Namaste all,
thank you for the interesting OP.
i didn't see it explicitly addressed in the thread but if so then it wouldn't hurt to repeat it
there is a general sort of view which finds Buddha Dharma puzzling for a variety of reasons one of which is the misunderstanding regarding desire and the roles that this psychological state manifests.
an oft cited argument that one can find primarily on Muslim apologetics sites frames the argument, paraphrased, thusly: Buddhism teaches that desire is bad and it teaches that one must strive to realize the teachings. You must desire this goal and the use of desire is bad thus Buddhism is contradictory and self-refuting.
the argument, itself, is reflective of the authors own religious paradigm rather than Buddha Dharma and falls into the same quoting out of context data mining that one frequently finds when dealing with apologetics in the Semetic traditions.
generally speaking the issue here is one of definition and selectivity. Desire, even in English, has several different meanings which range from positive to somewhat negative and the intended meaning of the term can only be discerned from within the context of its' usage.
in Buddhism desire is denoted as having three aspects; negative, positive and neutral in terms of how such a psychological state can colour karma. within the context of the OP the question of discernment is somewhat difficult given that we <i'm speaking liberally for us all though i recognize some beings have resolved these issues> have a consciousness which is deluded regarding the nature of things. we have flashes, like a bolt of lightening which rends the night sky revealing everything, of insight into some aspects and such flashes can help guide us along our way.
my estimation is that desire which seeks to benefit others, help them when they need it and such is desire which is positive whereas desire which seeks its' own end, pleasing only oneself, is negative though this is due mainly to the manner in which desire has arisen rather than being a quality distinct to desire per se. in other words desire has a neutral character when non-manifest but changes or adopts the positive or negative character based on the consciousness of the being in whom it arises.
this view of desire is rather simplistic and tends to view it as entirely positive or negative when it arises. within the Buddha Dharma it is taught that all psychological states are combinations in varying degrees and so as we understand the term "love" in English to have several different qualities, maternal, paternal, fraternal, romantic and cheeseburgers, Buddha Dharma teaches that desire also has different qualities though rather than being modified by the way in which it is manifest towards others desire is modified by or to the extent that the being has resolved ignorance.
metta,
~v