Oh, well I wasn't specifically referring to other humans. I was more thinking that your immune system would be weaker through which you can get sick easier and also die from that sickness easier.
yea could be, still doesnt mean that it kills you.
where did you get that information from? my point stands: lack of air kills you, so does a lack of food, a lack of warmth, a lack of sleep and a lack of water. a lack of sex does not.
so, do you agree with me that a lack of sex doesn't kill you?
no, just like a lack of certain vitamins a lack of sex doesn't directly kill you. you might get sick easier and die from it, like i said, but you still somehow have to contract that sickness. it doesn't get created by a lack of these things.
well through a worse immune system invaders can be defended against in a less efficient fashion, but one's lack of sex is not what's producing these invaders.
no, in this case whatever brought the invader into your body in the first place is the indirect cause, your bad state of health just acts as an expeditor. Whereas a lack of water would be the direct cause of your death, so would a lack of air and so on.
food is. thats what i meant earlier, if you want to define the biological need of food more specifically, then i'd go with "the need for the minimum amount of nutrition that is needed to survive when no other factors are involved."
Where did I make up a definition? I was suggesting a definition for need of bread because thats fairly inaccurate
whats a biological need to you then? cause clearly were not talking about the same thing. ive told you my definition multiple times already.
oh thats odd, i thought we were talking about things which a lack of would cause our body to die
no shit lol
www.simplypsychology.org
i've told you multiple times what i consider a biological need, to which the 5 needs that i've enumerated multiple times as well and only those 5 clearly apply. i don't care how maslow defines a biological need. he did not create the term. ive told you my definition and yet you still disagreed (which is what this whole conversation was about), so clearly you're the one who's in the wrong.Because you're arguing against Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You're acting like someone from Inceltears
Also:
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a pyramid of the needs that motivate people. Individuals most basic needs, at the base of the pyramid, are physiological. Once they have fulfilled these needs, people move on to their safety needs, social well-being, self-esteem then ultimately their need for...
dude we were never talking about maslow, we were talking if you die without sex. which you dont. i told you my definition and you still disagreed. just concede and we can end this, its muxh easier than making up a new excuse everytime i reply.
do you now accept the fact that you dont without a lack of sex?
so we're still argueing about the same thing and you still haven't accepted that you're wrong. how? isn't it obvious?
yes, neither is maslow. thats why im suggesting why shouldnt use the term in the first place. a lack of sex does not kill you, unlike a lack of water, air , warmth, food and sleep.
don't you understand? maslow agrees with me. he never claimed that you die definitely without sex
he says you need it to function optimally, which i never denied. yet he never says that its unconditionally necessary for survival, and that has also always been my opinion.
as in we have reached an agreement?
