Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/12 07:14 PM, Entice wrote: I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

I'm being as honest as I can. It is not helping that our society is premature and I have to explain myself by stating that it is in risk of making it sound like I'm perfect compared to it all.

At 10/30/12 07:13 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: Insanctuary needs to get his shit in line before he loses his virtual life, too.

Hatred comes from blind people.

At 10/30/12 07:10 PM, draco889 wrote: As I said before, The happiness of both parties after a trade is contingent on both parties being well informed before the trade. If someone decides to buy something they know nothing about and then experience buyer's remorse, its their fault. If someone lies about the product that they're trading, they go to jail.

Everything in this world revolves around happiness to many people, when happiness takes too much out of us to obtain, to cherish it when we have it. Contentment is greater and far more reliable than happiness. Contentment turns you into light-weight stone. Happiness turns you into a bubble. Which one pops first?

That is why we still have those child prostitution rings. You wonder why they hardly get caught by the police, when they surely have to get past them to cross the borders. And obviously the corporations that sleaze their way to encouraging debt. What about all of the children in debt from college student loans? You have no notion of what really goes on in the real world. I'd suggest you to do some research and perhaps experience some of it for yourself.

At 10/30/12 07:05 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: If you feel that you're being misrepresented, then represent yourself better. Given that nearly every single person you've come into contact with on this site feels the exact same "spite" towards the exact same "assumption" of you, it seems rather obvious that the communication error here is on your end, not ours.

It's not me that is poorly representing itself. The poorly developed society we live in is the culprit behind these misconceptions and needless semantics.

At 10/30/12 07:02 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Here comes the train wrecks...

At 10/30/12 06:52 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
Or there is a series of misconceptions and needless bantering over them.

Sure, well, ain't that's how Internet smartness wars on BBS has begun, right?

False.

No, trading is no more a human construct than religion or child prostitution rings. We can set up anything and give it a random purpose and name. This does not make it so. There was no value or implication of trade in life until we came to be. This does not make it mandatory. This just means we can make up stuff and pretend it means something important.

Have you ever read before shit, once? If whatsoever action has 'random' given purpose(s) and name, shouldn't it work anymore? The whatsoever called 'economy' is still working. Tell you what, samovar, you are part of it. Unless you are living in the forest with no whatsoever connection to the real world, then you have no status and voice to against something that works right in front of your nose.

I've never said it could not work. I'm expressing the idea that our reliability is not as reliable as we previously thought. The economy is tanking as we speak, and somehow the rich get richer and get to ruin our country for their imaginary fantasy lives in more tax cuts they already didn't need after the umpteenth tax cut they've gotten, and the poor subsidizes the rich and when it is not subsidizing the rich -- they don't exist.

So good right? Don't go out and buy food tomorrow? Do not use the Internet anymore, smurf. That's what we call, logic.

You are under the wrong impression of my intentions. There is no need to make any sudden decisions over contemplative means. Scrutiny of an idea is not security of an action.

At 10/30/12 06:53 PM, draco889 wrote: If you still disagree, then just pick up a basic economics textbook.

Being happy with the results doesn't mean your happiness of the results isn't the result of naivety.

At 10/30/12 06:43 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 06:28 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm not talking about a comprehensive similarity...

Computers have the same functionality as animals do < who wrote this then?

I did, but you took it out of its original context. After I've stated this, I mentioned the properties and symbolism they both apply themselves to without any state of awareness.

You've misunderstood my expressive concepts. I never said they were entirely identical. This would be preposterous.

See first reply.

They both still react to symbolism and are both unaware of everything else.

Proof or never happens.

Dogs are unaware of danger that is outside of their programmed selves. Chasing after people in cars is the result of their system not keeping up with today's advances. 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.

At 10/30/12 06:38 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:09 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
Capitalism is synonymous to trade. Is is built on making profits. Inorder to make profit, someone has to take the blow. This system is the mechanical version of the school-yard bully.

Good fucking god. Insanctuary, either you are trolling smart or you are speaking dumb.

Or there is a series of misconceptions and needless bantering over them.

Trading is part of human culture. You don't have to be in capitalism to proceed trading. Trading is the bridge between human civilizations. 2 different cultures that don't know each other, comes together with trading, therefore it forms economy. It is also synonymous with equally sharing. Sharing is what made Homo Sapiens different from the rest of animal world.

No, trading is no more a human construct than religion or child prostitution rings. We can set up anything and give it a random purpose and name. This does not make it so. There was no value or implication of trade in life until we came to be. This does not make it mandatory. This just means we can make up stuff and pretend it means something important.

Also thank to trading, human and their cultures don't go to the edge of extinction.

Trading only covers up the real problem. People do not have enough empathy of strongly structured moralistic values. People are deprived of our human qualities and are too bent out of shape by our old instinctual urges and the mechanistic side of ourselves.

At 10/30/12 06:26 PM, draco889 wrote: the point of a trade is that everyone profits as a result

You are very detatched from reality, then. Economics is not a fantasy system where everyone is rewarded in acts of trade. There is always loss of profit for someone in a trade. And there is no such thing as an even trade. There is only such a thing as an honest trade, and even that is very rare amongst strangers.

At 10/30/12 06:13 PM, Otto wrote: Well actually inflammable can be used to describe something not in the context of combustibility i.e. 'an inflammable way of thinking' whilst 'a flammable way of thinking' does not actually make any sense as it only refers to it in regards to fire.

You could easily say flammable. Why are you trying to resurrect the dead horse?

At 10/30/12 06:15 PM, Tankdown wrote: Not a single amount of hatred for yourself? Even a little?

I don't live as the person I am being accused for being. I'd hate what you accuse me for being, but I can not hate myself for the person I am in which is irrelevant to your accusations.

At 10/30/12 06:23 PM, dem0lecule wrote: I have to against you in this case. Good god, people who never know how a single computer chip works in their life argue about AI, fuck me please.

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

Artificial intelligence (AI) does not function the same way as natural intelligence (NI) does. AI does not, and never 'learn' the same ways as NI does; don't even mention about reaction.

I'm not talking about a comprehensive similarity. I said they both share the symbolic and reactional system.

You want AI? here, I give you a working one: stdin > process > stdout | if fail >> stderr | else > ignore. Given this much info, it does not mutate and learn more about things that it never encounter before. Anything doesn't work with the given system, will be dumping errors. This is the computer reaction, the most basic reaction of all AIs, in order to help it functioning well.

You've misunderstood my expressive concepts. I never said they were entirely identical. This would be preposterous.

Sum it all up computer can, and never leap out of the 'given zone'.

But any living thing, does.

They both still react to symbolism and are both unaware of everything else.

At 10/30/12 06:07 PM, draco889 wrote: No, wrong. To deny the existence of something implies that there is no existence. To deny the existence of something means that you are denying the idea that something exists. This is implicit. Normally I wouldn't harp on these kinds of details, but considering that you appear to be speaking a different form of English from the rest of us, I think its important to get straight.

Then I guess when the year is 3000, and your kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid is trying to open up one of the computer operated doors, then you must not exist if the computer voice says ''Access denied''.

At 10/30/12 06:02 PM, Entice wrote: Need I elaborate?

No, this is you taking things out of context again. When it comes to something like religion in this world, it is not as easy to deny something and have everyone agree with the logic behind the denial of X. So instead of denying X, for X never existed in the first place as there is zero evidence, you deny the assertions being made of an X.

At 10/30/12 05:52 PM, 4761 wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:53 PM, 4761 wrote: elaboration

They are only seperate if you confuse the political side of our society as being seperate from a normal group of people.

I never said that capitalism and trade are separate. They have separate definitions, but I said that capitalism involves trade, but trade does not necessarily involve capitalism. You are severely confusing what I am saying by stating that the two were separate, when really they had a specific relationship with each other that could be separate, but doesn't have to be.

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. 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.

Also, what is this about "political side of our society from a normal group of people"? What kind of half-assed analogy is that? First of all, you have to expand on what you mean by "normal". My definition of what a "normal" human being maybe different from yours. Secondly, I said that just because a society relies on trade, does not mean it relies on capitalism. Capitalism goes way beyond just trade; it has factors influencing the private sector, jobs, the market, everything that simple ordinary trade does not have. I never said once that those two things were separate, I said that were different, having one include the other but not vice-versa.

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

The governmental politics of trade are only the father of trade, while trade gave birth to the father of trade.

...Now you're just speaking complete nonsense. There is no such thing as "the father of trade". Trade is trade, it is an action. To say that there is a father of trade is like trying to say that there is a "father of eating" or "father or running". None of what you just said in this sentence makes any sort of sense.

No, I'm being expressive. Trade is minscule compared to Capitalism. Yet, Trade is what Capitalism was founded upon.

These people in Capitalism were once in Trade, before Capitalism was developed (as you define it).

As the dictionary defines it, actually.

You define it as the same as the dictionary.

The people that were in Trade (a word that you say is seperated from Capitalism)

Like I said, I never said the word trade is separated from capitalism, rather its definition is different to that of the word capitalism. Capitalism still involves and relies on trade, and therefore cannot be separated through this relationship

That is basically seperating them.

I find it hard to agree with your dictionary results and interpretation of the two terms.

That's because you lack common knowledge and rational sense to simply discern the definitions of two fundamentally different things.

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

Saying that capitalism is the same thing as trade is like saying a government is the same exact thing as making an army.

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''. The adult does not always guarantee expertise in mental exercises.

Just because capitalism involves trade or having a government involves making an army, does not mean they are the same exact thing.

It wasn't a good analogy.

At 10/30/12 05:41 PM, draco889 wrote: I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about capitalism. What are we arguing about now?

This is not derailing. This is branching off to a tenet that is keeping away concordance and discordance.

At 10/30/12 05:52 PM, Entice wrote: Did you ever drop one on a cat?

Your intentions are ignominious.

At 10/30/12 05:37 PM, draco889 wrote:

Definitions are biased. Look up the term 'atheist', you will see that it says ''A person who denies there being a God'', which is improper and biased to say. How do you deny what never was proven to be existent? They are not denying a God, they are denying the claims of God. You really shouldn't rely on definitions too much.

1) That definition of atheist is accurate. Something doesn't have to exist for you to deny its existence. I can refuse to admit that unicorns exist, and I wouldn't be wrong (most likely).

This is false. Denial of something implicates existence of something. To deny the existence of something is implying there may be an existence that you choose to deny. The definition is biased and inaccurate and should word it like this: ''A person that does not apply themselves to faith in antithetical values.''

2) In order to have a discussion, we need to agree on a common meaning for words. You can't just use "curiosity" in an unconventional manner and expect people to understand what you're trying to say. Maybe instead you should mention any redefinition of terms, and then we can all decide whether or not to accept the redefinition for purposes of discussion.

Curiosity is the intent to question. Question is to question, but not always followed by intent.

At 10/30/12 05:30 PM, mizzjuicyflava wrote: Ummmm... just because something doesn't go they way we planned doesn't mean we're not making progress. We just have to find a way to make it work.

This would be a falsifiable excuse. We have plenty of space and time to be constructive.

Hey what's going on here??

Nothing out of the ordinary.

At 10/30/12 05:24 PM, Tankdown wrote: Fantastic

Now what are your problems.

I don't have any. I'm physically, mentally and sexually healthy. I can do just about anything I set my mind to. I have no serious fears, and only avoid things like daredevil type heights. The proper question would be ''What was your problems that you've long fixed?'', and that would be anger issues, withdrawal, obsessed with pornography, being an asshole out of fear of my insecurities and obsessed with physical strength, hence I used to carry cinderblocks, of all things, around my neighborhood and 20 blocks down to a park from time to time. I have long fixed my weaknesses and my lifestyle.

At 10/30/12 05:30 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:25 PM, Insanctuary wrote: You can't change a room by placing different things into the room. It is still the same room with irrelevant additions.

Yes you can, because a large part of what defines the room is its contents. If you disagree, name other, greater things that define what the room is.

The room is one of the several parts of an area of residence. Nothing defines the room. We are giving the rooms different names like we give people different positions depending on what they do and wear.

Since the term flammable already was representing that something can easily set on fire. Inflammable is a useless term. This is not a synonym. ''Anger'' and ''ire'' atleast demonstrate different volumes of anger.

Not necessarily. "Angry" and "mad" in American English are more or less equivalent. "Inflammable" can also be used to describe demeanor I.E. "an inflammable personality".

The term ''mad'' represents an influx of irrational feelings that lead to bad judgement and mental illness. The term ''angry'' represents being upset and annoyed.

At 10/30/12 05:23 PM, Entice wrote: Insanctuary, do you have a doggy gimp suit?

Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

At 10/30/12 05:16 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:12 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:03 PM, Entice wrote: Of course clothes don't fundamentally change who someone is, but a room is defined to a greater degree by what is it than a person is by the clothes they wear. Unless you believe that a room has a "self" then your argument doesn't make much sense.

You base the change off of what you assume of the nature of the room and the nature of appearance, when any person can put on a police uniform and call themselves the police and any room can be turned into these labels you don't apply much effort into scrutinizing.

The point you're missing was covered by that guy who posted above me (sorry lol). A person is defined by their actions and personality, not their clothes. A room is defined by a combination of its contents, dimensions, and appearance. One can change a room by changing its contents.

You can't change a room by placing different things into the room. It is still the same room with irrelevant additions.

There are a lot of definitive mistakes in our languages, like inflammable, non-flammable and flammable. Why is inflammable even a word?

Since when was a synonym a definitive mistake?

Since the term flammable already was representing that something can easily set on fire. Inflammable is a useless term. This is not a synonym. ''Anger'' and ''ire'' atleast demonstrate different volumes of anger.

At 10/30/12 05:00 PM, Tankdown wrote: Poetic eh?

What conditions do you hold yourself too?

Responsibilities, self-discipline in intellectual virtues, perception and action, keeping myself alive and taking care of things critically and diligently.

What expected science of measure is held for a man of your logic? When testing the ideal state of the circumstances at large.

Science is the process of understanding the world, and Psychology is the process of understanding ourselves. Philosophy is the ring-leader that brings it all together.

Freedom from delusions of utopia. Isn't that the context of these posts?

We are not in a utopia, but we are living inside of our heads and neglecting the real world.

At 10/30/12 05:06 PM, Scarface wrote: There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is someone saying they have the right to say X, but someone else is immature and rude for saying Y.

That is what people do when they convince others to follow X, even when X is of opaque nature. They make you feel like you are a sinner, a bad person, or a sheep.

At 10/30/12 05:03 PM, Entice wrote: Of course clothes don't fundamentally change who someone is, but a room is defined to a greater degree by what is it than a person is by the clothes they wear. Unless you believe that a room has a "self" then your argument doesn't make much sense.

You base the change off of what you assume of the nature of the room and the nature of appearance, when any person can put on a police uniform and call themselves the police and any room can be turned into these labels you don't apply much effort into scrutinizing. There are a lot of definitive mistakes in our languages, like inflammable, non-flammable and flammable. Why is inflammable even a word?

At 10/30/12 04:54 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/30/12 04:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: That definition is primarily for human beings.

There's nothing in the definition that says so. In the English language it's usually used for humans but there's no rule that animals cannot perceive, because they do.

What you define as perceiving is not perceiving. It is reacting to their instinstive agents and symbolism.

You are misconstruing it to fit with your concept for animals, but this is falsifiable.

How so?

Animals don't have perception.

Perception is not equal to senses. Animals have senses, but they do not have the awareness to have perception. They see a picture, and they act on their greatly ingrained agents to react to the symbolism, but they are not able to do anymore than that.

Yes, that is the same as perception.

No, perception is awareness, which is what animals do not have.

Dogs can use their senses to perceive the world around them. The reactions you mentioned are proof. They "identify [the world] by means of the senses". That's the dictionary definition mentioned above.

If they weren't able to perceive the world they wouldn't be able to react to it. They'd be like blind robots with no sensory input.

Yes, they can react to it in the same as an evolved computer form of plant life.

At 10/30/12 04:45 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Yes it does. My room now has a TV in it. The nature of the room itself has changed. Just like putting an oven, dishwasher and sink in one of my "rooms" has made it a kitchen and not a bathroom.

Applying additional appliances are not correlative with the room itself. Very much the same way that what we wear does not change who we are.

At 10/30/12 04:35 PM, Suprememessage wrote: I said everyone not everybody. You really are stupid. Here, let me lay it out for you, you take things that people know, common sense if you will, and reword it to sound sophisticated. You're nothing more than a fraud.

You act as if it makes much of a difference. You resorted to a logical fallacy, which was my point. I don't expect myself to agree with someone who judges me with logical fallacies.

At 10/30/12 04:39 PM, Entice wrote: Stop looking into dog's minds. That's my way of saying stop skullfucking your dog man.

That definition is primarily for human beings. You are misconstruing it to fit with your concept for animals, but this is falsifiable. Perception is not equal to senses. Animals have senses, but they do not have the awareness to have perception. They see a picture, and they act on their greatly ingrained agents to react to the symbolism, but they are not able to do anymore than that.

At 10/30/12 04:34 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: If you still cannot understand it, just give up.

I've responded to what he had said in one of my recent posts.

At 10/30/12 04:14 PM, Otto wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:43 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Wrong entirely. Passion is not labour. Doing things because you can is not work.

It's not 'work' per se, but when you do something you do it because your brain thinks it will recieve pleasure from it. That is the fundamentals of doing anything. Incentive is hard-wired. You literally cannot argue with that. If I do a drawing, it might on the face of it be 'because I can' but really I'm doing it because my brain gets a little dopamine hit when I finish it and feel pleased with myself.

In Capitalism, there is always a large group of being being capitalized straight into poverty, while their body and energy was slaved into providing fortune to the already fortune bearers. They milk you when you're a cow, sheer you when you're a sheep, rape you when you're exposed and leave you for the wolves to eat.

If we remove the pleasure pathways of the brain, i.e. incentive, then we'd do fuck all. Likewise if we had a button that could stimulate it, we'd just sit there pressing the button.

The problem is not the chemical features of ourselves. It is us abusing them and misinterpreting them for our personal affairs.

At 10/30/12 04:29 PM, Tankdown wrote: May God have mercy on your soul...

The governmental trade is elusive to our qualities as a human. We sacrifice our attributes for an imaginary system.

What you interpret as values are not values. They are self interests. There is a difference between monetary value and self interests.

My alleged rhetoric is the result of you generalizing from the accusation that I'm generalizing.

The world does not change. There is just more stuff on it. We still stand in the same world the cavemen did. That concept of change is an illusion. Life repeats itself in balanced harmony along with its nuances, while we bury it with our constructions. All we did was replace a lot of nature with our stuff. That is not change. Placing a plasma TV in your room does not change your room. It just means there is a plasma TV in your room.

At 10/30/12 04:16 PM, Suprememessage wrote: My difference is something I like. I makes me think I'm far superior to you. Everyone hates my sorry ass. I feel as if you're not hateful people, I just am fucking stupid I make the nicest people want to murder me and feed me to wolves.

It takes a nobody to say 'everybody'.

At 10/30/12 03:50 PM, draco889 wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

My thresholds of perception are delicate, and I consider even the smallest of symbolisms. Our self-awareness facilitates our tool of perception. Perception did not come before self-awareness.

Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

Animals do not have perception. They are deeply mechanical, which is why our advancements in society has revealed errors in their natural system of coding. Dogs still go around in circles as if they did back in the wild. They do not have perception of self-awareness. They can not adapt to our new world; and already adaptable animals can only adapt to what they are biologically able to adapt to.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Definitions are biased. Look up the term 'atheist', you will see that it says ''A person who denies there being a God'', which is improper and biased to say. How do you deny what never was proven to be existent? They are not denying a God, they are denying the claims of God. You really shouldn't rely on definitions too much.

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

I don't follow.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

They are very much the same.

You don't see the world "with the questions you ask".

As you question the world, new perceptions are revealed to thy self. Without curiosity, you live in confusion.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

I consider the frivolous aspects of life. Therefore curiosity, and the act of asking questions, are seperate symbolic features. Not all questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions.

I still don't understand. Curiosity is "the desire to learn or know about anything; inquisitiveness". We would not act upon our desire to know (i.e ask questions) if said desire didn't exist. Again, i don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

The definitions are paper-weighted interpretations of the symbolism behind our colloque. You rest your ideas too much unto falliable premises.

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

Imagination doesn't always come with questions. All questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions. When you are discussing with me, there is a point in time where you have to consider the smallest of details. I take every grain of sand of my ideological island into consideration.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We always will have the ability to question. There is not a time where we can't ask questions.

I have to agree with this one. Saying that someone's "curiosity knows no bounds" is a figure of speech. It doesn't imply that the person is immortal.

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

Asking questions does not lead to curiosity everytime. Much of us are not prepared to be curious, but many of us are prepared to ask questions. This is regardless if we are asking the wrong questions.

Ok, how about you tell us exactly what you mean by "curiosity" because you aren't using the word correctly.

The intent to question.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

My premise is sound.

Nonsense.

Sense.

I don't see how you have any premise at all. Your post is a bunch of loosely connected statements. This one can't even be said to be a conclusion because you don't make any real propositions from which a conclusion can follow. That aside, I guess I agree with this particular statement.

The statements are well intact on my side. This is a problem with the perception on your side.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

You've misinterpreted it.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

All of what I've said coincides as a single aggregated concept of perception. It's sound.

I don't see how this example relates to statements preceding it. I don't see what the example is striving to prove. Yes, you can make the L represent a word other than "loser" if you want. What's your point? That an object or action can symbolize multiple things? Again, how do the previous remarks lead up to this?

To allow people to break the old perception, and give birth to new perceptions.

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Please, remove all irrelevant quotes, as if it was not already confusing enough to remember which indentions represented which responses from which persons.