What a coincidence!!!

I usually buy delicious flavour

But I think asking yourself “what are my goals in life” is more productive than asking yourself “what do I need”, at least it comes more naturally to me.

I think I see what you mean. It’s searching for a vision that makes intuitive sense, no?

Also, thank you for explaining

so i don’t think you can just say something is a need, you need to decide what your goals are, probably with some hierarchy of goals, and work backwards from that to the needs. Or conversely, to know if something is a need, think about if not having it would keep you from your goal.

Hmm, sadly that results in a circular reasoning, no? How do you decide upon goals - which goals are important (needs) and which are folly (desire)? Should we simply trust Maslow got it right?

They also don’t really know if anything else is a need or a desire without attempting to go without it.

That’s a very practical answer. I like it! Thank you!

Where I live it made it into law even: vacation is mandatory because the majority decided it’s a need.

Why does the list grow? How?

Exactly my question too.

Who does that?

I observe it everywhere. For example when people say they need a vacation. Or when people say they need strong social bonds.

It’s obviously not a necessity to keep their body alive. But I do believe they view it as a genuine need?

and instead something people have to do to survive?

Eventually that group of “things” grows endlessly, no? The hedonistic treadmill?

You can keep a person alive in a zoo easily. Water, food, shelter. Untill they realise they’re in a zoo. Then the “need” for freedom arises.

Thank you for elaborating. Let me ponder a while on your ideas :)

Needs are instrumental to some normative goal.

Can you elaborate please as I don’t quite understand? Normative goal, as in societal norm? Where does the goal come from?

Hopefully what I said here makes some sort of sense, lol.

Yes. It’s what I’m gravitating towards as well. That it’s all mostly biological. And reason is there only to more easily quench those instinct. I like the rephrasing as “wants”.

That in reason exists no reason to be.

to keep going or to achieve something else

I feel like this is a Matryoshka answer? At least for me the difference isn’t as clear as you claim it is.

How do you know whether the thing you want to achieve, or the things you want to keep on going, is a need or a desire?

(I guess I just woke up with monday morning existential dread haha.)

and then to be able to reproduce.

Why would you classify that as a need? It’s a biological -intuitive- desire, is my interpretation.

(Your interpretation is valid either way, I’m not trying to argue for or against. Just want to learn other’s point of view, maybe change mine in the process)

Stop I’m gonna cum

Boiling the frog 👍

I have: here’s the relevant paragraph from the directive:

Amendment 186 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Disseminating pornographic content online without putting in place robust and effective age verification tools to effectively prevent children from accessing pornographic content online shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.

Pinky promise is explicitely not allowed.

And you’re doing the exact thing: blaming the specific implementation 🙂 It’s so sad that that still tricks people. Is this your first time learning how a EU directive works?

No, it’s saying that exact thing: online users of porn must be deanonymised on penalty of prison. To stop child abuse because that’s related somehow?

It’s just that the countries themselves must choose the particulates: who will do the deanonymisation, in what way, what will enforcement look like, etc.

That’s what they mean with “the final shape of the law hasn’t been determined yet”.

Every EU directive works that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)

A directive is a legal act of the European Union[1] that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals

In this case: the de-anonymisation must happen. Up to the respective countries to do the dirty work.

When people, rightfully, get angry the local politician will say “we had to because EU”. And the EU will say “well we didn’t say it had to be in that way, it’s your local politician that did that.”

That’s simply how any EU directive works: EU decides what must happen, and it’s up to the individual countries to put it into their respective laws.

That way people get angry at their federal government instead. Who can point their finger higher up. Who can then point to the countries specific implementation in their turn. It’s a neat trick. Nobody’s responsible for anything.

the law works against its intentions

When has that ever stopped a puritan?

That’s the same EU that mandates online de-anonymisation, punishable with up to a year in prison, as a last minute amendment to an unrelated CSAM-directive.

Some press releases: (1), (2), (3)

I try to see someone at least weekly.