Hacker News Reader

> it's not a fundamental need

Reducing an argument to "needs" or "rights" is circular. Even across well-accepted cultures and moral systems, the lines between "needs" and non-"needs" is diverse (e.g. duty to god(s), duty to family honour, securing one's life, securing one's happiness through artistic expression, et cetera).

View on HN

Oh, I'm not debating whether it's a need or a right - I take objection to the qualifier "fundamental".

"Fundamental" was not an important qualifier in either of your posts. OP did not define what that meant in their context, and therefore it's not fair to nitpick based on that alone. They might as well have said "ticklish" for all the difference it made to their overall point.

If that's really what your whole post is about, why take the take to argue definitions? What does fundamental mean to you exactly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com