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.
I literally cannot continue this conversation before we understand each other on the nature of wanting. Or like, I can… but we’d just keep going over the same things, reducing us both to just practicing intellectual wankery. And I have a feeling you have more self-respect than that, if you think that my argumentation is “unbecoming of an intellectual”.
And in any case we’ve been at this for 4 (very delighful) hours but this body really wants a different activity for now.
Sure, let’s discuss the nature of want, then, if that’s your chosen distraction.
And no, I don’t have any self respect. I will wank all day long. Self respect is for people who take themselves far too seriously. I only mention your intellectual status due to the fact that you seem to take yourself very seriously.
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.
I literally cannot continue this conversation before we understand each other on the nature of wanting. Or like, I can… but we’d just keep going over the same things, reducing us both to just practicing intellectual wankery. And I have a feeling you have more self-respect than that, if you think that my argumentation is “unbecoming of an intellectual”.
And in any case we’ve been at this for 4 (very delighful) hours but this body really wants a different activity for now.
Sure, let’s discuss the nature of want, then, if that’s your chosen distraction.
And no, I don’t have any self respect. I will wank all day long. Self respect is for people who take themselves far too seriously. I only mention your intellectual status due to the fact that you seem to take yourself very seriously.