Crown Prince Thutmose

Relevant. You made an argument, and now we’re seeing you backtrack again.

I’m not sure I’m following. If we agree that free will is an illusion and that one can’t make a decision without having the brain wired to allow for it, why the fixation on free will?

An interesting hypothesis. Where are your definitions from? Just give us a reference.

You admitted it. :)

You just asserted that your definitions predate mine by over 2 centuries. Yet you can’t demonstrate how. Show us.

No one forced you to redefine terminology.

Well, it’s your argument. Another false accusation.

Well, actually, it’s directly relevant since you admitted that you have to change your definitions.

Contrarianism is circular reasoning, you know.

You said that your definitions predate mine by over two centuries, but you can’t provide any examples to demonstrate? :)

Semantics is the science of meaning.

I haven’t used any weird meaning. You can’t seem to identify where your definitions come from or when.

Which was when?

When were yours invented? Specifically.

You just said that you need to redefine the terms before you can show how capitalism exists without a state.

How do your definitions of the state and capitalism predate mine?

You’re back to making word meaning arbitrary. Your definition is necessarily dependent on first redefining formal terminology without justifying why.

Ah, that’s why you’re confused.

The state is the legal monopoly over violence. It’s not a synonym of government, but it is pretty much the basis of modern law.

Capitalism is private control over the means of production. Nothing to do with free markets, which don’t exist.

How did I redefine words if mine predate yours?

It’s not a lie to say that you just admitted that you need to redefine formal social science terms. :)

If you had to plagiarize the term and redefine it, then you’ve made it arbitrary.

You just admitted that you need to take words and redefine them.

By all means show me how your definition of the state differs?

You seem to be under the impression that word meaning is arbitrary.

Have you considered not plagiarizing?

You just admitted that you have to redefine words to make it work. You’re starting from your conclusions and working backwards, lmao.

So, no examples? You need to first change the definitions to fit the objective that you’re aiming for. Goalposts are moving. Very typical narcissistic behaviour.

Ah, so, we need to plagiarize and redefine terms to make your violent class hierarchy sound more palatable.

If you’re a capitalist, it certainly does.

Which part of that is false?

You mean that you require everyone to adopt your revised definitions?

Capitalism requires a state. Without changing definitions or slandering, show us how capitalism exists without a state. Which example?

It looks like you both agree on the need for a formal political and economic class hierarchy.