Are you territorial about your mate?

[thepeaguy]

I've firmly stated and firmly stand by my stance that people are never never never halves of a whole.  Each person is a whole person on his or her own and doesn't need to be in a relatinoship to make their lives "worthwhile" or "complete."  Yes, I'm in a relationship, but it's not to fill some gapaing hole in my life; that's a bullshit philosophy.

then why are you in a relationship?

Because I like my mate.  not because I need him.

You should've said: "Dinosaur sex."

[El]

I've firmly stated and firmly stand by my stance that people are never never never halves of a whole.  Each person is a whole person on his or her own and doesn't need to be in a relatinoship to make their lives "worthwhile" or "complete."  Yes, I'm in a relationship, but it's not to fill some gapaing hole in my life; that's a bullshit philosophy.

then why are you in a relationship?

Because I like my mate.  not because I need him.

You should've said: "Dinosaur sex."

Hey, I'm not dating him for his porn knowledge; I just can't seperate the two so I might as well try to find find one as amusing as the other.

[McGiver]

I've firmly stated and firmly stand by my stance that people are never never never halves of a whole.  Each person is a whole person on his or her own and doesn't need to be in a relatinoship to make their lives "worthwhile" or "complete."  Yes, I'm in a relationship, but it's not to fill some gapaing hole in my life; that's a bullshit philosophy.

then why are you in a relationship?

Because I like my mate.  not because I need him.

but i think peaguy may be onto something.

you may not think that you need him, but you might be aware that he needs you.  and everybody likes (at the very least) to be needed.
it helps them to validate their existence.
maybe thagomizers existence is not validated by you.

[Pyraxis]

Everybody likes to be needed? 

Not me. Wanted, sure, but not needed. What could possibly be the appeal of having someone hanging off you all the time, the obligation to take care of them, the obligation to make them feel better if they are upset, the obligation to spend a ton of time with them because if you don't, then something unimaginably-terrible will happen to them, because they need you. A need is critical to survival, so if they don't have it, they will die, and it will be your fault. A person who needs someone in the true definition of the word would be suicidal (or something like that) without them, and what kind of a loving statement is it to say "stay with me or I will kill myself"?

[McGiver]

shall we discuss the pride you take in your job?

[Pyraxis]

 

And yet, I still don't have a job, but I'm not suicidally depressed over it, and barring the fact that I worry about it, I am basically happy with my life.

[McGiver]

getting a job would give you some sense of satisfaction, knowing that you were needed?

hermits keep pets.
why?

[Pyraxis]

I think you're just defining needed more loosely than me. Sure, it would give me a ton of satisfaction to get a job. To know that a company's creations were better because of me. But if a company was so small and fragile that me leaving it would mean that the company would dissolve (and I've worked for entrepreneurs where that was true) then it wasn't a very strong investment to begin with, and I'd be wary of taking a position at another company like it. For example, if the only reason a company is afloat is because they are paying the artist only a pittance, and if that particular artist left, they'd never be able to find one with the same talents willing to work for the same amount of money, then there's something seriously wrong. Just think about the economic model. The artist is getting exploited, their talents are worth more and they should find a job with a more secure company.

[McGiver]

i wouldn't feel bad leaving either.  people have worth, and the pittance that the sma;;er company can afford is not enough sometimes.
a persons skill level sometimes outgrows the smaller company.
or the skill level helps the smaller company to become a medium sized company, but they should pay the person accordingly
cost vs benefit analysis.

[Pyraxis]

Precisely. Meaning it is not good to work for a company that needs you. Just one that wants you for whatever specific advantage you offer.

[McGiver]

Precisely. Meaning it is not good to work for a company that needs you. Just one that wants you for whatever specific advantage you offer.

it works BOTH ways.

[Pyraxis]

What do you mean? It's good to work for a company that needs you if you also need the company?

[McGiver]

there was need at one time.

if the company still needs you then they will pay you accordingly.  if they cannot, then they obviously didn't need you bad enough.
the new company obviously does, since they are paying you a greater portion of your worth.

[Pyraxis]

And here's where the different definitions of need screw up the argument.

Would you say that if a thing is valuable to someone, then they need it? That's what it seems like, whereas I'm defining need as more than valuable, as critical to one's existence.

[McGiver]

And here's where the different definitions of need screw up the argument.

Would you say that if a thing is valuable to someone, then they need it? That's what it seems like, whereas I'm defining need as more than valuable, as critical to one's existence.

i'd rather liken it to utility.

for instance, i think friends are to be used (not necessarily in the negative sense).  if they serve no value to you then they are an uneccessary burdon of your time.