paladin181: If a thing isn't a need, we can't have it at all? What kind of flawed logic is this?
If you read my post carefully, you'll see that wasn't what I was getting at. I was essentially pointing out how they were (not too subtly) calling another user an addict for wanting to play/have games while also having a bunch of games themselves, and then asking them(while admittedly not really expecting them to do so) to 'put their money where their mouth is' and stick to their supposed principles by cutting off their own gaming.
paladin181: "Since you claim this isn't a need, why don't you go without?" It's a luxury that we all here choose to indulge ourselves in. I don't NEED to play video games or watch movies/TV shows.
I choose to to entertain myself. And so does everyone else, be it legal purchaser or sneaky pie rat. For someone to point out in such a manner(as that post I replied to earlier did); it would appear, then, to be more likely signaling of virtue than anything else.
paladin181: Just because I don't have a need to be entertained doesn't mean I don't want to be. You should really learn the difference between want and need.
And I believe you need to understand there's more needs* than physical/physiological ones :)
(*while gaming specifically might not be a need, some sort of entertainment/etc is)