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.
I’m not interested in discussing the concept of justice with you. You argue in bad faith, as though you’re playing a zero-sum sports game and are willing to cheat to “win”.
What relevance does that have to the fact that your premise is logically flawed? You’ve latched on to some perceived “gotcha”, which is wholly unbecoming of an intellectual such as yourself.
The difference between an acceptable want and a want in a controlled population is a red herring that you’ve latched onto and extrapolated on in your own mind. Not only that, but your fixation on that quote represents a clear misunderstanding of my ontological intent.
Answering this desperate question of yours has zero relevance to the fact that 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.”is logically flawed via the fallacy of consent. Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise?
Why wait for later? I’ve asked plenty of questions in just my previous comment that we can discuss. Once you’ve proven that you engage in good faith, logical discourse I’ll be happy to talk to you for as long as you’d like about whatever topics.
Speaking of which, you never answered my question about whether you’ve ever been wrong about anything! I’m still waiting to hear from you on that one! The most intelligent people I’ve met in my life always seem to be the most capable of admitting that they don’t know nearly as much as they wish that they did.
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.
I’m not interested in discussing the concept of justice with you. You argue in bad faith, as though you’re playing a zero-sum sports game and are willing to cheat to “win”.
What relevance does that have to the fact that your premise is logically flawed? You’ve latched on to some perceived “gotcha”, which is wholly unbecoming of an intellectual such as yourself.
The difference between an acceptable want and a want in a controlled population is a red herring that you’ve latched onto and extrapolated on in your own mind. Not only that, but your fixation on that quote represents a clear misunderstanding of my ontological intent.
Answering this desperate question of yours has zero relevance to the fact that 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.” is logically flawed via the fallacy of consent. Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise?
Pity, I had so much fun with this discussion. For that I thank you. Lemme know if you want to return to it later.
Why wait for later? I’ve asked plenty of questions in just my previous comment that we can discuss. Once you’ve proven that you engage in good faith, logical discourse I’ll be happy to talk to you for as long as you’d like about whatever topics.
Speaking of which, you never answered my question about whether you’ve ever been wrong about anything! I’m still waiting to hear from you on that one! The most intelligent people I’ve met in my life always seem to be the most capable of admitting that they don’t know nearly as much as they wish that they did.