Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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 05:30 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.

I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about capitalism. What are we arguing about now?

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

At 10/30/12 05:40 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Nothing defines the room.

What is the room you're in right now? Something defines it.

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.

Way to ignore the second part of my argument.

At 10/30/12 05:43 PM, koopahermit wrote:

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

It seems like they are actually argue about 'room' philosophy right now. Thread derail FTW.

At 10/30/12 05:48 PM, dem0lecule wrote: It seems like they are actually argue about 'room' philosophy right now. Thread derail FTW.

How the fuck did he derail his own thread?

At 10/30/12 05:49 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:48 PM, dem0lecule wrote: It seems like they are actually argue about 'room' philosophy right now. Thread derail FTW.

How the fuck did he derail his own thread?

Insanctuary is such a bad poster that he derailed his own thread. I applaud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM

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.

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.

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.

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

As the dictionary defines it, actually.

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

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.

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

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

so icy i trade humans like a fuken pokecard negroe

At 10/30/12 05:23 PM, 4761 wrote:

Semantics makes a fuss over the denotations of words.

No it doesn't.

......Okay that got me off guard. Did not think that sentence is in any way questionable. Bravo! :D

Denotation means by a dictionary reference "an act of processing a term." Which usually can be reword in another ways such as the tradition or literal usage of the word. It's counter double, connotation is usually refereed to the meanings read between the lines.

I think both fit under Semantics, so my mistake was to use denotation as one with the same.

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.

Bluntly semantics is the "Study of meanings." So according to how you interpret. It can be seen as reading it through denotation, connotation, both, or completely meaningless. I focused on denotation as a context to view the conversational putting of the English language. A language built up from tradition and human behavior rather than any platonic law. It we all decided to use a different word for cow it will change nothing other than tradition. If people don't argue this new word means cow, nothing of real value is lost or gain. Basically I criticized that language is agree on by the population rather than any real platonic notion.

Insanctuary doesn't follow some exact denotation made by tradition, except maybe whatever he been taught by whatever school of thoughts he agrees with or thought of. Probably doesn't give a s@!# what society thinks. He strongly uses connotations of his mind's likely. By rule of Semantic his study of meanings rely to whatever he chooses the language to be. He's not breaking any real notion except in literal notation of words. Pointless as it will not change the context of how to mean toward these things.

Arguing about any of this assumes the message has never been received by either party. The message is received by subliminal messages not found in the context of the words. Merely reacting to a post regardless to whatever is said in post can start a debate. In a funny way semantics doesn't categories the whole issue. The word semantics is too vague and covers far more than sentences and paragraphs. Hell, I was right to say this was about denotations, but wrong to call it semantics.

This has nothing to do with the English language. Judging you know who by character it wouldn't make a difference it if did!

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

I get that impression a lot.

Just ignore it.

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?

Basic logic I think.

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 05:25 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Ok, look, lets be honest here. You don't understand economics. You just don't. I myself have only a rudimentary knowledge, and its still vastly superior to yours. The reason I say this is because you don't know the meaning of "trade". If you did then you would no that that the point of a trade is that everyone profits as a result

Lets take a situation where I have 3 horses and you have 3 cows. I need a cow, and you need a horse. We decide to make a trade. I trade my horse for your cow. As a result we are both happier. Lets say that I have $100 dollars and you have 3 cows. I need a cow and you need $50. Again, we trade, and are both now both happier. This isn't some evil system set up by an elite minority. This is what struck people as the sensible thing to do, and so they did it.

Once you understand this part, I'll go on to profit.

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.

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.

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

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 06:39 PM, Insanctuary wrote: You could easily say flammable. Why are you trying to resurrect the dead horse?

Since when have you ever heard a personality described as "flammable"? Inflammable sounds much better.

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 06:39 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

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.

Yes, actually, it is. If a trade detrimented someone, then that individual would not make the trade. If my horse is more important to be than your cow, then I wouldn't trade my horse for your cow. Even if your cow is only slightly more important to me, I would still be profiting. If by "loss of profit" you mean expense, then you're wrong. That's not how trading works. This is supported by text, by experts, by observation, and by common sense. If you mean that one party may profit more than the other, then yes. Sure. It happens. But the point is that everyone is at least somewhat happier after the trade. This implies, of course, that both parties are well informed about the goods/services that they are about to trade.
If you still disagree, then just pick up a basic economics textbook.

If you want a rudimentary intro, then here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade

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.

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?

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.

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

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 07:01 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

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.

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.

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.

It's called "slavery". Go to any pawn shop and you could haggle a couple of fine-ass negroes off of Chumlee for eight dollars.

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

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

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

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

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

How so?

You define it as the same as the dictionary.

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

That is basically seperating them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't a good analogy.

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

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

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

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

At 10/30/12 07:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
False.

Usually this line is what I got from giving it to n00bs on Usenet and IRC. Another falls to my honeypot.

I've never said it could not work.

This does not make it mandatory. This just means we can make up stuff and pretend it means something important.

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

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

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

I made both points coherently.

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

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

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

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

How so?

Capitalism is more powerful and provacative than Trade.

You define it as the same as the dictionary.

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

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

That is basically seperating them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government comes from rule, power and order.

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

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

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

It wasn't a good analogy.

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

I like to think I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ok. Just stop for a moment. What you're saying really doesn't make sense to me. How about you just condense the overall point of what you're trying to say in a cohesive paragraph. I mean, I want to understand you. I really do. But the way that you write doesn't allow me to do that. For the love of god, just say something that the people in this forum can actually understand and respond to in a logical manner.

What

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

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