[ta1234567890]

> 2. Lacking desire and detachment from desire is pure semantics, as the goal is not to desire the object of your desire. See how redundant that statement is?

Technically the goal is to be able to freely choose what to do when the desire arises (instead of having a knee-jerk reaction pattern), which is very different than not having the desire.

The problem I see here is that you are trying to use words to completely define something which cannot be fully expressed in words. Buddha's teaching requires practice, not intellectual or philosophical "understanding" of the words. When you start practicing and develop awareness of the things that happen within your mind and body, only then you truly get to "know" (experience) the difference between desire and detachment from desire.

> Essentially, Buddhism is about apathy. Why? Because poor people in India at the time of the rich-kid prince had no way to address suffering through action.

In a purely philosophical, sociological or historical sense, maybe you are right. But the intention and the practice of Buddha's teachings are most definitely not about apathy in any way, even if the words can be somehow thought of as meaning that. Again, the issue is that you truly need to experience these things within you to really know them.