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.

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’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?

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)

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.

noun: consent; plural noun: consents

• compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another

noun: agency; plural noun: agencies

• the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

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.

An understanding of consent is important to the topic at hand, certainly, but your reply does not address the fallacy of consent, nor does it demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on the root concept of consent. Consent exists whether or not you believe in it. Much like the sun.

Ignoring the fact that society’s builders, such as you describe them, constructed society a priori, you’re falling prey to the fallacy of consent.

At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.

So you agree, then, that your sentence “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?

You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system.

I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.

Is there any point by your view, excepting death, at which you believe a person is no longer able to exercise their wants?

The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.

A cow, for example, may want to avoid its trip to the abattoir, but conditions have been created in which the cow’s wants are unattainable.

Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.