Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/3/12 05:55 PM, Profanity wrote: You would be laughed out of a high school economics class.

I'm sorry, what?

The definitions are monsterously misconstrued up the definitive ass. What are you on about? There is seriously a major problem with these two definitions and you are too careless to understand this much. I'm going to say it is again.

1. I make the statement that Capitalism is Trade.

2. I explain why:

3. Capitalism came after Trade, and Capitalism is always Trade.

4. Trade does not always invovle Capitalism, but Trade always involves Trade.

5. I beg the question that there is no real difference between the two.

6. I explain why:

7. Trade = Capitalism. What they are involved with =/= Defined terminologies.

8. You whine and complain by repeating the same circular-logic that I'm trying to fucking challenge right now and you keep trying to go back to square 1 -- after I specifically went beyond square 1 to enforce a question against the definition of these terms, how you assume difference and if that difference plays any fucking important roles to begin with.

We have no details. So be more specific or rot for all I care.

At 11/3/12 05:40 PM, Profanity wrote: Please take an economics class, or grab a book from the library.

The terms are hideously defined.

Tell me the differences between the two terms with a list like this:

1.

2.

3.

...

If you don't, you only show that not even you understand what you think you understand.

At 11/3/12 05:41 PM, Confucianism wrote:

At 11/3/12 05:36 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/3/12 05:33 PM, Confucianism wrote: Now tell me how you deducted that.

Train of thought, reactions, tone of expression, an overall collection of information about you, from the time I have been on Newgrounds?

And now tell me how such things compiled together fit with said characteristics.

Train of thought reveals what topics you like, hate or evade. I have seen your posts, and you clearly think about the government a lot. There is also pride and arrogance behind your reactions. How you express your ideals leads to your character and your mood. For an example, you attempting to condescend me shows that you are competitive and like to be right.

However I will say this: You should not claim to know any tone of mine at what I've said at any point. But! I see no point why can't claim this. Considering how you have already claimed to know so much already.

Now, you are implying I know nothing of yourself.

At 11/3/12 05:33 PM, Confucianism wrote: Now tell me how you deducted that.

Train of thought, reactions, tone of expression, an overall collection of information about you, from the time I have been on Newgrounds?

At 11/3/12 05:30 PM, Profanity wrote: They're two completely different words which describe different things. They're not interchangeable; they're not equal.

Name all of the differences, right now.

A list, like this:

1.

2.

3.

...

At 11/3/12 05:23 PM, Profanity wrote: No, it's just really that simple. These are terms for two things which occur on completely different orders of magnitude.

They both have to do with trade, but because one doesn't have to do with the other, it makes them different. Wow, you are a fucking genius. Holy shit, we might as well say that atheists and theists are the same caliber, because one believes there is no God and the other believes there does. Not the fact that there is a claim being made without evidence -- nope, no fucking siree bob.

At 11/3/12 05:13 PM, ZyklonB wrote: no, you've probably reached the true form of a skinless pussy if you consider yourself a man and cry. Real men don't have time and or any need to shed tears. Real men get angry fuckstick

Anger comes from the fear of being soft. People only get angry when they are frustrated; people only get frustrated when they are confused and facing a problem that gives them a hard time.

That confusion, and that problem, is their own fucking emotions. We had them as a kid, and like every pure quality we once had as a kid, we abandon it like a real, genuinely socially inept fuck stick.

At 11/3/12 05:08 PM, Profanity wrote: I'm sorry you don't get it.

No, you don't get it. These defintions are fuck all reliable.

At 11/3/12 04:58 PM, Confucianism wrote: Analyze me, analyze me!

Socially supressed, arrogant broad, with mildly unnatural sexual tendencies, with a touch of rejection of reality's hardships and an attitude that says ''I'm afraid of pain''.

At 11/3/12 04:59 PM, Profanity wrote: No, that's just your brain trying to configure the concept after I redefined it for you by using a simple equation.

Honestly, I'm not configuring it. These definitions are beyond disessembled by unwanted bias, and narrow-minded information. Clearly it doesn't take that much wit to realize that Capitalism is the pimp, and trade is the bitch. Look at how trade conceptually procreated the pimp's position. Without the bitch, whence cometh the pimp?

I know what you are saying, and it doesn't make any sense. These definitions are cursed with extreme tunnel vision.

My First Post Was Amazing

At 11/3/12 04:43 PM, Profanity wrote: There are many ways to organize an economy which aren't Capitalist, and there are many ways for property to change ownership which aren't Trade, there are many Trades which aren't Capitalist, but there is not Capitalism which doesn't include Trade.

This is sounding more and more like the atheist versus theist argumentative concept. This is where one states one thing, and the other tries to turn the position around 180 degrees, to fit in their position. This applies to how you are saying that not all trades are involved with Capitalism, whereas all of Capitalism is involved with trade. This is foolish and unacceptable!

You are basically saying: ''Herp that derp. The position of distribution is the same as the position of character.''

Last time I checked, you can't use Y to explain Y, then turn the Y inside out to explain X.

-----------------Capitalism---------------

-------------------------Trade-----------------------------

--------------------------------My fucks that were given----------------------------------

At 11/3/12 04:31 PM, Profanity wrote: No, a Trade can't be a type of Capitalism, but a Bully can be a type of Kid.

Yes, Capitalism is a trade, not a type of trade. Trade is a not a type of capitalism, but a smaller word for capitalism.

Again, the only difference is who is distributing the goods. This is ludicrous. They both are solely trades. This is pointless aspectual masturbation.

At 11/3/12 04:24 PM, Profanity wrote: Yours is a very weak analogy.

Capitalism:Trade::Oak:Acorn

Capitalism:Trade::Kid:Bully

At 11/3/12 04:13 PM, Profanity wrote: No, it's an economic system of which trade plays a large role.

No, it's trade under a bigger system of distribution, that involves a heavier ownership than those who are typical traders.

Capitalism is to entrepreneur as trade is to girl scouts.

At 11/3/12 04:12 PM, DragenLatsabbInc wrote: In that case,

What if we were to have polls about having a polls?

At 11/3/12 04:06 PM, Manly-Chicken wrote: Taco Bell was invented when a Mexican farmer figured out how to get rid of his freeloading relatives.

Don't you be dissing the crunch wrap.

At 11/3/12 04:03 PM, BumFodder wrote: What the fuck else is capitalism? A rabbit trade?

Capitalism is simply a 'big boy' word for trade.

At 11/3/12 03:59 PM, Entice wrote: My crime is the first degree murder of Insanctuary. My attorney is Yert. My prosecution is a ABeastLikeNoneBefore. My judge is ModernPatriot. The jury consists of Xenomit, Bees, Rummy0, and GhostOfHalloween.

You would lose miserably.

Yert will be smoking pot.

ABeastLikeNoneBefore - wait, why the fuck is is consulting against you?

ModernPatriot is narrow-minded and egocentric with a touch of ineptness in fundamental realism.

Xenomit is a blundering bafoon, which projects himself unto cartoon characters because the real world isn't good enough.

Bees is an egotistical fool.

Rummy is a god damned troll.

GhostOfHalloween is an even worse troll.

At 11/3/12 03:51 PM, Painbringer wrote: One thing I've heard is that switching the clocks gives an edge in the stock market, so who knows.

Exactly this.

At 11/3/12 03:45 PM, Profanity wrote: Running away from this post?

I will be a quarter away from 100 tomorrow.

At 11/3/12 03:38 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: I can wholeheartedly agree with you. Human ethics is great but it should not interfere with scientific advancements and discoveries.

Your symptoms of being mad are being demonstrated in this hair-splitting statement of yours, that came out of your fantasy land.

You know nothing of Science and only focus on the vague, black and white picture behind your aspiritions and dreams. Why don't you go drill that ignorance elsewhere, k?

At 11/3/12 03:36 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: yeah sure thing Insanctuary whatever you say

mad - (of a person, conduct, or an idea) Extremely foolish or ill-advised.

Yeah, now fuck off, kid. I have you cornered again, and all you can do is pull the Confuscianism: ''yeah whatever''.

At 11/3/12 03:33 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: angry is a synonym for mad.

Unlike capitalism and trade; angry means 'to be upset or annoyed', and mad means 'to be blinded from rationality, or to have the inability to think clearly'.

At 11/3/12 03:27 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: >> calls me angry
>> bitches in following paragraph how everyone doesn't take you seriously

No, I called you mad. You are a dysfunctional prick without a prick. Get a life, kid. Stop getting butthurt over critical logic.

You don't contribute to these boards whatsoever. Why don't you leave with your sorry ass phantom substance, k?

I've said it once, I'm going to say it again: Trade and capitalism are one and the same. The only reason why people consist them different from each other is due to a very small aspect that does all fuck to the core of the definition between the two terms. That tiny ass aspect involved is 'who' is distributing the goods. That's it. It's still trade. It's still people of the trade. Yet, there is a difference because people such at nit-picking.

At 11/3/12 03:19 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: see the thing is you aren't going to win if you take Insanctuary seriously

Hey, shut the fuck up. You are mad because you know what I'm saying makes odd sense. People always rebel when I personally get in their face about what is, and what isn't. Clearly there is a problem with these two definitions and there is also a problem with you narrow-minded fucks who can't tell your ass from logic. If you are going to keep badgering me about how I'm so wrong, why don't you do a better job not making yourself look like a self-conscious fuck, k?

At 11/3/12 02:57 PM, jjjkuk wrote: Look out, guys. Confucianism is serious.

As serious as the end of the world.

At 11/3/12 02:49 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 11/3/12 02:38 PM, Insanctuary wrote: And you using vague definitions.

User 4761 explained to you in detail the definitions of the various words you are failing to understand.
I gave you straightforward but no less accurate definitions within my last post:

He was arguing the same vague definition as you were. Trade is the bitch of Capitalism no more to the point the king is the head, whereas the peasants is why he is the king in the first place.

Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production is held by private owners as opposed to being held collectively by the proletariat.

Trade is the exchange of commodities at any level.

This is why you should read and understand what people say before you try responding.

Maybe you should question these stupid definitions first. You are basing this off of retardedly vague definitions. If anything, Capitalism is just compensating word for trade to make itself look bigger than it is. Obviously Capitalism is the bigs gun compared to trade. I already get what you guys are saying, and I'm telling you that the definitions are fucking the same and the way they are different is entirely irrelevant.

Wow, so essentially they both are related to trade. Yet, one is different than the other, because one is the daddy and the other is the bitch.

Please recognise that this is entirely your misconception which you are stating as if it were demonstrable fact. If you insist on making outlandish (and completely stupid) claims like the above, you have to provide some semblance of evidence or reasoning.

Say that to the vague definitions. They are vague. There is nothing seperating them except you blowing two different aspects out of proportion. These aspects play no serious role in the definition of these two terms. How the fuck is Capitalism bigger than trade, but originated from trade? That is the point. That is why the definitions are piss poor. That is why you are wrong.

Capitalism is not "the daddy" of trade because trade existed well before capitalism reared its ugly head.
Once again, I advise you to educate yourself on this subject if you wish to attempt to debate it.

Yes, it is. It clearly is demonstraed by the sheer amount of substance lacking from these two definitions. You are trying to seperate two definitions over a very tiny fuck all aspect that I'm trying to explain has no determined value. There is absolutely nothing healthy about these two definitions. It's all primordial hogwash.