basis for your disagreement, except your
>>mouthy pig-headedness.
>
>
> A little grouchy today, Rudy? I've been referring
> to what you call an instrumental need. Quote:
>
>
>>By instrumental need, I mean this. Suppose you say you
>>intend to travel by car to some place 100 km away, and
>>you want to arrive there at 17.00. Suppose as well
>>that you can average 100 km/h. Then, you need to leave
>>your starting point no later than 16.00.
>
>
> That completely parallels my example below:
>
>
>>>>>In order to live a healthy, happy
>>>>>life, I need air, water, food, shelter, etc.
>
>
> I intend to live a healthy, happy life.
> Then I need air, water, etc. etc.
>
>
>>>Shelter is a need,
>>
>>Tell that to some homeless person. He WANTS shelter,
>>but he clearly doesn't need it.
>
>
> How do I ask the ones who are dead
> from exposure?

You can't ask them. You can ask the ones who are
alive, and who have chosen homelessness.