Well, that's kinda illustrating the point. Is the actual crux "if going without doesn't, in itself kill you" or is there some level of delayed, non-fatal, or indirect harm that's still sufficient to constitute "need"? Or is literally anything that can be endured/foregone without fatal consequences a preference?
Well, that's kinda illustrating the point. Is the actual crux "if going without doesn't, in itself kill you" or is there some level of delayed, non-fatal, or indirect harm that's still sufficient to constitute "need"? Or is literally anything that can be endured/foregone without fatal consequences a preference?
Well, that's kinda illustrating the point. Is the actual crux "if going without doesn't, in itself kill you" or is there some level of delayed, non-fatal, or indirect harm that's still sufficient to constitute "need"? Or is literally anything that can be endured/foregone without fatal consequences a preference?