Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/12 09:16 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: also you are a neckbeard who sits in his dark room all day getting horny about what shitty thread hes going to share with his only friends at newgrounds next

Are you implying that you were on the verge of spying on me? But instead looked into the wrong house? Besides, my threads only get shitty when you're in them.

At 10/30/12 09:13 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
You are shitting on blame, for you blame blame for being blame as it is not properly blamed.

Circular logic. FAIL.

No, that would be me ignoring your ignorance. I put the ignor in your ignorance. How does that make you feel?

If you think really hard about it, being ignorant leads to its own analogies and metaphors.

If I was ignorant I wouldn't think very hard about it, because thinking hard takes discipline, discipline is a learned trait, and ignorance means not have knowledge. Self learned knowledge is not the same as ignorance.

Not if thinking hard was sarcastic.

Yes, because it is more boring than watching someone tell me clearly they suck dicks, but are unable, for the life of them, to back up their claims with explanations -- not even vague ones.

God that was boring.

So is masturbating for you, hence you have nothing.

No, that would primarily be you masturbating your spidey senses until your explode into a fit of ignorance, then spiral out of control into the plaque riddled gardens, face first, while hearing the whimsical tears of your self-defeatism blowing in the strange air that is flowing through the ass crack of your impaired consciousness.

Self-defeatism? You do realize that I actually have a pretty awesome social life, right?

That's what the prostitutes say.

At 10/30/12 09:07 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: It would remind me that you are alive and make me depressed

Yes, because I'm everything you wanted to be. Compassionate, intelligent, awesome, a babe magnet, I have a big dick, I have control over my negative problems, I have meat on my bones, I don't look like I just climbed my way out of a random graveyard aftering dying from a heart attack for being such a sap in life, I have a wonderful girlfriend who would do anything and let me do anything, I understand life, while your life drains away, I have no disorders and... I don't live in one of the shittiest states in history.

At 10/30/12 09:03 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: capitalism is for people who didn't take bachelors philosophy in college insanctuary

Capitalism is for people who leech off of the misfortunate. I would say that you are leeched off of it, but according to all of your skeleton pictures, you have no meat left. And now, you leech off of the people on a seperate envious trip to Capitalism to compensate for your meat shortage. Good thing you never had a dick, oh, that would be a major loss for you.

At 10/30/12 08:58 PM, Entice wrote: That's a hate crime.

No, I'm saying that ''faggot'' would be the most ''original'' anti-gay comment. I may be 100% against you, seeking to break down homosexuality for the psychological impairment that it is and always make this clear in every post regarding the subject, I don't resort to calling you a faggot; that is outrageously counter-intuitive.

At 10/30/12 08:56 PM, 4761 wrote: Here, you deserve this:

Here, I fixed the typo you accidentally made while thinking about yourself:

At 10/30/12 08:50 PM, Entice wrote: Most original anti-gay argument ever 10/10

That would be ''faggot''.

At 10/30/12 08:48 PM, 4761 wrote: I agree.

You assume I am making sweeping generalizations, all the while you take the naked definitive form of a word and completely ignore the possibility that this word is falsely representing a symbol.

At 10/30/12 08:41 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: What problem?

You like dicks like pedophiles like children.

At 10/30/12 08:41 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

I do not. You are the one who braces definitions and not what those definitions were made to represent in a general and collective manner.

You are shifting blame. FAIL. ALWAYS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

You are shitting on blame, for you blame blame for being blame as it is not properly blamed.

Saying they are meaningless does not make them meaningless. Atleast you admit that I have an argument.

Analogies and metaphors are frippery and you know it. Solid logic and prose rarely go hand in hand.

If you think really hard about it, being ignorant leads to its own analogies and metaphors.

Give me an example of my grammatical errors and incorrect syntax.

You're kidding, right? You're TRYING to get him to nit pick? Way to make the conversation boring.

Yes, because it is more boring than watching someone tell me clearly they suck dicks, but are unable, for the life of them, to back up their claims with explanations -- not even vague ones.

This would be the exact opposite of me. I don't have a pseudophilosophical agenda.

Bullshit. Everyone does. Some people push it, some people don't. I push mine in order to see if it holds any weight. My philosophy of hate has weathered many, many debates. Hell, that's how it formed. I didn't really start out to have a doctrine at all, but whenever I chose the strongest one and stuck with it, hate was the way to go. Now is the part where you admit to being a taoist.

No, that would primarily be you masturbating your spidey senses until your explode into a fit of ignorance, then spiral out of control into the plaque riddled gardens, face first, while hearing the whimsical tears of your self-defeatism blowing in the strange air that is flowing through the ass crack of your impaired consciousness.

ITT: The real bad posters that make me look like a good poster in terms of people's accusatory mannerisms.

At 10/30/12 08:28 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:24 PM, Insanctuary wrote: For someone who is hell-bent over the accusatory, pseudo-philosophical basis that I have daddy issues

Your daddy issues are purely psychological, not philosophical.

It's both.

and resort to pseudo-philosophy, you sure are one to resort to pseudo-philosophy, yourself.

When I say "I like sucking dicks" there is nothing remotely philosophical, analogical or metaphorical about it. I just like dicks.

This would be a psychological and philosophical problem. You should look into it, and by this, I do not mean your boyfriend's asshole as you give him a rimjob.

At 10/30/12 08:15 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: I think he's given up on the "definition of capitalism vs definition of trade" thing and is using the room philosophy to try and elaborately prove that words don't really mean what we think they mean.

Capitalism is the same as Trade.

Government people are the same as people.

Trade =/= Establishment

Object =/= Room

Definition =/= Establishment

5 7 3 =/= 2 5 7

At 10/30/12 08:20 PM, Tankdown wrote: ........Why in god's name wouldn't I expect you to read my avatar's name!? Or did you think I calculated that you have a short term memory span for whoever posts in the threads you make!?

I don't understand your intentions right now, but the more you test my patience, the more power I will have over you.

At 10/30/12 08:22 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:12 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Is it because you can't do it yourself with that dick in your mouth?

Start to piss? Good.
No.
Beside, one can't put his own dick into his own mouth. Pic yourself or never happens. Derp!
Too bad you can't put your dick in your own hands, because...

This entire time I was debating the concept behind animals not having a sense of awareness. Where were you?

And why did you even bring up the learning outside of the box? Hmm? Again, wanna quote, my Greasemoney scripts saved all your arguments.

Because humans can advance and leave every other life form to rust over in limited capabilities?

It is like saying a kid can run from the police because they are a fast runner.

What about there are kids can outrun cops, because the are actually fast runners. Pseudo logic has just failed in many ways.

You must be very obese, then.

Falsifiable? Ha!

Reminds me of when the antagonist says ''Beat me?! Ha!'', then 2 minutes later they lose and the protagonist wins. If anything, you're not a protagonist nor a antagonist, you're a fagtagonist.

I know it wasn't a word, but it felt so good typing it up. Same goes for the word ''pawnlyness''. I didn't jump to self-awareness, you've just caught up with the 5 1 0.

Alzheimer is the hell of a disease.

You would know -- wouldn't you?

No, we are not. We are human beings with an advanced cognition. Animals don't have what we do. We are not animals because we do not respond to our instinctive orders unless we give into them.
Animals and computers don't learn outside of the box. Humans facilitate the intelligence of animals and build artificial intelligence. We are the fathers of intelligence, but too busy being babies right now.

Someone never takes biology. Oops. Like I said, read before shit.

I know biology, and I contest that it fully influences our behaviour patterns. There is a mix of physiological means and psychological means that are enhanced by our self-awareness to create an even more complicated level of interaction.

At 10/30/12 08:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Sucking dicks is the best thing since sliced bread you insufferable moron. Also your daddy issues are showing, again.

For someone who is hell-bent over the accusatory, pseudo-philosophical basis that I have daddy issues and resort to pseudo-philosophy, you sure are one to resort to pseudo-philosophy, yourself.

At 10/30/12 08:11 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:06 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: I don't see how having an unconventional position makes someone a bad poster

Having an unconventional position is most certainly not what makes him a bad poster. What makes him a bad poster is the following:

*braces self*

He substitutes his own definitions of words for the actual definitions.

I do not. You are the one who braces definitions and not what those definitions were made to represent in a general and collective manner.

He sprinkles meaningless analogies and metaphors all across his arguments.

Saying they are meaningless does not make them meaningless. Atleast you admit that I have an argument.

His grammar and syntax is appalling.

Give me an example of my grammatical errors and incorrect syntax.

He refuses to accept demonstrable fact as evidence if it doesn't fit in with his pseudophilosophical agenda.

This would be the exact opposite of me. I don't have a pseudophilosophical agenda.

At 10/30/12 08:09 PM, Tankdown wrote: Yes, I did indirectly accuse you that time.

As long as you do not accuse me, then you don't have to worry with me. Alas, I still remember your responses to me in my other threads, so I am still watching your every intention towards me.

At 10/30/12 08:07 PM, dem0lecule wrote: So this thread is actually swinging between capitalism, trading and room philosophy. So fucking much for Insanctuary.

They are all one and the same.

At 10/30/12 08:04 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: So what's our best alternative to capitalism? Libertarianism is pretty neato but good luck finding a backing strong enough to carry it through another election cycle.

Libertarianism is borderline democracy, and the way our people are right now, democracy depends on the very people they can not depend on themselves, hence governments, leaders and Gods. This would only lead us up a cold path to ineptitude.

At 10/30/12 08:03 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 07:51 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
You're missing the point that we are self-aware, regardless if we have to sustain a ground for morals, critical thought and acting on the many aspects of life.

I wish we have a triple face palm icon on here.

Is it because you can't do it yourself with that dick in your mouth?

What the fuck did you just say? You were talking on learning outside the box, and suddenly you derail it to self-awareness? Self-awareness has absolutely nothing to do with doing shit outside of the box. In fact

This entire time I was debating the concept behind animals not having a sense of awareness. Where were you?

So you are telling me that dogs can't learn to do anything except tricks and dodging cars if they survive the first one?

You are the asshole who said dog can't learn, wanna quote?

No, I'm making the point that your interpretation for animals being able to learn from their lessons is fasifiable. It is like saying a kid can run from the police because they are a fast runner. This doesn't mean they aren't good at reacting to obstacles.

They can't go beyond their programming. They are old computers in a world being developed by new and improved computers that are self-aware.

You are taking out the fact we are self-aware from this very important discussive formula.

Cough & cough. Are you having Alzheimer? One moment you talking about learning the next thing you jump to self-awareness. Also, 'discussive' ain't a word. Nice to sum up your making up shits.

I know it wasn't a word, but it felt so good typing it up. Same goes for the word ''pawnlyness''. I didn't jump to self-awareness, you've just caught up with the 5 1 0.

You are still under the impression that this determines animals are closer to humans and not computers. Computers do trial and error to. Computers react to languages and symbols.

For the last time, human belongs to animal, for fuck sake. Computer do trial and error because it has been given so to do. Says you tell a program to scanf("%c"); and you asshole inputs an integer, the program fails to function. Learn some logic and at least research before you argue on, professor.

No, we are not. We are human beings with an advanced cognition. Animals don't have what we do. We are not animals because we do not respond to our instinctive orders unless we give into them.

Computers have a short life span...

What does it even have anything to do with learning outside the box ability, and your shitty derailed self-awareness?

Animals and computers don't learn outside of the box. Humans facilitate the intelligence of animals and build artificial intelligence. We are the fathers of intelligence, but too busy being babies right now.

At 10/30/12 08:01 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: So what's our best alternative to capitalism? Libertarianism is pretty neato but good luck finding a backing strong enough to carry it through another election cycle.

Wrong thread.

At 10/30/12 08:00 PM, koopahermit wrote: I never said I hate you. You're just a bad poster.

You either love your enemies because you are morally bankrupt, or hate them. There is no point where your enemy is on fair grounds. By calling me an enemy, you are hating on me.

At 10/30/12 07:57 PM, koopahermit wrote: Bad posters are our enemies. You are a bad poster. You are our enemy.

Hatred comes from blind people. Blind people make bad posts. Bad posters call me a bad poster. I don't concur.

ITT: Those whom became slaves to their bodily chemicals.

At 10/30/12 07:45 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Says the enemy.

I am the antithesis of an enemy. How am I an enemy?

At 10/30/12 07:47 PM, 4761 wrote: Up Next: Insanctuary tries to argue that a roll of toilet paper is synonymous with a bathroom!

That satire defeats itself. I was already discussing with Entice that objects in the room do not incorporate the nature of the room.

At 10/30/12 07:34 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Busted in 3, 2, 1... So as human, chump. Toddlers do not aware of most danger. Adults aware of it because they has been taught this or that way. Give them total strange task and tell them to solve. Wanna bet, I say 90% will fail to aware. What about 10%? See below.

You're missing the point that we are self-aware, regardless if we have to sustain a ground for morals, critical thought and acting on the many aspects of life.

But that's why we have terms like 'evolution', 'mutation' and especially 'learning' and 'trial and error', right? The first dog will chase after car, if it survives or realize whatsoever of its action did is useless, (before you jump up and say no, dog doesn't aware! Get your ass to Wikipedia, first) the dog will not repeat the first action. The possibility is low, still, it happens.

So you are telling me that dogs can't learn to do anything except tricks and dodging cars if they survive the first one?

That's why most animals have the 'teaching each other' system. It exists for a reason. If ones fail something, other simply never repeat it again. Same as living cells, or bacteria, if ones fail to exist, other will mutate. These are what defines learning.

You are taking out the fact we are self-aware from this very important discussive formula.

Computer does not, and never! Proof or never happens. Oh ho, someone is arguing how computer functioning with a computer hacker. Great!

You are still under the impression that this determines animals are closer to humans and not computers. Computers do trial and error to. Computers react to languages and symbols. Computers have a short life span...

At 10/30/12 07:21 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: Shut the fuck up. I may be blind, but ur still ugly!

All I'm saying, is that you act like I'm the enemy here, when you attack me like an enemy.

At 10/30/12 07:25 PM, dem0lecule wrote: This does not make it mandatory. This just means we can make up stuff and pretend it means something important.

I knew where your misconception attributed itself. Now, tell me where I've clearly implied that the system should be abandoned instantly.

At 10/30/12 07:19 PM, 4761 wrote:

I'm expressing the idea that what you say only makes sense when you seperate town's people with governmental people. The idea here, is what you see as difference is actually one and the same. Capitalism was founded upon trade.

Your original point was that capitalism is the same thing as trade, not that it was founded by trade, this was what I was trying to get on.

I made both points coherently.

The only reason why you think it is different, is because of the tenet that government is seperate from people, when the government are no more people than the town's people.

No, I think they are different because they have completely different definitions. Is this concept hard to grasp? Also, I never even once mentioned that the government is separate from the people. Stop pulling out these tidbits of misinformation out of your ass, please. If I had to refute to that earlier, I would have said that the government is composed out of people but to say that they are the same entities is pure nonsense.

You're imply it, for that is the only difference between the two words. Then you say they are two entities, when the establishment creates the illusion of difference. Trade is in both, while one is a founder of the other and the other is more powerful than the other.

Town's people and the higher powered people. You've just explained why it is the father of Trade.

How so?

Capitalism is more powerful and provacative than Trade.

You define it as the same as the dictionary.

You are making it sound like those two definitions are only my personal interpretations when they really are a broad overview of the terms that sensible people accept.

There are a lot of problematic definitions. It is best not to quickly rely on a definition of a representative for a symbol.

That is basically seperating them.

Apparently, you also don't know the definition of what "separating" is. You don't even know how to spell it properly.

Apparently I don't know how to spell it. Doesn't matter, for now I do and that mistake won't happen again.

They are not fundamentally different, because they still have to do with distribution of trade.

Just because they have to do with trade does not mean that they don't have a fundamental difference. A cellphone company and a postal service company both have to do with telecommunication, but that doesn't mean that they aren't both very different things.

That is a bad analogy. Capitalism is global distribution of products -- the same products as Trade, but on a bigger scale.

The only reason why there is a difference is not even a fundamental difference, for being of the political position and having power is why Capitalism went beyond Trade.

First of all, I see absolutely no reason why you should capitalize "trade". It is an action, not a proper noun.
Second, the political and economic aspect of Capitalism is actually what makes if a fundamental difference between it and just trade. The political aspect of it encompasses a numerous variety of economic regulations and functions that go beyond the simple act of trading. Saying that "oh the only difference between capitalism and trade is political position" is a heavy understatement, because that sole difference is a huge defining factor between the two terms.

You don't suppose you have not read any books where people capitalize particular words to emphasize intent behind those words? Huge defining factor is an illusion. You have this political value confusing you from understanding the genuine fundamentals of Trade and not the false fundamentals of Trade.

They are both solely defined on the term of Trade, but the only reason why you seperate them definitely,

is because one has more power over the other. This has nothing to do with the framework of commercing.

No, we separate them (or rather, say that they are different, because "separation" is the wrong word to actually describe it) because they have different definitions.. This has absolutely nothing to do with "power".

Government comes from rule, power and order.

This is false. Saying that capitalism is not the same as trade, is like saying that an adult has more power over a child because they have ''authority''.

No it is not like that. Where are you coming up with this bullshit called "power"? Capitalism is not a person or entity, it cannot hold power over anything or anyone. So to say it "has more authority over trade" is wrongly personifying the actual term.

People can use grouped words to define a shared personality. When we address the religious people by 'The Church', we do the same thing.

It wasn't a good analogy.

Oh, and you come up with good analogies? Don't make me laugh.

I like to think I do.

When you say that Capitalism is the same exact thing as trade, you are completely ignoring the things that trade doesn't have from capitalism. Capitalism does so much more, and yet you ignore all of that and say "because they have to do with the distribution of trade" that somehow they are magically the same thing. You are taking two very different things that have a specific relationship to each other, taking the smaller aspect of it, and bloating it up so its the bigger object when it really isn't.

Doing much more is not the same as being do much more in the acts of Trade. Capitalism operates with the latter, and not the former. You give them too much credit, when they are Trade on steroids, so to speak.

But I won't argue much further. I believe I already gave out the definitions of what Capitalism and trade are, from a trustworthy dictionary. The sole notion of these two very different terms being the same is ludicrous when you take into account that they are noted to have different definitions, functions, and everything else out of the dictionary.

You still do not grasp the false values you extract from your falsifiable tenets.

Simply looking at the two terms and saying "Nah, they're still the same, it's just that one has more "authority" over the other" is rejection from rationality. What's next, are you going to say that a postal service system is the exact same thing as the act of sending mail to another person via envelope? Hey! They both have to do something with sending mail! One just has more "authority" over the other.

No, it is rejection from sweeping generalizations. I'm breaking it all down piece by piece, and you pick up these pieces by the handful and not piece by piece like I am attempting to do.