Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

come on yurgen it's not going to work

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.

Ahhh.....Insanctuary ignored me.

I must not be special.

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.

Capitalism : An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

Trade : The action of buying and selling goods and services.

You do not need capitalism, an economic and political system controlled by private owners, to have trade, which is simply the action of borrowing/exchanging goods and services between groups of people.

Trade is not the same thing as capitalism, in any shape, way, or form, no matter how you think of it. These are two different terms describing different things. Capitalism involves trade, but does not actually equate to trade.

It seems to me that you simply want to implement your own definition of what trade and capitalism are instead of actually consulting an economist, history textbook, or a dictionary.

....Who the f@#! cares what the definition of trade capitalism is. It's just semantics.

At 10/30/12 03:57 PM, Tankdown wrote: ....Who the f@#! cares what the definition of trade capitalism is. It's just semantics.

Semantics make all the difference when participating in an argument.
We want to know exactly what we are talking about before we make logical premises and conclusions off of it.

At 10/29/12 04:24 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Trading goods is fine with me; but trading ourselves, our values, our time, our energy and our fucking lives, for a piss poor system that has the kind of logic that trickle down theories are sure to work, is absolutely insane. We give ourselves away to a system that is more fucked up than we choose to be today. Some other general problems:

1. Money is worth more than a human being.

2. We allow foreign people, so smaller paychecks come in.

3. Improper education.

4. Hypocritical regulations.

5. Economy is getting worse.

6. So far up our asses; we can't see the millions of unemployed people.

7. Being fortunate is a compensation for our childhood insecurities (i.e. pride, power and attention).

8. We are building robots, so less people.

9. Money is made all of the time. It has no real value. Gold has more value than paper money that is being made endlessly.

10. Obviously this system can not be trusted, but we continue to entrust our lives into it day after day.

11. Drug rings, child prostitution rings, and other people being robbed and brutally killed for this valueless paper.

12. People will do anything for this money -- even if it means to resort to mindless actions and being forced to watch shows on television being horrendously cheesy because the producers pay people to make up bullshit stories to get more viewers.

13. This system was built by children and is becoming worse by the minute.

I'm not going to point out your ignorance in nearly every point you made, but rather your view on gold. Gold has no intrinsic value, but merely the value humans put on it. If you're about to die of thirst and are offered gold or water, which would you take. Value is subjective, and money is merely a means of trading value. Read someone intelligent for a change. Like Milton Friedman. You know, an economist. Someone who actually knows what the fuck is going on (unlike you).

At 10/30/12 03:58 PM, 4761 wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:57 PM, Tankdown wrote: ....Who the f@#! cares what the definition of trade capitalism is. It's just semantics.

Semantics make all the difference when participating in an argument.
We want to know exactly what we are talking about before we make logical premises and conclusions off of it.

Semantics makes a fuss over the denotations of words. So to carry on a pointless discussion based on the arbitrary nature of language. Instead of figuring out a practical solution for a problem we are all instinctively aware of without tongue. Now and again it's necessary, but this topic will end no where because there is no correct solution on how to name something.

For the love of all, everyone knows what the problem is. Don't give them an excuse!

:: 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.:

You only do something that gives you joy. This can involve helping others, but is not considered work. You would not do this for free. You are merely a liar, and obviously not a realist. Please explain to me one system that works, other than capitalism? If you say socialism, you're an idiot. It's been proven to fail time and time again. It merely leaches off the producers of an economy. Eventually these producers will leave and can't be replaced by anyone. Socialism merely breads laziness. Why would you work harder for the same pay? No one would. You might say you would, but I would also call you a liar. If presumably you would, it doesn't mean everyone else would, and others shouldn't be expected to either. There are so many things wrong with socialism, it can't be explained here. Simply put, it has been proven wrong time and time again.

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, 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.

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.

Oh my gosh you are crazy!

*High pitch gay voice*
I'm lllllooooovvvvviiiinnnngggg it!

At 10/30/12 04:08 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Economics breaks down to the distribution of false value systems.

Nope, that assumes every system is one hundred percent false. Which trickles down to every rule, or logic within the system is false. If economics is first assumed, at the very least, on the judgement of wealth within an area, such as the amount of food. Then economics must have least one functional truth. So this logic is failed by over-generalizing.

:Applying value to food is not applying value.

...So food has no value?

:We are intrinsically developed to eat.

So it has value!

:That is not a value.

WTF!!??

:That is a result from your body reacting to the lack of nutrients.

That means is has value because it gives nutrients! Your rule of value is randomly selected.

:Beds did not exist back then. This is not a value system. This is an expectation system and a built in physiological system.

People didn't exist during the big bang either. So I guess people don't have value if we are judging by the past instead of the present.

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.

I think you are confusing value with substance. If you acknowledge substance you acknowledge value so you believe without logic or doubt that nothing has any meaning to it.

Interesting character....terrible, but interesting.

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.

Argument without evidence makes rhetoric. A fine recipe.

Instead of hypothesizing, theorizing, or providing observation of human character you cut to the chase and simply say right or wrong. Like an authority figure....astonishing..

The world is never not changing. I can tell by the looks of history, science, religion, and evolution. Of course I can judge all the invisible factors by being vague, and unsubstance as I like. By that makes a poor dogmatic ritual rather than reason.

You have a really bad character. The assumptions, or facts in your head, is baseless. I'm guessing you been taught for awhile about a ambiguous school of thought that you now follow without question.

May God have mercy on your soul...

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

Completely accurate. Could not have been said better.
Insanitary, pay attention to what this user has said with regards to why capitalism and trade are not one and the same.
If you still cannot understand it, just give up.

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 04:34 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.

This is so funny.

If there is no value nothing cab be abused.

At 10/30/12 04:41 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Placing a plasma TV in your room does not change your room.

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.

Well you've totally disregarded the truth I put in front of you so basically your name is Insanitary Towel now

okay Insanitary Towel

ahhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

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 04:49 PM, Otto wrote: Well you've totally disregarded the truth I put in front of you so basically your name is Insanitary Towel now

okay Insanitary Towel

He also fucks dogs and has daddy issues, as has been established in the past.

woof

Give it up Insanctuary, just admit that you're wrong and let's move on.

At 10/30/12 04:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 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.

Changing into a police uniform (under certain circumstances) can change a man into a police officer, much in the same way that adding a washing machine changes a room into a laundry room.

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.

At 10/30/12 04:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 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.

The analogy doesn't fit together. As a person is judge by his character, a room is judge by it's contents. Different mattes of measure and definition.

At 10/30/12 05:03 PM, Entice wrote: but a room is defined to a greater degree by what is it

*by what is in it

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 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.

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?

Semantics makes a fuss over the denotations of words.

No it doesn't.

So to carry on a pointless discussion based on the arbitrary nature of language.

Semantics mean the difference between deciding laws and applying regulations on people. If there is an illogical sentence structure or poor choice of words, it completely ruins the whole meaning of what a person is trying to convey.

Let's say for example we are discussing what the meaning of life is. We would first have to define life in order to actually figure out the solution to its meaning; it would be impossible if we simply relied on its connotative meaning all the time.

Just this year, a student handbook guide on rights and privileges had a rule stating:

"Any student involved in a fight will be suspended and liable for expulsion"

When it says "involved" it extends a rule to anyone that had to do with the fight and therefore punishes the victim as well. This was not the intention of the department of education to do so. However, because of the poor wording of the sentence, it made for a pointless rule that simply can't be accepted should we speak the English language properly.

Instead of figuring out a practical solution for a problem we are all instinctively aware of without tongue. Now and again it's necessary, but this topic will end no where because there is no correct solution on how to name something.

Yes, actually there is a correct solution to name something. Maybe the meaning varies slightly in word usage or descriptors, or maybe isn't specific enough, but there are definite meanings to pretty much everything in the English language. After this, it really comes down to whether the given definition is wrong or if it is to be accepted by the opposing party in the argument.

For the love of all, everyone knows what the problem is. Don't give them an excuse!

I really don't know what you mean by "excuse".

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 05:25 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.

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".