pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote[..]

[..]

>>> Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"
>> That means they *want* very much to be there in order to achieve certain
>> aims. That use of the word "need" to convey a fervent wish is not the
>> same as the meaning of the word in the context of diet, which is a
>> *requirement*.
>
> They mean that they believe that there's a requirement for them
> to be there for them as family, with everything that that entails.

It was my impression that you didn't care what people's beliefs were
regarding their requirements. You, pearl, know what people require and
are here to tell them what that is.


>>>>>>>> In any
>>>>>>>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
>>>>>>>> desire, however earnest.
>>>>>>> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.
>>>>>> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
>>>>>> unable to provide, dependents still survive.
>>>>> With a sense of emotional loss, stress, and possibly hardship.
>>>> So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
>>>> difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
>>>> OK to do.
>>> How dare you compare losing an irreplaceable loved one and
>>> their much needed support, with an easily replaceable flavour.
>> They fall into the same general category, they are wishes, preferences,
>> not needs, because they are not specifically contingent. If they truly
>> were "needs" (assuming the contingent to be "for life itself") then one
>> would certainly perish without them.
>
> They are nowhere near comparable. If you can't even see that...

I'm not saying that dietary choices and loss of a loved one are equal in
importance, but they are comparable in every fundamental way. They are
parts of one's life that one deems important, but life can go on without
them.

>>>>>>>> > it does not follow that food
>>>>>>>>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.
>>>>>>>> That's not what I said,
>>>>> But you said that it makes sense to you
>>>> Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
>>>> Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.
>>> What a joke. In any context, we absolutely need to eat to live.
>> There are breatharians, however assuming that statement to be true, "to
>> live" is the objective which makes the word "need" valid in the sentence.
>
> Back to first grade again.. Mary *wants* a new TV (objective).
> Paul tells Mary that a new TV costs $50. Mary *needs* $50..

'...in order to buy a TV', exactly. Need, when used correctly always
refers to some specific contingency.

*I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.

The rest is old hat, you attempting to instill guilt and fear.

[..]