Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/12 04:06 PM, naronic wrote: Does the numerous responses that tell you you're fucking annoying tell you anything about your behavior?

No, but it does tell me what you assume of my behaviour.

At 10/30/12 02:40 PM, Tankdown wrote: Rants are like television. They're pointless, vaguely on a meaningful topic, will rot your brain, and kill some time. So let's have fun.

Economics trickles down to value. Value can depend on what is put into it. The idea that paper is more worthy of gold, assuming gold cannot serve it's usefulness. There are rarer metals than gold, more conductive properties than gold, and so on. Value can depend on the purpose; which is usually relative to people. Art is meaningful to a sensitive man than science is useful to a practical man. So how do you put value into anything? I have to acknowledge the value of material goods driven from the ideals of non material goods. I have to put value into food driven by the my motivation from hunger. I have to put value into a good bed based on my senses and reasons for liking a firm or soft cushion. The laws of value also appear to trickle down to an arbitrary nature.

Economics breaks down to the distribution of false value systems. Applying value to food is not applying value. We are intrinsically developed to eat. That is not a value. That is a result from your body reacting to the lack of nutrients. Beds did not exist back then. This is not a value system. This is an expectation system and a built in physiological system.

So should I have any value? Myself a man driven by self interests will need value into whatever. Which usually is consideration of others. Which usually based on the meaningful necessaries of human character. Which usually trickles down to whatever the person needs to suffer at proper times to strengthen themselves in a education cycle of karma and life.

This world would grind you up, electrocute you, burn your flesh and suffocate you because there are no real values in us or in this world. Your self-interests is more esoteric than the Capitalistic system of values. Empathy is what we have as a child, and it slowly dissolves as we become prideful and careless of our accountabilities when we are older and angry at the responsibilities we now have.

Never have I witness a animal that unadapted to a unchanging environment. No will to work when not needed, no need to learn without a motive, and no need to life without the plenty of death. Capitalism doesn't capture all of the unknowable's of human character, but it's more effective of all the other crap out there.

We are not animals, and we have unadapted ourselves to an unchanging environement, hence the existential crisis and our rebellious attributions. Actions and consequences. Moralistic systems and epistemological systems. Awareness and diligence. These are really the fundamentals of life.

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. The governmental politics of trade are only the father of trade, while trade gave birth to the father of trade. These people in Capitalism were once in Trade, before Capitalism was developed (as you define it). The people that were in Trade (a word that you say is seperated from Capitalism) created Capitalism. I find it hard to agree with your dictionary results and interpretation of the two terms.

At 10/30/12 03:43 PM, naronic wrote: Insanctuary is a troll, don't feed him.

I'm not a troll. You only call me this because you disagree with my viewpoints, while ignoring that I have a right to have my say. Whereas, I'm a simple person spending their time to understand the many reactions that each of you have. I ask questions and send ripples through the surface of the water to get different reactions so I can discover different mannerisms of control and action.

At 10/30/12 03:29 PM, Otto wrote: Well fine, so then I came with thorns too you mong

So much pain in your words. So much hatred. So much turmoil. Where do you get off calling me with pejoratives? What does it do in turn for your spite towards not me, but what you assume of me?

At 10/30/12 03:25 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: no, ask yourself 50 times if you aren't in a corner whilst in a corner

You apply no effort to understand me, while you apply effort into making me look bad. That's not very intuitive.

At 10/30/12 03:23 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:43 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade?

What growth? All of our advancements did not come from Capitalism.

Trade and capitalism are not one and the same. This has already been explained to you.

They both are systems of trade for profits. How are they not the same?

People built and developed themselves without incentives.

Wrong entirely. The incentive for doing work is the result of that work.

Wrong entirely. Passion is not labour. Doing things because you can is not work.

You are assuming the falsifiable tenent that we will do nothing if there is no incentive or drive.

Explain why any sane human would commit themselves to a task if they had no incentive or apprent reason to do so.

I do it all of the time. My father does it all of the time. I know several people who do things because they can and not because they expect something out of it.

Our founding fathers alone built a society with their minds. It wasn't money that built all of what they've built -- only for us to dismantle it all in a few decades.

Explain how your founding fathers built a society without the use of trade, bearing in mind that trade does not equate to capitalism.

Go read their speeches, listen to their intentions at work. See what they've done via their intentions and not their incentives. If these were incentives, they would've built a turpid society like the one we live in today.

Capitalism is synonymous to trade.

Completely wrong. Trade is a fundamental tenet of any society that wants to last more than a week. It does not necessarily imply or equate to capitalism. Three times now have I explained this to you.

Explained what? You are speaking in riddles and are not clarifying the difference between Trade and Capitalism. You only state your expectations for me to see the difference, but you do not contribute that difference you claim there of being.

Explain how it is possible for society to prosper without the use of trade, whether it be done under capitalism or communism or otherwise.
Explain why pre-capitalist society, without the influence of consumer-capitalism, didn't reach the heights it eventually reached when capitalism exploded.

The same way religion did. It was forced. People did not have any choice.

In no way does that answer anything I have asked you, and it doesn't even make sense as a response.
I asked you to explain how it is possible for a society to prosper (i.e. grow) without the use of trade of any kind.
I asked you to explain why pre-capitalist society didn't grow with the speed and intensity of capitalist society.

It does. People were forced into submitting to doing other people's dirty work. They were turned into sheep through fear, supression and control. This system is the boot to our lives, and you encourage it with vagueness. You assume we have to have an incentive because you personally can't get through life yourself without something in return. This is not about capitalism anymore. This is about you, and your personal misunderstanding of how life does not revolve around imaginary incentives and labour. Capitalism is synonymous to trade. You are being vague. You make me answer questions, just so you can answer them with more questions. The speed and intensity is from the same exact facilitation that fueled religion.

The idea I'm expressing here, is that the system is rigged.

Again, which system? You said yourself that you are referring to pre-capitalist, capitalist and non-capitalist systems. Therefore you claim you are referring to literally every economic and socio-economic that has ever existed, ever will exist and that are capable of being imagined.

Yes. The system was started by cheaters and hitherto controlled by cheaters.

The system is not mandatory. We can do better than this.

Once again, I ask you to offer an example.
I don't expect you to come up with an all-encompassing solution for the problems of capitalism, but seriously, any suggestion will do. You have suggested nothing so far.

Kind of hard, when you are mounting your own ideas on a falsifiable tenet.

We do not need incentives if we don't look for incentives. We need progress.

Progress is an incentive itself. Progress necessarily implies positive results.

How is doing things instead of doing nothing, an incentive? It doesn't have a drive to it, unless we apply a drive to it.

If we are going to focus on development, then we should focus on the people and not the system we've built with a turpid and sinister nature in mind.

And your suggestion is...?

Well first, you have to suggest against your tenet inorder for you to take any of thise at face value. As long as you are hung up on that epistemology of yours, you will not see the turmoil behind Capitalism, but instead see it as progressive.

I understand it enough to say my piece.

You seriously don't.

Maybe through your current tenet's lens, but surely not in reality.

That's very innappropiate of you to say. I've clearly expressed my ideas.

No, you haven't. You think that trade and capitalism are one and the same. You think that trade (i.e. the exchange of commodities) is somehow not necessary for progress, but won't explain why. You claim that every economic system possible is "rigged" and yet you've demonstrated how little you actually know about the subject.
So for these reasons as well as others, it's entirely appropriate for me to accuse you of not knowing what capitalism is and having no argument.

They are one and the same. Capitalism is trade and the distribution of commodities. Trade is the distribution of commodities. If a bully creates a business, and that business creates more businesses; how likely is it that those following businesses are just as corrupt?

You clearly are hung up on the tenet that Capitalism is an absolute must-have system.

Show me the quote where I said this, bearing in mind that I have explained to you three times that "trade" does not equate to "capitalism."

Capitalism is a bigger word for trade. Both words represent the distribution of products by the people. This discussion is haulting severely due to your misinterpretation of these two words and your falsifiable tenet in regard to our incentives and our actions.

At 10/30/12 03:20 PM, Otto wrote: Because the few times I have really tried to understand what you're saying, and have posted agreements and genuine conversation, you always pick on small segments of my post to spout some psuedo-hippie shit that I hear 20 times a day because I live in Glastonbury. You're not the first guy in the world to sound like you're on shrooms.

So you attack me like the monster you see me as, for you were hurt by natural discordance between you and I. Why become what you accuse me for being, for the sake of your own pain in disagreement? I have done nothing to harm you; life came with thorns, so I came with thorns.

At 10/30/12 03:17 PM, 919CDS wrote: (id even work at walmart),

Aren't there people on strike against Walmart in several states (increasing), because Walmart hoards all of their income; and pays the employed a short amount, while giving the CEO's large sums of cash for doing a whole lot of nothing?

At 10/30/12 03:14 PM, Otto wrote: Me not +1 viewcounting it isn't going to do that.

I don't understand why you hate me more than you hate your hatred for me. My difference on the BBS is a healthy one, while your difference towards me is destructive. Why do you call me out as the enemy, when you attack me with the intent of an enemy?

At 10/30/12 03:05 PM, satanbrain wrote: Insanctuary is in an eternal paid vacation. The employer prefers that Insanctuary spend time instead of going to work.

By no means is my life a vacation. An eternal vacation would lead to an eternal nobody spoiled of the fruit they bear within.

At 10/30/12 03:06 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Animals do not have perception.

Perception is fueled by awareness.

perception (n): awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation.

No, animals are not aware of the elements of our enviornment. They have no cognition to experience what we do. They act entirely off of the mechanical system of nature. There is nothing more to it.

You just contradicted yourself.

You take things out of context.

I'm not saying questions lead to curiosity. I'm saying, you're saying, it comes from curiosity.

The intent to question leads to questioning.

The intent to question is curiosity.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

At 10/30/12 03:07 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: taken straight from the book of ambiguous answers written by insanctuary

Ask yourself 50 questions. Now, answer them all -- or try to. You will discover that what I've said is not ambiguity.

At 10/30/12 02:47 PM, sweet21 wrote: Alot of people find me too annoying. Who fucking cares. There are no stupid questions, just stupid people who dont ask them. Unless you ask them to annoy people, in which case fuck you.

There are questions that answer themselves. We ask these type of questions more than we do of other questions.

At 10/30/12 02:56 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: development only comes when people begin to kill themselves. Differences only result in people not being Insanctuary. that results in anti development.

Only if those people hinder development. If the people hinder development, then death is not the solution. Distortion is the key to the solution to their problems. We all have a brain and in our own way mean well, but distortion eludes our senses and turns us into clashing universes.

At 10/30/12 02:43 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

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

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

But you can fool an animal with fake food. Therefore, they have perception.

This is not perception. Perception is fueled by awareness. They only can do so much with their sensory organs.

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

They are very much the same.

Nu-uh!

Yes, it is connect in a way. Asking why you question and considering if you are asking the right questions plays a big part as the real questionnaire.

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.

Okay, you just changed your position then. Curiosity and questions are synonymous?

No, they are not synonymous. Curiosity is the intent to question. Questions do not always have the intent to carry through to curiosity.

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.

I'm not saying questions lead to curiosity. I'm saying, you're saying, it comes from curiosity.

The intent to question leads to questioning. Questioning does not always have the intent to lead to curiosities.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

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 didn't say it was nonsensical, it was just filler text.

No, it plays an important role in my aggregated assault against stasis.

At 10/30/12 02:40 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: so as a result everyone feels too inferior to the saint Insanctuary himself and have no choice but to kill themselves to feel as if they are contributing something to society.

What about changes? What about development? Who and what you are now is different to who and what you are later. What you are and who you are, does not define what comes next. What you do with what you are and who you are now, defines what comes next.

At 10/30/12 02:27 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:09 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade?

It is necessary for growth. This is demonstrable fact.

What growth? All of our advancements did not come from Capitalism. It came from the actions of human beings. People built and developed themselves without incentives. You are assuming the falsifiable tenent that we will do nothing if there is no incentive or drive.

Why does the world have to be projected unto with false value system?

Explain why the labour theory of value is false, and if you manage to do this, suggest an alternative (i.e., whatever you consider to be a "true" value system)

Our founding fathers alone built a society with their minds. It wasn't money that built all of what they've built -- only for us to dismantle it all in a few decades.

Why was the system based off of people taking advantage of other people's labour at face value?

What system are you talking about? Trade? Capitalism? You started off your paragraph by talking about trade at its most basic level, and are now apparently talking about the negative implications of capitalism. They are not one and the same.

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.

We came before trade. We were here to prosper without trade. How is trade mandatory? It's a humanly constructed concept founded on the same nature corporations have today.

Explain how it is possible for society to prosper without the use of trade, whether it be done under capitalism or communism or otherwise.
Explain why pre-capitalist society, without the influence of consumer-capitalism, didn't reach the heights it eventually reached when capitalism exploded.

The same way religion did. It was forced. People did not have any choice. 1% benefited, while the rest suffered. Profit is a way of saying ''making fortunate off of the misfortunate''.

Ownership is another humanly constructed concept.

So what?

Everything.

I am referring to pre-capatalistic, capitalistic and non-capitalistic concepts.

So you're referring to every possible economic theory and/or system capable of being imagined, yet you're unable to identify one in particular that you think might work as an alternative to capitalism. Good job.

The idea I'm expressing here, is that the system is rigged. The system is not mandatory. We can do better than this. We do not need incentives if we don't look for incentives. We need progress. This system is not progress, the people are making progress. If we are going to focus on development, then we should focus on the people and not the system we've built with a turpid and sinister nature in mind.

First, answer my question.

First, educate yourself. Go read a book that explains to you in basic terms these concepts that you clearly do not understand. I am not arguing for or against capitalism at all in this thread, because it's blatantly apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I understand it enough to say my piece.

I don't have one, but I do hope that my conceptual contemplation may influence a brilliant alternative

It won't, because so far all you've done is say "I don't really know what capitalism means but I think it's bad so let's do something else k."

That's very innappropiate of you to say. I've clearly expressed my ideas. You clearly are hung up on the tenet that Capitalism is an absolute must-have system. I'm contesting against this, and you resort to ad hominems and the counter-intuitive''So what?''.

At 10/30/12 02:13 PM, Suprememessage wrote: You don't change people's lives over the internet either, smart ass.

I don't. It is the people that choose to change their own lives via my influence.

At 10/30/12 02:13 PM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: Brilliant.

I understand the skin of economics, but I do not take the time to get into all of the fat. The bone that holds it all together is being eaten away by myelogenous leukemia. I know economics enough to understand how the system generally works, but there are people who could do much more with my economical ideologies than I can. I'm only providing a conceptual, contemplative side-project of thought to consider.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

At 10/30/12 02:01 PM, tox wrote: If i start trying...

I'm not even trying. I have no need to bring despair.

At 10/30/12 01:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:20 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Show me the exact bit of my post/s where I said that.

Where you've stated that it was impractical for a society to think they could prosper without the means of trade.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said, originally, that:

You did this on your own.

"It is impractical and stupid to expect any society to be able to trade and grow without the use of some sort of common currency"

You've skewed this into me saying that without the use of money as a representation of value, we have no sense of trade. This is nonsense, and not remotely what I said. Pre-capitalist society still had a sense of trade based on the labour theory of value. Any commodity is its own representation of value (i.e. labour expended).
The problem is that if we are to trade commodities with one another, it is impractical for us not to use some common currency as a representation of value (i.e. labour expended).

I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade? Why does the world have to be projected unto with false value system? Why was the system based off of people taking advantage of other people's labour at face value? Was this system a practical system or a sinister system?

''No sense of trade'' was representing the optional counterpoint that what if society did not have to resort to trade and fictional value sets?

What are you even suggesting? Are you honestly claiming that a society can grow without trade? Do you even know what "trade" means? Even the most ardent ardent communist theorist acknowledges trade as a fundamental tenet of societal growth.

We came before trade. We were here to prosper without trade. How is trade mandatory? It's a humanly constructed concept founded on the same nature corporations have today.

Who were all doing what wrong?

The people who put people to work, while they made profit off of their labour.

Okay.

The problem was not trade. The problem was the fear of our world being owned by nobody.

Meaningless.

Ownership is another humanly constructed concept.

I'm suggesting that before this world became too complicated,

I presume you're referring to pre-capitalist society at this point.

I am referring to pre-capatalistic, capitalistic and non-capitalistic concepts.

there would a forked path we could've taken that did not resort to fictional values and humans being exchanged for labour and commodities.

Unfortunately the industrial revolution and the explosion of capitalism was necessary for us to be able to form a good understanding of economics and the implications of the collectivisation of labour.
Now that we have an understanding of this, you're welcome to educate yourself and theorise an alternative to capitalism that hasn't already been tried dozens of times in the past with disastrous results.

First, answer my question. Do we really need capitalism, socialism or the government? All of this came before us, and the real problem is ourselves. These falsely mandatory applicants in society were conditioned into us into depending on them, when we existed before all of this. There was a forked pathway, and there was a better means of developing a society.

You keep alluding to this idea that "we could be doing something else". Well, what?
What are you suggesting? What is your brilliant alternative?

I don't have one, but I do hope that my conceptual contemplation may influence a brilliant alternative in another person's mind who is more advanced in economics than I am.

At 10/30/12 01:44 PM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: As much as you try, you have no hope of even comparing to the sheer thread-killing spree this cunt has been on for the past 2 days.

I give you life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At 10/30/12 01:39 PM, sweet21 wrote: imaginary progress= When I try to make something in famitracker, fail, examine templates and say "I tried!"

Would you agree that this imaginary process is why we live in a world with more avoidable problems than there are of inevitable ones?

At 10/30/12 01:33 PM, Suprememessage wrote: I could diagnose you with Physcosis, after all, you express these symptoms of it:

-Social Withdrawel

-Delusions of Grandeur

-Eccentric thinking

You could be deemed a sick man with improper diagnostics. You don't diagnose people over the internet.

At 10/30/12 01:29 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Oh do tell, maybe your abnormal mentality would be best suited in a mental institution.

My difference is a healthy difference, but it brings out the sick difference in each of you. There is much hatred towards me. I feel as if I'm not your enemy, but I bring the enemy out of you instead.

Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness. How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is; and having those answers for those questions. As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity; our curiosity is endless, therefore we shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual. 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'?

I don't understand why people fear depression more than the thought that depression is not the problem. The people are the problem.

At 10/30/12 01:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:14 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Alright, tell me how it is highly impractical and stupid to not have any sense of trade

Show me the exact bit of my post/s where I said that.

Where you've stated that it was impractical for a society to think they could prosper without the means of trade.

I've maintained that money is a representation of value. If I am correct, this means that money is capable of being traded for other commodities. How you got "no sense of trade" from this is baffling.

''No sense of trade'' was representing the optional counterpoint that what if society did not have to resort to trade and fictional value sets?

The fact that we have to pay people to get them to do things tells you they were all doing it wrong.

"...they were all doing it wrong."
Who were all doing what wrong?

The people who put people to work, while they made profit off of their labour. However you place this in a perspective, there will always be someone mooching off of other people's hardwork in capitalism. Why do we have to have capitalism to survive? The problem was not trade. The problem was the fear of our world being owned by nobody.

If people need incentives, then we are going the wrong way with Capitalism. Although, this is simple a clear thought in a dysfunctional world, so it could might aswell be too late to consider starting it from scratch.

You're welcome to suggest an alternative to capitalism at any point, but from what you've posted so far I don't think for a second that you actually know what capitalism is.

I'm suggesting that before this world became too complicated, there would a forked path we could've taken that did not resort to fictional values and humans being exchanged for labour and commodities.