[Eisenstein]

> And I don’t appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth.

By having an answer which means one thing but you contend means another then you are having me guess at what the answer is. Answer the question or refuse to answer the question, or ask for a refinement of the question. Don't write an answer and then go off about how it doesn't mean what it obviously appears to mean.

> That you seem to think they are the same thing - with no evidence, and without addressing it - seems to actually be the crux of the problem, no?

Hmmm...who is putting words into which person's mouth?

You are writing a load of lecture material which is what you want to say but is not applicable to the question I asked:

'Do you believe that wealth is an inherent right even if the accumulation of that wealth or the holding of that wealth is a detriment to society?'

[lazide]

'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question]

I've been quite clear on my position (direct and implied). Why won't you be?

I'm interested in desired outcomes and expected behaviors and tradeoffs, not idealism. Sophistry is the enemy of realism and truth. A type of 'crabs in the bucket' mentality, actually, as it's about 'winning the debate' instead of 'coming to the truth'.

For example, your question is presupposing that there is ANY course of action that won't produce an outcome with some 'detriment to society', or at least some part of it. Or that a course of action could not have both positives AND negatives for the same people in society. Or that a right is ever actually inherent/inalienable, or not. Or that folks in a society may have the right to determine (independently) what they consider to be to their detriment or not.

Among other things.

What desired outcome are YOU advocating for?

Will you actually address the real questions?

[Eisenstein]

"Does one have the right to have wealth (control enough resources) that one can impede society by act of controlling things and making them not-useful or exploiting them in a way that is a detriment to society?"

This is an easy question to answer, and you answered it and then un-answered your answer. Probably because when I clarified your answer to mean what it meant (by taking control of things away from people who are using them in a way society deems not useful or harmful, you are removing their wealth and thus they do not have a right to it) you violated some kind of principle you thought you held and had to backtrack.

Instead of engaging with this thought process you just proceeded to deliver a few unwanted lectures on things that you felt necessary. I must assume you lack the self-awareness and/or are regarding the question as loaded because it uses a word: wealth, which has a very distinct meaning (but you feel is being used ideologically).

[lazide]

Ho boy. I wish you luck with your future adventures, because you're going to need it.

Ciao!