4 ms·

> Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words. I don't see that explanation anywhere. Something being popular does not mean you need it; that should

> Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words. I don't see that explanation anywhere. Something being popular does not mean you need it; that should be pretty obvious. If you need something then it is necessary regardless of how popular it is. > Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do? That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. A pothead might claim to need weed but that doesn't mean society should have an obligation to accommodate him based on the justification that "people may know more about their own lives than you do" > It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook. It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed. > That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve. Damn that is some disingenuous semantic foolishness. I don't need to do the dishes because I could buy a box of paper plates instead which is a decision that will not at all impact my health or livelihood. I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. > True, but not an argument. So what are you saying? An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?

anoncake 7y ago
> I don't see that explanation anywhere If you don't see an explanation anywhere, it's because you don't want to see it. I have written like half a dozen. > That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. Ditto > It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed. Non sequitur > I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. That's two contradictory definitions, survival and well-being is not the same. Even under this definition, you still haven't provided the extraordinary proof necessary for the extraordinary claim that nobody needs Facebook. You've merely asserted it – somehow believing that your assertions about the lifes of people you don't know are more accurate than what these people believe. > An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives? Facebook does not have any rights to begin with. Like all companies, its only legitimate purpose is to serve the public – which is why the convenience of the many trumps the desire of one Mr. Zuckerberg to control Facebook.
- root_axis 7y ago
  So let me recap. A. Facebook is a necessity comparable to electricity. B. A "need" is anything that an individual claims they need. C. Facebook has no property rights or any other rights. Am I misunderstanding anything?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Yes. It is, in principle, possible for someone to lie about their needs though I'm not sure why they should. It also doesn't tell us where the need in question ranks on the Maslow Hierarchy, but those at top are still needs.

anoncake 7y ago

> I don't see that explanation anywhere If you don't see an explanation anywhere, it's because you don't want to see it. I have written like half a dozen. > That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. Ditto > It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed. Non sequitur > I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. That's two contradictory definitions, survival and well-being is not the same. Even under this definition, you still haven't provided the extraordinary proof necessary for the extraordinary claim that nobody needs Facebook. You've merely asserted it – somehow believing that your assertions about the lifes of people you don't know are more accurate than what these people believe. > An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives? Facebook does not have any rights to begin with. Like all companies, its only legitimate purpose is to serve the public – which is why the convenience of the many trumps the desire of one Mr. Zuckerberg to control Facebook.

root_axis 7y ago
So let me recap. A. Facebook is a necessity comparable to electricity. B. A "need" is anything that an individual claims they need. C. Facebook has no property rights or any other rights. Am I misunderstanding anything?
- anoncake 7y ago
  Yes. It is, in principle, possible for someone to lie about their needs though I'm not sure why they should. It also doesn't tell us where the need in question ranks on the Maslow Hierarchy, but those at top are still needs.