Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >>>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
After a few glasses, these trolls don't 'arf seem funny!
|
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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.. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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.. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|