|
|
|
|
|
|
by j_w
84 days 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. |
|
|
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.