More greed? Sure. But brings greed? No, it was already there.

Communism literally ignores human nature

Excuse me

I literally said ***context***. Do I need to teach you about logic?

You haven't explained anything so I see zero reasoning in your statements.

?

and dont be smuggy with me, not my fault you fail to explain yourself.

I didn't claim to explain anything and I'm not being smug. I literally gave you context and asked you to think

"how they claim it brings greed. Greed is inherited, it's evolutionary trait" Tell me what's wrong here.

Saying CONTEXT will not make it be false

What is wrong here is that you are ignoring context. Out of context that definition is still partially inaccurate. People are inherently greedy, but that doesn't mean people inherit it. It is part of the nature of anything of notable intelligence.

Context is immeasurably significant for determining what a word means. Example; generally saying "sex" would mean the action of reproducing, but given the right context, it is the gender of an animal or person, determined by physical attributes. Or even the act of determining gender.

In the context of the joke by Shadowstitcher11, communism doesn't cause greed for the average working idiot because everybody is equally poor. And capitalism is an extreme catalyst for greed because everyone earns a different amount. It's called extrapolating logic from a perspective. No matter how much of an idiot someone is, it helps to try see their logic so you can better understand them, especially if you plan to have an argument with them.

Lol, bunch of false accusations there. I'm not ignoring the context, what I've said is factually correct and you haven't pointed out what is wrong about my definition (you called me out on saying I have no idea what greed is) , rather you're changing the topic now - without defining what it actually is, you're just using word sementics. And your statement is wrong, communism can also "cause" greed - and it has been proven a lot of times via expending black market in USSR, despite state-control market. You need to know what the premise of the communism aka Karl Marx is - human is the product of the environment, not the genes. But that is false. And saying capitalism is an extreme catalyst for greed because everyone earns a different amount - yeah so what? My statement was that greed is something inherited (and you dodged that), inequality is not necesarily bad, especially in case of free market.

Congratulations, you misread everything making further any debate pointless.

And sex is not the action of reproducing btw, atleast learn how to get it right.

You are horrible via definitions.

I'm using actual examples, you're not using anything but word semantics.

>mocks my semantics and comprehension skills
>says "horrible via definitions"

When talking about the use of a word, semantics is everything. To claim that is not the case is retarded.

Well you have proven you don't know what sex is.

And you have proven you don't know second economy of Soviet Union existed. Which goes towards my point that greed is inherited, rather than solely the cause of environment.

Again long essay inc?

"Well you have proven you don't know what sex is." Ok sir, what is your fictitious definition of sex then?
"And you have proven you don't know second economy of Soviet Union existed." How? I never mentioned one because it was unnecessary. I explained Shadowstitcher11 joke and never stated I agreed with them. I was explaining the logic.

Well, it isn't the act of reproducing, that's one.

So you were wrong there.

Second of all, it is necessary. Because communism does not get rid of greed. Greed is evolutionary trait (like I stated), it is not solely the product of environment (where Karl Marx was wrong) - and this was my argument to begin with.

It is a good example to disprove communism's failed attempt to get rid of greed in practise. In theory, they're wrong by even rejecting human nature.

Are you typing in word then copy pasting? Lmfao.

Just goes to show you're not very confident in your arguments

😴 😴 😴 😴 😴

Typing... stopped typing... typing ... stopped typing.. You're literally the worst debater ever

Excuse me? Remember this: "Congratulations, you misread everything making further any debate pointless." I was using "sex" as an example of how context is important. Not once did I say explicitly that "this is the definition of sex" I said "generally saying "sex" would mean the action of reproducing"
There is this word that comes to mind.... Ah yes, "reading?" That might help you here.
"Second of all, it is necessary." No. Why do I need to give an example for something that is irrelevant to my argument?
"Greed is evolutionary trait (like I stated), it is not solely the product of environment (where Karl Marx was wrong) - and this was my argument to begin with." False. It is both. People are inherently greedy... but their environment can tempt further greed.
"Are you typing in word then copy pasting? Lmfao." No. What makes you think that? Just because I type slower than you? Or the fact that I actually read your messages carefully then proofread my responses before sending?

Yeah you were using sex as an example, but your definition isiquite obviously wrong. Quite ironic that you blamed me for not knowing what greed is, altho I clearly defined it for you. You did not use the word generally, so nice try trying to dodge it now, sex is NOT the act of reproducing so your statement was wrong, simple as that. Second of all, you have shown once again you fail to comprehend things. I never claimed greed is solely the product of genes, infact I only stated it is not SOLELY the product of environment - give me a quote where I stated that? Can't? Obviously, point proven. 😉 Well... It's just funny because something tells me you'd do awful in a vocal debate.

I'm not wrong, I said it is not SOLELY the result of environment. Nice comprehension skills. I'll be waiting on that quote.

"but your definition isiquite obviously wrong" No. You ignored me again, well done. As I clearly said, I was explaining use not explicit and context-less definitions.
"You did not use the word generally, so nice try trying to dodge it now, sex is NOT the act of reproducing so your statement was wrong, simple as that. Second of all, you have shown once again you fail to comprehend things." If you actually read what I said without the intent of trying to start a fight, but actually to understand the other perspective of the other person or to just share your own logic (the difference between a civil debate and a pointless argument) then you wouldn't have come to that laughably incorrect conclusion about what I said.
"I never claimed greed is solely the product of genes, infact I only stated it is not SOLELY the product of environment - give me a quote where I stated that? Can't? Obviously, point proven. 😉" I didn't say that you made that claim your wording implied it. Your explanation is actually contradictory... "Greed is evolutionary trait (like I stated)" can stand alone to imply that it is purely inherent and you said "it is not solely the product of environment (where Karl Marx was wrong)" which does not state that nurture and nature are mutually exclusive in this argument but nor does it make them inclusive..
"Well... It's just funny because something tells me you'd do awful in a vocal debate." Irrelevant but correct. I have difficulty talking and speak haltingly often. Possibly a combination of a head injury and social reclusivity.

I didn't ignore you, fact of the matter is - you said sex is act of reproduction - which is not. Doesn't matter what the use behind it was.

If you are not willing to read my arguments properly and just insult me and make baseless assumptions then I am not willing to debate you because neither of us will gain anything from it. Cheers

Second of all, yes you did fail to comprehend things because you said my statement was wrong. Which wasn't - unless you can point what was wrong about me saying "Greed is evolutionary trait (like I stated), it is not solely the product of environment (where Karl Marx was wrong) - and this was my argument to begin with." Your reasoning was that it is both - which I never claimed it wasn't. Just goes to show you lack comprehension issues and you were caught off-guard.

Nurture and nature aren't mutually exclusive? Please explain this, because I'd like to expose your lack of understanding once again.

Btw, you were the first one to insult me. Just saying.

I'd engage properly if you did

Anyways sorry if I offended you, cheers

This is the last I will say in this argument:
"you said sex is act of reproduction" nope. Never. I explained how in general use without context, that is what the word refers to.
"Nurture and nature aren't mutually exclusive" you left off "in this argument" quoting tiny phrases out of context can make them seem like stupidity often. I did not give this clause without context for a reason, it was meant to go together to give it the intended meaning. This is what I mean when I call you out for sad comprehension skills. It is not me insulting you, it is me stating what the situation looks like. In that same way that referring to mentally deficient people as retards is not inaccurate nor is it an insult, it's just insensitive at best.
"because I'd like to expose your lack of understanding once again" another reason why this argument is hilariously pointless. No reason to debate if all you want is to highlight another person's flaws.
"Btw, you were the first one to insult me. Just saying." I did not say anything with the intent of insulting you, if you saw it that way that was purely by your own interpretation.
I engaged properly, it was not productive, I shall now withdraw.
You did not offend me, just frustrated me.