|
|
#21 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Your hair-splitting with the claim that everything is a want because even something like "I need to breathe" isn't true because you could choose to instead not breathe and thus die is semantically correct, so congratulations on that? However, if you've therefore classified absolutely everything as a "want" and not a "need" then we no longer have a method of distinguishing between things that we want in order to perpetuate our existance and things that we want in order to improve the quality of that existance. Necesseties (of life) and Luxuries (for life) are the categories to which we attach the terms 'need' and 'want' and that is a very helpful and useful distinction even if you could semantically suggest that even needs are just a certain type of stronger want. I mean if anything, one thing you do NEED to do in the sense of showing you that there are needs even if you classify everything as a want instead: For wants whose negative consequence is the cessation of your existance, you NEED to determine whether not fulfilling that want is worth the cessation of your existance. This is a process that absolutely must happen with 100% certainly, thus is a need. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
of course they words are useful thats why they exist. there definitely is a want/need for words to distinguish between necessities of life and luxuries. i dont think the argument is being made that the words should be abolished or even that ones perspective should be permanently changed to only think of "needs" as "strong wants". the traditional perspective is fine if not better. i think that the purpose is only to subject everyone to an alternate perspective. i think there is a strong possibility that everyone is already in agreement but the wording is just slightly different. maybe instead it should be stated that there is no such thing as an 'absolute and universal need which must happen' because with all needs (used in the traditional sense) there are alternatives also the word "must" could be subject to the same rules an 'absolute and universal must' is basically a 'will' since there are no alternatives |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
|
want is something someone craves, sure. and need is something someone may or may not crave/want, but is a necessity. The only thing you left out is that both terms are in reference to something and "needing" something is furthermore a necessity in order to do a task.
"I want to close the door." In reference to jacking off with the door closed. "I need to close the door." In reference to the necessity of not having people that walk by see what you're doing.
__________________
That's cool Mario, but how come whenever you eat mushrooms, everything gets bigger but your dick?
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 151
|
Quote:
I'm not arguing the semanitics of wants and needs. I already addressed that in my post (see Devonin's quote). I'm simply arguing fact. Last edited by Lipidman; 10-4-2008 at 05:15 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 285
|
You guys are inviting ad hominem upon yourself by continuing to post things and failing to acknowlege that the point has already been nailed by myself + Tokzic or Devonin. There is nothing to this. You truly are being ridiculous here. Every time someone uses the word "need", there is a condition to be filled. Whether this condition is stated or not is irrelevant. When a person says "I need to breathe", the condition is that they're trying to remain living. They say "I need to breathe", but the implication is "I need to breathe to not die." They don't need to explicitly state it, just like if I said, "Shut the hell up," I would not need to explicitly state that it is you that I'm angry with.
Seriously. That's all there is to it. Discussion beyond that is irrelevant. Literally every example of a person using the word "need" can be accompanied by a goal, either explicit or implied (more than often, it is implied, because a need's goal is normally obvious in the need itself). In addition, all of these uses are legitimate, even if you don't think so. I need to stop coming to this subforum. See what I did there? The implied goal is to avoid the stupidity 8) |
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
Quote:
__________________
Reverse for life!
![]() ![]() ^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | ||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
Quote:
regardless of weather it was invited, as you say, it is illogical and therefor not suited for ct. ct implies a want for civility, but you dont need to be civil... the alternative option is usually punishment at the discretion of the mods a lot of what you two have stated is true. yes, when someone expresses a need they are implying a goal. yes, you cannot kill yourself by not breathing. yes, the op did say death was an option. yes, that was an invalid example but heres the twist when corrected the example still functions according to said principal death is not the consequence for holding your breath it is fainting so really the options are to a. breath normally b. stop breathing and pass out nothing you have said disproves the principal that all needs are simply high priority wants |
||
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
However, Afro is correct that there is nothing more to discuss here. The claim forwarded in the OP is semantically valid, but like tautology, doesn't actually tell us anything new or useful. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|