3 ms·
Replying to this comment since clearly the point is misunderstood. The core part of what I wrote was "need." If you believe you "need" as in "can't go without"
by j_w 7mo ago
Replying to this comment since clearly the point is misunderstood.
The core part of what I wrote was "need." If you believe you "need" as in "can't go without" a TV, in this example, then you probably should consider whether or not you may be addicted to consuming television.
Do this as an exercise: Which of these statements indicates that somebody may have a a problem?
- I need a cigarette
- I need a beer
- I need a TV
- I need to eat
- I need some water
- I need to relax
The last three are clearly real needs. The first two are addictive. TV isn't a literal need, so if you find yourself NEEDING it, you may have a problem.
- hnlmorg 7mo ago> The last three are clearly real needs Eg > I need to relax And you’re replying to my comment that said: > What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work. I do get the point you’re trying to make. But at best it’s an irrelevant semantic that, by your own admission, is still a basic need. And at worst, it’s just elitist “I don’t enjoy x so you shouldn’t either” BS. Either way, it’s not a constructive argument.
- j_w 7mo ago[dead]