Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #281 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > You had an opportunity to be serious
>
> And I was. There is no such thing as "need" in the
> absolute sense in which you mean it.


Actually I wasn't debating your definition
of need. It's a valid one. I am however
debating your use of juvenile insults.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #282 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >>>There you were, almost respectable, posting
>> >>>an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
>> >>>went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.
>> >>
>> >>Ha ha! Gotcha! I meant everything I said about no
>> >>distinction between "need" vs. "want", the instrumental
>> >>sense of "need", and so on, and it's ALL right. But I
>> >>knew you'd read all the way to the end, and get a nice
>> >>big surprise. Bon apetit, twit.
>> >
>> >
>> > You blow your own post to smithereens.

>>
>> Nope. What I wrote still stands. There is no such
>> thing as "needs" in some absolute sense; there are only
>> wants.

>
> You had an opportunity to be serious and
> instead you chose to sabotage your own
> post. You must be a hateful individual.


You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from the part
of the post that preceded the insult, did you?

Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of the
post and learn nothing?


  #283 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You had an opportunity to be serious

>>
>>And I was. There is no such thing as "need" in the
>>absolute sense in which you mean it.

>
>
> Actually I wasn't debating your definition
> of need. It's a valid one.


I know. I hope we're done with that now.
  #284 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from the
part
> of the post that preceded the insult, did you?
>
> Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of

the
> post and learn nothing?


I wouldn't call it extremely valuable. It was
just interesting, even though I define need
differently. In order to live a healthy, happy
life, I need air, water, food, shelter, etc.

The last line of the post was like a self-
sabotage. He ruins what little he was
able to communicate by ending it
with that.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #285 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from the

>
> part
>
>>of the post that preceded the insult, did you?
>>
>>Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of

>
> the
>
>>post and learn nothing?

>
>
> I wouldn't call it extremely valuable. It was
> just interesting, even though I define need
> differently.


Meaninglessly and incorrectly. There is no such thing
as "need" in an absolute sense.

> In order to live a healthy, happy
> life, I need air, water, food, shelter, etc.


But you don't "need" those thing in any absolute sense,
and you *still* trade those things for non-essential
things.

>
> The last line of the post was like a self-
> sabotage. He ruins what little he was
> able to communicate by ending it
> with that.


No, I still communicated something of great value.


  #286 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from
the
> >
> > part
> >
> >>of the post that preceded the insult, did you?
> >>
> >>Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of

> >
> > the
> >
> >>post and learn nothing?

> >
> >
> > I wouldn't call it extremely valuable. It was
> > just interesting, even though I define need
> > differently.

>
> Meaninglessly and incorrectly. There is no such thing
> as "need" in an absolute sense.


Deja vu. We disagree about absolutes again.

> > In order to live a healthy, happy
> > life, I need air, water, food, shelter, etc.

>
> But you don't "need" those thing in any absolute sense,
> and you *still* trade those things for non-essential
> things.


Excess can be traded, but they are still
needs in my view. Shelter is a need,
but if I own a house with a basement
apartment, and rent it out for money,
that doesn't make it any less a need.
It just means that I had excess shelter
space. My core need remains.

> > The last line of the post was like a self-
> > sabotage. He ruins what little he was
> > able to communicate by ending it
> > with that.

>
> No, I still communicated something of great value.


That's even worse. If you feel that the
first part of the post is of great value,
then that's like performing some
work of Shakespeare, then turning
around and farting at the audience.



--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #287 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from

>
> the
>
>>>part
>>>
>>>
>>>>of the post that preceded the insult, did you?
>>>>
>>>>Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>post and learn nothing?
>>>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't call it extremely valuable. It was
>>>just interesting, even though I define need
>>>differently.

>>
>>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.

>
>
>>>In order to live a healthy, happy
>>>life, I need air, water, food, shelter, etc.

>>
>>But you don't "need" those thing in any absolute sense,
>>and you *still* trade those things for non-essential
>>things.

>
>
> Excess can be traded, but they are still
> needs in my view.


They are not needs, they are wants.

> Shelter is a need,


Tell that to some homeless person. He WANTS shelter,
but he clearly doesn't need it.


>
>>>The last line of the post was like a self-
>>>sabotage. He ruins what little he was
>>>able to communicate by ending it
>>>with that.

>>
>>No, I still communicated something of great value.

>
>
> That's even worse.


No, that's something very good.

There is no such thing as "needs", ONLY wants.
  #288 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>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? Anyways, the intent
is a healthy happy life. To fulfill that
intent, one needs air, water, etc. It's
just like your driving example.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #289 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from the

> part
>> of the post that preceded the insult, did you?
>>
>> Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of

> the
>> post and learn nothing?

>
> I wouldn't call it extremely valuable.


You're wrong. This mushy concept of "need" is central to the veg*n's
misconceptions about diet and ethics, and leads to this whole flawed idea of
moral correctness. Veg*ans propose that meat is not a "need", which is true,
as Rudy just demonstrated, it's a "want" like everything else. Veg*ns then
conclude that since meat is not a need, therefore it must be immoral to
consume it. It's plain that not being a need does *not* make something
immoral. In other words, if *you* are deciding what your "needs" are, then
you're talking about "wants". It's not a distinction one should brush off
lightly.


  #290 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> You had an opportunity to learn something extremely valuable from the

> part
>> of the post that preceded the insult, did you?
>>
>> Or did you choose to react and focus on the meaningless last line of

> the
>> post and learn nothing?

>
> I wouldn't call it extremely valuable.


You're wrong. This mushy concept of "need" is central to the veg*n's
misconceptions about diet and ethics, and leads to this whole flawed idea of
moral correctness. Veg*ans propose that meat is not a "need", which is true,
as Rudy just demonstrated, it's a "want" like everything else. Veg*ns then
conclude that since meat is not a need, therefore it must be immoral to
consume it. It's plain that not being a need does *not* make something
immoral. In other words, if *you* are deciding what your "needs" are, then
you're talking about "wants". It's not a distinction one should brush off
lightly.




  #291 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #292 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I wouldn't call it extremely valuable.
>
> You're wrong. This mushy concept of "need" is central to the veg*n's
> misconceptions about diet and ethics, and leads to this whole flawed

idea of
> moral correctness. Veg*ans propose that meat is not a "need", which is

true,
> as Rudy just demonstrated, it's a "want" like everything else. Veg*ns

then
> conclude that since meat is not a need, therefore it must be immoral

to
> consume it. It's plain that not being a need does *not* make something
> immoral. In other words, if *you* are deciding what your "needs" are,

then
> you're talking about "wants". It's not a distinction one should brush

off
> lightly.


No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
need means immorality. The immorality is
seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
killing of the animals.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #293 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I wouldn't call it extremely valuable.

>>
>>You're wrong. This mushy concept of "need" is central to the veg*n's
>>misconceptions about diet and ethics, and leads to this whole flawed

>
> idea of
>
>>moral correctness. Veg*ans propose that meat is not a "need", which is

>
> true,
>
>>as Rudy just demonstrated, it's a "want" like everything else. Veg*ns

>
> then
>
>>conclude that since meat is not a need, therefore it must be immoral

>
> to
>
>>consume it. It's plain that not being a need does *not* make something
>>immoral. In other words, if *you* are deciding what your "needs" are,

>
> then
>
>>you're talking about "wants". It's not a distinction one should brush

>
> off
>
>>lightly.

>
>
> No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
> need means immorality.


Yes, that is precisely the basis for "veganism" for a
lot of people. It's all over the Google archives.

> The immorality is
> seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
> killing of the animals.


But when you feel you "need" something, you don't
exhibit any consideration for brutality or killing.
Animals are killed in the course of producing the food
you eat, and because you claim you "need" food, you
simply dismiss any moral consideration of those animals.
  #294 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I wouldn't call it extremely valuable.

>>
>> You're wrong. This mushy concept of "need" is central to the veg*n's
>> misconceptions about diet and ethics, and leads to this whole flawed

> idea of
>> moral correctness. Veg*ans propose that meat is not a "need", which is

> true,
>> as Rudy just demonstrated, it's a "want" like everything else. Veg*ns

> then
>> conclude that since meat is not a need, therefore it must be immoral

> to
>> consume it. It's plain that not being a need does *not* make something
>> immoral. In other words, if *you* are deciding what your "needs" are,

> then
>> you're talking about "wants". It's not a distinction one should brush

> off
>> lightly.

>
> No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
> need means immorality.


Pay attention to vegetarian rhetoric, it is frequently argued that since we
don't *need* meat then therefore we *should not* consume it. I don't have a
quote, but I'd bet money that you have said that yourself.

> The immorality is
> seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
> killing of the animals.


That's another aspect of vegan rhetoric.


  #295 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>>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.


Now that I think about it, they do have shelter.
It's just the poorest of all possible shelters.
Cardboard boxes, newspaper, sleeping bags
(my city hands those out), etc. Barely
liveable by my standards, but like you say,
some actually choose homelessness.

If the intent is for a healthy, happy life, then
homelessness for me would not satisfy
that intent. It would be unhealthy and I
would not be happy. Therefore to satisfy
the intention of a healthy happy life, I
need proper shelter, etc.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.




  #296 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
> > need means immorality.

>
> Yes, that is precisely the basis for "veganism" for a
> lot of people. It's all over the Google archives.
>
> > The immorality is
> > seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
> > killing of the animals.

>
> But when you feel you "need" something, you don't
> exhibit any consideration for brutality or killing.
> Animals are killed in the course of producing the food
> you eat, and because you claim you "need" food, you
> simply dismiss any moral consideration of those animals.


I, like many others are in a position of forced
complicity. To be healthy, I need a wide
variety of vegetarian foods. If more veganic
products were available, I'd switch to them.
Unfortunately there's almost none around.
I won't accept moral responsibility for
something I don't have the power to change,
like collateral deaths in crop growing.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #297 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote ...

> If the intent is for a healthy, happy life, then
> homelessness for me would not satisfy
> that intent. It would be unhealthy and I
> would not be happy. Therefore to satisfy
> the intention of a healthy happy life, I
> need proper shelter, etc.


To satisfy *my* personal requirements for a healthy, happy life I need meat.


  #298 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
> > need means immorality.

>
> Pay attention to vegetarian rhetoric, it is frequently argued that

since we
> don't *need* meat then therefore we *should not* consume it. I don't

have a
> quote, but I'd bet money that you have said that yourself.


No I haven't. It's a ridiculous statement. I
don't need rolled oats, does that mean I
should not have them?

No veg*n that I've ever known thinks that
not a need = should not eat.

> > The immorality is
> > seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
> > killing of the animals.

>
> That's another aspect of vegan rhetoric.


No, that pretty much sums up the 'rhetoric'.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #299 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> To satisfy *my* personal requirements for a healthy, happy life I need
meat.

It's you who determines what you need for
a healthy happy life, so I can't disagree
with you there.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #300 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
>>>need means immorality.

>>
>>Yes, that is precisely the basis for "veganism" for a
>>lot of people. It's all over the Google archives.
>>
>>
>>>The immorality is
>>>seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
>>>killing of the animals.

>>
>>But when you feel you "need" something, you don't
>>exhibit any consideration for brutality or killing.
>>Animals are killed in the course of producing the food
>>you eat, and because you claim you "need" food, you
>>simply dismiss any moral consideration of those animals.

>
>
> I, like many others are in a position of forced
> complicity.


No, you are not. That is a lie.


  #301 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
>> > need means immorality.

>>
>> Pay attention to vegetarian rhetoric, it is frequently argued that

> since we
>> don't *need* meat then therefore we *should not* consume it. I don't

> have a
>> quote, but I'd bet money that you have said that yourself.

>
> No I haven't. It's a ridiculous statement. I
> don't need rolled oats, does that mean I
> should not have them?
>
> No veg*n that I've ever known thinks that
> not a need = should not eat.


Here are just a few examples where vegans play the "need card", sometimes
they play it through the back door by claiming that critics are saying
people need meat then disputing it.

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/arman/arman_s1.html
We have no need and therefore no right to cause them suffering and death

http://www.vegetarianteen.com/books/dontneedmeat.shtml
That one is right in the url.

http://www.thisiscool.com/mohan/arintro.html
My reasons for turning vegetarian, which still holds true today, is the
conviction that:
our bodies don't need meat and therefore,
it is unnecessary to take the life of another animal for food purposes.


http://www.cultureandanimals.org/animalrights.htm
People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for
example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested on
animals in order to help children.

http://www.newint.org/issue215/prime.htm
EAT producers spend a lot of money telling you how much you need meat. They
need to - because a growing body of medical evidence is stacked against
them. Meat is not only unnecessary in a healthy diet but a hazardous extra.1

Here's an example where they get it right, the only one I've ever seen
http://www.animalfreedom.org/english...nt/nomeat.html
Non-valid arguments for abstaining meat
Reaction

Humans are not equipped with the dental and digestive facilities to
eat meat

(Even turned around, this argument is not valid for eating meat) a
human can digest meat well when taken in moderation

People can choose what they want to eat, animals cannot

That makes us responsible, but it is not an argument against eating
meat

Eating no meat at all is healthier

That doesn't make eating meat unhealthy

Killing animals is sad

That is a personal opinion

Animals suffer when butchered

Dying a natural death caused by disease or being taken as prey is at
least just as painful.

Humans don't need meat

Unnecessary food (for example candy) is not always unhealthy or
ethically unacceptable



There are literally thousands of such examples, in fact "We don't need it
therefore we shouldn't" is almost the vegan mantra.

>> > The immorality is
>> > seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
>> > killing of the animals.

>>
>> That's another aspect of vegan rhetoric.

>
> No, that pretty much sums up the 'rhetoric'.


No it doesn't, there are several other sets of half-truths and appeals to
emotion regularly employed by vegans and ARAs. There's the environmental
ones, the health ones, to name two.


  #302 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
>> > need means immorality.

>>
>> Pay attention to vegetarian rhetoric, it is frequently argued that

> since we
>> don't *need* meat then therefore we *should not* consume it. I don't

> have a
>> quote, but I'd bet money that you have said that yourself.

>
> No I haven't. It's a ridiculous statement. I
> don't need rolled oats, does that mean I
> should not have them?
>
> No veg*n that I've ever known thinks that
> not a need = should not eat.


Here are just a few examples where vegans play the "need card", sometimes
they play it through the back door by claiming that critics are saying
people need meat then disputing it.

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/arman/arman_s1.html
We have no need and therefore no right to cause them suffering and death

http://www.vegetarianteen.com/books/dontneedmeat.shtml
That one is right in the url.

http://www.thisiscool.com/mohan/arintro.html
My reasons for turning vegetarian, which still holds true today, is the
conviction that:
our bodies don't need meat and therefore,
it is unnecessary to take the life of another animal for food purposes.


http://www.cultureandanimals.org/animalrights.htm
People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for
example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested on
animals in order to help children.

http://www.newint.org/issue215/prime.htm
EAT producers spend a lot of money telling you how much you need meat. They
need to - because a growing body of medical evidence is stacked against
them. Meat is not only unnecessary in a healthy diet but a hazardous extra.1

Here's an example where they get it right, the only one I've ever seen
http://www.animalfreedom.org/english...nt/nomeat.html
Non-valid arguments for abstaining meat
Reaction

Humans are not equipped with the dental and digestive facilities to
eat meat

(Even turned around, this argument is not valid for eating meat) a
human can digest meat well when taken in moderation

People can choose what they want to eat, animals cannot

That makes us responsible, but it is not an argument against eating
meat

Eating no meat at all is healthier

That doesn't make eating meat unhealthy

Killing animals is sad

That is a personal opinion

Animals suffer when butchered

Dying a natural death caused by disease or being taken as prey is at
least just as painful.

Humans don't need meat

Unnecessary food (for example candy) is not always unhealthy or
ethically unacceptable



There are literally thousands of such examples, in fact "We don't need it
therefore we shouldn't" is almost the vegan mantra.

>> > The immorality is
>> > seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
>> > killing of the animals.

>>
>> That's another aspect of vegan rhetoric.

>
> No, that pretty much sums up the 'rhetoric'.


No it doesn't, there are several other sets of half-truths and appeals to
emotion regularly employed by vegans and ARAs. There's the environmental
ones, the health ones, to name two.


  #303 (permalink)   Report Post  
it's_true
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> There is no such thing as "needs", ONLY wants.


NOT true -

The human body requires protein, fats and carbohydrates as well as vitamins,
minerals and water to function healthily.

In order to grow, a human foetus requires oxygenated blood.

Neither the foetus nor human bodies want these, they REQUIRE them - thus,
these are needs.


  #304 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

it's_true wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>There is no such thing as "needs", ONLY wants.

>
>
> NOT true -
>
> The human body requires protein, fats and carbohydrates as well as vitamins,
> minerals and water to function healthily.
>
> In order to grow, a human foetus requires oxygenated blood.
>
> Neither the foetus nor human bodies want these, they REQUIRE them - thus,
> these are needs.


The body doesn't "require" anything. You are
equivocating on the word.
  #305 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>There is no such thing as "needs", ONLY wants.
> >
> >
> > NOT true -
> >
> > The human body requires protein, fats and carbohydrates as well as

vitamins,
> > minerals and water to function healthily.
> >
> > In order to grow, a human foetus requires oxygenated blood.
> >
> > Neither the foetus nor human bodies want these, they REQUIRE them -

thus,
> > these are needs.

>
> The body doesn't "require" anything. You are
> equivocating on the word.


According to you Rudy, there is no need
to live. According to anyone else, there
is a need to live a healthy, happy life. In
order to satisfy that need, people need
air, water, food, shelter, etc.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.




  #306 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>There is no such thing as "needs", ONLY wants.
>>>
>>>
>>>NOT true -
>>>
>>>The human body requires protein, fats and carbohydrates as well as

>
> vitamins,
>
>>>minerals and water to function healthily.
>>>
>>>In order to grow, a human foetus requires oxygenated blood.
>>>
>>>Neither the foetus nor human bodies want these, they REQUIRE them -

>
> thus,
>
>>>these are needs.

>>
>>The body doesn't "require" anything. You are
>>equivocating on the word.

>
>
> According to you Rudy, there is no need
> to live.


That's correct, and I'm right: you WANT to live.
That's a legitimate want, but it doesn't become a need.

> According to anyone else, there
> is a need to live a healthy, happy life.


No, now you've added some modifiers. You said that
according to me there is no "need" to live, and now
you've added "healthy" and "happy" to it. That's
dishonest of you. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

But it doesn't really matter. You don't have a "need"
for any particular quality of life, either; those ALSO
are wants. You don't "need" to be healthy and happy,
you WANT to be.

> In order to satisfy that need,


Satisfy those wants, you mean...

> people need air, water, food, shelter, etc.


In order to satisfy the want to live, people
instrumentally need air, water, food and shelter.
There is no absolute "need" for any of those.

But let's get back to the beginning: you do not "need"
exotic imported spices for your food, you want them,
and in order to satisfy your wants, you are willing to
kill animals, which you claim to consider "mostly"
wrong - i.e., whenever anyone else causes it. You are
the most self centered and morally bankrupt person
here. That sleazy sophist homo Ron comes close.
  #307 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > According to you Rudy, there is no need
> > to live.

>
> That's correct, and I'm right: you WANT to live.
> That's a legitimate want, but it doesn't become a need.


According to most living people, they need to
live. It's more than a want, if you look at it from
the viewpoint of a living person. Are you a
zombie?

> > According to anyone else, there
> > is a need to live a healthy, happy life.

>
> No, now you've added some modifiers. You said that
> according to me there is no "need" to live, and now
> you've added "healthy" and "happy" to it. That's
> dishonest of you. Did you think I wouldn't notice?
>
> But it doesn't really matter. You don't have a "need"
> for any particular quality of life, either; those ALSO
> are wants. You don't "need" to be healthy and happy,
> you WANT to be.


It's more than a want. In order to have a
life that's worth living, one must have
a certain amount of health and happiness.
Is this the first time you've noticed my
addition of those modifiers? I've been
using them for a while now.

> > people need air, water, food, shelter, etc.

>
> In order to satisfy the want to live, people
> instrumentally need air, water, food and shelter.
> There is no absolute "need" for any of those.
>
> But let's get back to the beginning: you do not "need"
> exotic imported spices for your food, you want them,
> and in order to satisfy your wants, you are willing to
> kill animals, which you claim to consider "mostly"
> wrong - i.e., whenever anyone else causes it. You are
> the most self centered and morally bankrupt person
> here. That sleazy sophist homo Ron comes close.


You are separating needs into absolute needs and
instrumental needs. I don't know why. Apparently
what I call a need, you call an instrumental need.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #308 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

After a few glasses, these trolls don't 'arf seem funny!


  #309 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
> > > According to you Rudy, there is no need
> > > to live.

> >
> > That's correct, and I'm right: you WANT to live.
> > That's a legitimate want, but it doesn't become a need.

>
> According to most living people, they need to
> live.


Actually, I doubt that. Most living people don't think of their lives
as a "need".

> It's more than a want, if you look at it from
> the viewpoint of a living person.


It isn't. It's a want. I don't suggest it's an unreasonable want, but
it's a want, not a need.

>
> > > According to anyone else, there
> > > is a need to live a healthy, happy life.

> >
> > No, now you've added some modifiers. You said that
> > according to me there is no "need" to live, and now
> > you've added "healthy" and "happy" to it. That's
> > dishonest of you. Did you think I wouldn't notice?
> >
> > But it doesn't really matter. You don't have a "need"
> > for any particular quality of life, either; those ALSO
> > are wants. You don't "need" to be healthy and happy,
> > you WANT to be.

>
> It's more than a want.


It isn't. It's a want, period.

> In order to have a
> life that's worth living,


You don't have a "need" to have such a life, you WANT it.

> one must have a certain amount of health and happiness.


See above.

> Is this the first time you've noticed my
> addition of those modifiers? I've been
> using them for a while now.


It's the first time you sleazily used them with your own crappy
contribution while leaving them off when referring to the good
contribution I made.

>
> > > people need air, water, food, shelter, etc.

> >
> > In order to satisfy the want to live, people
> > instrumentally need air, water, food and shelter.
> > There is no absolute "need" for any of those.
> >
> > But let's get back to the beginning: you do not "need"
> > exotic imported spices for your food, you want them,
> > and in order to satisfy your wants, you are willing to
> > kill animals, which you claim to consider "mostly"
> > wrong - i.e., whenever anyone else causes it. You are
> > the most self centered and morally bankrupt person
> > here. That sleazy sophist homo Ron comes close.

>
> You are separating needs into absolute needs and
> instrumental needs.


No, I'm not. There is no such thing as an absolute need. There are
wants. We've been through this.

> Apparently what I call a need, you call an instrumental need.


You consider your wants-that-you-call-needs to be absolute "needs".
They aren't.

You want taste variety in your diet, and you don't care how many
animals must needlessly and painfully die in order for you to satisfy
your want.

  #310 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> According to you Rudy, there is no need
> to live.


There isn't, there's the *desire* to live. I thought you got this..




  #311 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> According to you Rudy, there is no need
> to live.


There isn't, there's the *desire* to live. I thought you got this..


  #312 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> According to most living people, they need to
> live.


I've never heard anyone say "I need to live." People say they *want* to
live.


  #313 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > According to most living people, they need to
> > live.

>
> I've never heard anyone say "I need to live." People say they *want*

to
> live.


Most people see the chance to live as a need.
Suicidal people don't however, and possibly
also people with low self esteem who feel
undeserving. Most people luckily have enough
self esteem and no suicidal tendencies. They
see living as the most basic need there is.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #314 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky the mouthy teenager wrote:

> > > According to most living people, they need to
> > > live.

> >
> > I've never heard anyone say "I need to live." People say they

*want*
> to
> > live.

>
> Most people see the chance to live as a need.


No, they don't. They see it as a powerful desire - a want - but not a
need.

  #315 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Most people see the chance to live as a need.
>
> No, they don't. They see it as a powerful desire - a want - but not a
> need.


I should correct my wording:
Most people see continuing to stay alive as a need.

You can call it a want if you like. It doesn't
really matter. I'm sure either of us would
fight to the max to stay alive, healthy and
happy. So no matter whether it's a want
or need, it's a strong motivator.




  #316 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky the mouthy teenaged twit wrote:
> > > Most people see the chance to live as a need.

> >
> > No, they don't. They see it as a powerful desire - a want - but

not a
> > need.

>
> I should correct my wording:
> Most people see continuing to stay alive as a need.


Your correction is still wrong. It's a want, not a need.

>
> You can call it a want if you like.


It IS a want. There is no such thing as "need" the way you mean the
word.

  #317 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I should correct my wording:
> > Most people see continuing to stay alive as a need.

>
> Your correction is still wrong. It's a want, not a need.
>
> >
> > You can call it a want if you like.

>
> It IS a want. There is no such thing as "need" the way you mean the
> word.


It's just a word, calm down. You know
full well that people use the word need
to describe what you call instrumental
needs.

Need, for you, can be as absolute as
you like. Others who don't have quite as
tight an ass might use the word more
loosely than you. Get used to it.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #318 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > According to most living people, they need to
>> > live.

>>
>> I've never heard anyone say "I need to live." People say they *want*

> to
>> live.

>
> Most people see the chance to live as a need.


No they don't. I repeat, people never, ever say "I need to live" they say "I
want to live" or "I love life". Life is never seen as a need, except in
specific circumstances, such as needing to live *long enough to complete my
work* or something of that nature. Life is generally considered VERY
precious, but that's not the same as calling it a need.

> Suicidal people don't however, and possibly
> also people with low self esteem who feel
> undeserving.


Again, you're talking about desire, not need. Suicidal people do not *want*
to live any longer.

> Most people luckily have enough
> self esteem and no suicidal tendencies. They
> see living as the most basic need there is.


Nope, people do not view living as a "need", they view it as highly
desirable.


  #319 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I should correct my wording:
>> > Most people see continuing to stay alive as a need.

>>
>> Your correction is still wrong. It's a want, not a need.
>>
>> >
>> > You can call it a want if you like.

>>
>> It IS a want. There is no such thing as "need" the way you mean the
>> word.

>
> It's just a word, calm down. You know
> full well that people use the word need
> to describe what you call instrumental
> needs.


You aren't using it that way though. *If* I am going to see the 2010
Olympics, *then* I "need" to live five more years, however I do not "need"
to live five more years in any absolute sense.

> Need, for you, can be as absolute as
> you like. Others who don't have quite as
> tight an ass might use the word more
> loosely than you. Get used to it.


That doesn't make them right. Using words improperly is part and parcel of
having a poor understanding of ideas.


  #320 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I should correct my wording:
>> > Most people see continuing to stay alive as a need.

>>
>> Your correction is still wrong. It's a want, not a need.
>>
>> >
>> > You can call it a want if you like.

>>
>> It IS a want. There is no such thing as "need" the way you mean the
>> word.

>
> It's just a word, calm down. You know
> full well that people use the word need
> to describe what you call instrumental
> needs.


You aren't using it that way though. *If* I am going to see the 2010
Olympics, *then* I "need" to live five more years, however I do not "need"
to live five more years in any absolute sense.

> Need, for you, can be as absolute as
> you like. Others who don't have quite as
> tight an ass might use the word more
> loosely than you. Get used to it.


That doesn't make them right. Using words improperly is part and parcel of
having a poor understanding of ideas.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"