Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?
Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.
As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.
The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It’s following a biological drive to survive. “Consent” remains a human construction. The rat isn’t arguing that it “should” not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being “oppressed” by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a “controlled population”, meaning as per you own words “The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.” And if you want to say that he hawk isn’t oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.
You have repeatedly failed to address your own inconsistencies, and have ignored direct questions such as:
“As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.”
When pressed too much on any of your inconsistencies, you latch onto something else and attempt to shift the discussion. Your statement, “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” remains logically flawed despite these contortions.
I fail to see how my position lacks consistency. If you can more clearly explain how I’ve been inconsistent, I’d be happy to address that. I disagree with your assertion that the rodent is being “oppressed” by the hawk, and you have not provided sufficient reasoning for why I “must accept” that position, upon which your “logical chain of meaning”, such as it was, is based on you putting words into my mouth and then dictating what I believe. This is yet another fallacy (strawman fallacy).
I do have a question for you that’s somewhat off topic. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I am and have been wrong a lot in my life, and I’ve found it’s much easier to reconcile and manage my state of mind when I acknowledge that I am not infallible in my thought or belief.
“As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.”
The fact that you ask this from me specifically highlights the problem in your arguments. It is your view that necessitates the existence of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors. I don’t think such a thing exists. I don’t think it’s possible to have a want independent of imposition. However when you say that “the notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population” as an argument against me positing that the guy in the comic is doing what he wants, implies that in your mind there is a “pure” want, independent of any imposition. You then refer to the rat as an example of consent, implying that a biological drive to survive is an example of a pure want. If you wish to make the case that a biological want is an example of a pure want, then I can say that the guy in the comic is following his biological drive to survive over any personal opinions on wearing pants - meaning a want is applicable to a controlled population.
How do you defend applying human idea of consent to a rat, but very conveniently for your own argument, refuse to apply oppressor to the hawk?
Well it sounds like you’ve read into my comments far beyond my meaning, then.
As to how I refuse to apply “oppressor” to the hawk… I can see why you would advance that idea, but the definition of oppression defies it, by my view:
verb: oppress
keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.
*edited to fix a copy/paste mistake (consent should have been oppress in the definition)
I’m not going to get into a discussion about justice with you before you explain what is an acceptable want and how it differs from a want in a controlled population.
Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?
Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.
As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.
The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It’s following a biological drive to survive. “Consent” remains a human construction. The rat isn’t arguing that it “should” not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being “oppressed” by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a “controlled population”, meaning as per you own words “The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.” And if you want to say that he hawk isn’t oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.
noun: consent; plural noun: consents
noun: agency; plural noun: agencies
Simply restating a human-centric definition of consent doesn’t address the lack of consistency in your position.
You have repeatedly failed to address your own inconsistencies, and have ignored direct questions such as:
“As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.”
When pressed too much on any of your inconsistencies, you latch onto something else and attempt to shift the discussion. Your statement, “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” remains logically flawed despite these contortions.
I fail to see how my position lacks consistency. If you can more clearly explain how I’ve been inconsistent, I’d be happy to address that. I disagree with your assertion that the rodent is being “oppressed” by the hawk, and you have not provided sufficient reasoning for why I “must accept” that position, upon which your “logical chain of meaning”, such as it was, is based on you putting words into my mouth and then dictating what I believe. This is yet another fallacy (strawman fallacy).
I do have a question for you that’s somewhat off topic. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I am and have been wrong a lot in my life, and I’ve found it’s much easier to reconcile and manage my state of mind when I acknowledge that I am not infallible in my thought or belief.
The fact that you ask this from me specifically highlights the problem in your arguments. It is your view that necessitates the existence of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors. I don’t think such a thing exists. I don’t think it’s possible to have a want independent of imposition. However when you say that “the notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population” as an argument against me positing that the guy in the comic is doing what he wants, implies that in your mind there is a “pure” want, independent of any imposition. You then refer to the rat as an example of consent, implying that a biological drive to survive is an example of a pure want. If you wish to make the case that a biological want is an example of a pure want, then I can say that the guy in the comic is following his biological drive to survive over any personal opinions on wearing pants - meaning a want is applicable to a controlled population.
How do you defend applying human idea of consent to a rat, but very conveniently for your own argument, refuse to apply oppressor to the hawk?
Well it sounds like you’ve read into my comments far beyond my meaning, then.
As to how I refuse to apply “oppressor” to the hawk… I can see why you would advance that idea, but the definition of oppression defies it, by my view:
verb: oppress
*edited to fix a copy/paste mistake (consent should have been oppress in the definition)
I’m not going to get into a discussion about justice with you before you explain what is an acceptable want and how it differs from a want in a controlled population.