“A. just out of curiosity what the heck is this essay about? for instance are you arguing that words and their meanings (or in this case a phrase) change and now have radically different meanings than at a previous time in history?”

No.

”or are you, in some shape form or fashion arguing against capitalism?”

No.

“or are you arguing against someone using a specific phrase to simplify a point?”

No. However, if they in ‘simplifying their point’ co-opt a complex idea and then dumb it down, and in the process butcher it, then yes, I do argue against that.

”B. your use in grammar i'm finding very very lacking, that is to say, your sentences are disjunct (aka fragmented) and has a severe lack of substance.”

The essay has one sentence fragment, and it was intentional. Your review has a serious lack of “punctuation” (aka capitalization). Maybe you should work on that.

”C. your inability to quote is so repulsive that those around me heard massive amounts of gagging (although at the same time i was sort of laughing at the complete arrogance of "intellectual lightweights").”

Ah, I see. So quotation marks are out of vogue now?

”D. this is the second time ive ever bothered to write a review that critiques the actual argument itself, but you are so utterly wrong (also assuming im able to understand your argument) for now i'm assuming that your argument is against the use of a phrase that has changed. really, in the text you are using it isnt so much that the author is being ignorant as much as the ignorance of the readers. In other words he is DUMBING DOWN an argument so that his readers can better understand his argument.”

No, you are the one that is utterly wrong. Both about what I am doing, what the author is doing, and about everything pretty much.

Suppose the author is dumbing down his argument. Why is he doing so? If he is making a complex argument seem simplistic, then he is misleading his readers.

However, that is not what he’s doing. He is arguing that economics lacks morality as a whole, and uses the explanation of “survival of the fittest” as the crux of his argument. That is not a dumbing down of an argument. That is merely a dumb argument.

You seem to be arguing that ‘survival of the fittest’ has “changed.” Obviously how it is being used by economists is ‘different’ than how Darwin used it. That’s the point. That is the problem.

Economists have “changed” what Darwin meant, but they still insist on using their incorrect version as an appeal to scientific truth.

I’m not arguing “for” or “against” Capitalism.

It is stupid to argue that “economics” or any other broad human activity is devoid of morality based on an appeal to a “scientific truth” that the author doesn’t even understand.

Darwin defined “natural selection” as what man’s selection is not. So when economists argue that human activities and phenomenon, like economics, revert to “natural selection” and should be judged as a natural phenomenon, their argument becomes absurd and laughable.

Perhaps you should try responding to arguments more often. Practice makes perfect.

”honestly you did a pretty shoddy job of writing your essay this time around, and personally you should redo this.”

Or alternatively, you could learn to read.