Mordhau
 DerFurst
Count
  • Likes received 9263
  • Date joined 26 Oct '15
  • Last seen 3s

Private Message

Count 4057 9263

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@Huggles said: The ideal is for people to form a colorblind society obv and use technology and societal change to eliminate biological limitations. Your idea is that people should scrape and bow and be thankful for shitty natural limitations.

Apparently you believe that people should ignore basic biological differences that make them incompatible to live in the same societies, and that we should use technology to eliminate all biological limitations.

u retard

hahaha gottem

shrekfeddd.jpg

kys

shrekfeddd.jpg

Count 4057 9263

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@Huggles said: The ideal is for people to form a colorblind society obv and use technology and societal change to eliminate biological limitations. Your idea is that people should scrape and bow and be thankful for shitty natural limitations.

Apparently you believe that people should ignore basic biological differences that make them incompatible to live in the same societies, and that we should use technology to eliminate all biological limitations.

u retard

hahaha gottem

shrekfeddd.jpg

Count 4057 9263

Huggles, you believe in "progress" itself as an ideology, without regard to what's being progressed towards. You think that people who look to the past for answers are foolish, because they were all mistaken, and we're so much wiser now. You don't realize that despite our "progress" some things don't change, which is why learning of the past to understand our very foundations is so important for the present and future...

@Huggles said: The ideal is for people to form a colorblind society obv and use technology and societal change to eliminate biological limitations. Your idea is that people should scrape and bow and be thankful for shitty natural limitations.

Apparently you believe that people should ignore basic biological differences that make them incompatible to live in the same societies, and that we should use technology to eliminate all biological limitations.

What you propose and desire is an egalitarian transhumanist society, wherein old and "false" religions are replaced with science.

...and you're calling other people radicals? That's absurd.

Count 4057 9263
Count 4057 9263
  • 19 Jun
 DerFurst

he didn't have to destroy descpacito 2, I'm sure there was another way

Count 4057 9263
  • 19 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@ImATomato said:
TFW your ideology so retarded it literally turns 3rd world countries into world powers.

Feels good man.
fascism in italy into world power.jpg

Stalin. Opposite ideology. Russia becomes more powerful.

Vanguard constantly tells us how Soviet Russia wasn't "real communism" but rather a mixture of state capitalism and socialism, lead by a totalitarian government. Plus, there's also that minor detail about the mass murder of over 100 million ethnic Russians and Eastern Europeans by the government outside of war, but let's forget that.

100% beside the point. Not even advocating communism. Pointing out that if you think I'matomato's point is a point in favor of fascism, you must say the same thing about stalin's Russia.

Everything I say goes over your head

the communism of soviet russia wasn't an opposite ideology like you claimed but an opposing ideology. you don't even know what words mean

you're literally retarded lmao

shrekfeddd.jpg

u r the saddest joke on this forum

shrekfeddd.jpg

Count 4057 9263
  • 1
  • 19 Jun
 DerFurst

@vanguard said:

@DerFurst said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@ImATomato said:
TFW your ideology so retarded it literally turns 3rd world countries into world powers.

Feels good man.
fascism in italy into world power.jpg

Stalin. Opposite ideology. Russia becomes more powerful.

Vanguard constantly tells us how Soviet Russia wasn't "real communism" but rather a mixture of state capitalism and socialism, lead by a totalitarian government. Plus, there's also that minor detail about the mass murder of over 100 million ethnic Russians and Eastern Europeans by the government outside of war, but let's forget that.

100% beside the point. Not even advocating communism. Pointing out that if you think I'matomato's point is a point in favor of fascism, you must say the same thing about stalin's Russia.

Everything I say goes over your head

the communism of soviet russia wasn't an opposite ideology like you claimed but an opposing ideology. you don't even know what words mean

you're literally retarded lmao

The hilarious part is that the soviets ended up creating a model of capitalism better then the fascists, that are declared capitalists.

That's a pretty interesting claim. How is stealing people's farm equipment so they can't feed their families a good capitalist system? I haven't heard of this

Count 4057 9263
  • 19 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@ImATomato said:
TFW your ideology so retarded it literally turns 3rd world countries into world powers.

Feels good man.
fascism in italy into world power.jpg

Stalin. Opposite ideology. Russia becomes more powerful.

Vanguard constantly tells us how Soviet Russia wasn't "real communism" but rather a mixture of state capitalism and socialism, lead by a totalitarian government. Plus, there's also that minor detail about the mass murder of over 100 million ethnic Russians and Eastern Europeans by the government outside of war, but let's forget that.

100% beside the point. Not even advocating communism. Pointing out that if you think I'matomato's point is a point in favor of fascism, you must say the same thing about stalin's Russia.

Everything I say goes over your head

the communism of soviet russia wasn't an opposite ideology like you claimed but an opposing ideology. you don't even know what words mean

you're literally retarded lmao

shrekfeddd.jpg

Count 4057 9263
  • 19 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:

@ImATomato said:
TFW your ideology so retarded it literally turns 3rd world countries into world powers.

Feels good man.
fascism in italy into world power.jpg

Stalin. Opposite ideology. Russia becomes more powerful.

Vanguard constantly tells us how Soviet Russia wasn't "real communism" but rather a mixture of state capitalism and socialism, lead by a totalitarian government. Plus, there's also that minor detail about the mass murder of over 100 million ethnic Russians and Eastern Europeans by the government outside of war, but let's forget that.

Count 4057 9263
Count 4057 9263
  • 19 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:
Durfurst is just an average guy who tries as hard as he can to be/seem smarter than he actually is. Is generally uninteresting so he subscribes to ideas and philosophies that are fringe/controversial to seem more interesting than he actually is.

Survii is likely slightly above average intelligence, but has ADHD and is socially/politically deluded. Has never won a debate, but walks away from every one he's ever had thinking he is the undisputed champion. Could be a funny man if he wasn't so busy being retarded.

stock-vector-funny-checkmate-cartoon-eps-187465013.jpg

shrekfeddd.jpg

Count 4057 9263
  • 18 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:

@Survii said:
Cool, threatening me with legal things now. Nice debate style there retard.

Threatening? You're dumb.

Should rename this the durvii mutual dicksuck thread

why are you so damn autistic

I just told you not to be like this and you do it again

Count 4057 9263
  • 1
  • 18 Jun
 DerFurst

A tip crippled-son: arguing takes effort and involves looking at what the other person has to say. Constantly insulting someone and overall acting like an autistic prick is only going to make people angry at you (inb4 lol that's what you do)

Everyone who has ever written to you has the same opinion: they want to bash your skull in for being so stupid. I don't know if you do this on purpose, but you're the most irritating person on this entire thread. I'd much rather argue with Vanguard or KingInTheNorth, because at least they make an effort.

Rationalize this all you want as "lol you just don't like my superior arguing skills," but people are tired of it. The only thing keeping you around is the fact that team lefty needs some extra bodies, otherwise in a different situation even they'd have called you out a long time ago.

Count 4057 9263
Count 4057 9263
  • 16 Jun
 DerFurst

@Monkeytoes said:
if derfurst reveals his face, then ill show you guys my ugly teenager pizza face

then post your picture already

Count 4057 9263
  • 14 Jun
 DerFurst

GYAHHH

Count 4057 9263
  • 2
  • 12 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:

@DerFurst said:

@Monkeytoes said:

@DerFurst said:
Oh well, I tried to help elucidate you on the problems inherent to arguments themselves. Continue to rationalize your own ignorance in the hopes of beating the other side.

I should put this more simply. You're trying to fight against your ideological opposites. You're never going to convince them of anything. You will present something you believe is right, the other person will deny it and present what they think is right, then you will deny it. No one will progress and the argument will stand still, as it ever was.

In order to convince someone, a person must first be willing to be convinced, and the person attempting to do the convincing must acclimate his/herself to the level of understanding of the individual wanting to be convinced. Both parties must meet each other half way and understand why each other believes as they do. That is the only way an opinion will be changed.

It's futile to argue when the intention of both parties is to destroy the other. Neither are going to admit defeat when they've lost an argument, and both are going to fight till the bitter end. However, unlike in a physical confrontation, you do not disable or kill the other person to win the disagreement, and so the argument will continue forever, or until the person gets tired. This doesn't end in a satisfying conclusion either, as one side might simply get tired of arguing at the other side for perceiving they do not understand an obvious message, while the other side might perceive this as a weakness and that the other has lost. Both sides will undergo such a feeling in both ways. There is no satisfying conclusion. This can't end in a meaningful way.

furst, you couldntve shortened this into a few sentences? be concise, my guy. ill do it for you

‘you cant convince one if theyre unwilling to be convinced’

what did my shortened version of your essay not convey?

I like to look at things in more depth than you do (on particular subjects of interest), pointing out multiple situations in which something happens and explaining why it does. I've been giving you more insight than you realize, but it looks like only the surface messages get through.

As well, if I were not to make it so blatantly obvious, you'd inevitably find some reason to disagree with me and I'd have to elaborate anyway. It's best that I save myself the trouble and have you condemn me for being too verbose.

Is that why you don't listen to anybody else? because we are to concise for you? It seems like you just linger in the background thinking of the most elaborate way to try to make some simple observation or criticism seem meaningful, while actually absorbing close to absolutely nothing anyone else has said.

That's a bold accusation from someone who refuses to gain self-awareness under the pretense that only other people need it

It was from my own realization that I was lacking in self-awareness that lead me to make these posts to begin with. My intention was to help you, not to destroy you like you continue to try doing to me.

Count 4057 9263
  • 2
  • 12 Jun
 DerFurst

@Monkeytoes said:

@DerFurst said:
Oh well, I tried to help elucidate you on the problems inherent to arguments themselves. Continue to rationalize your own ignorance in the hopes of beating the other side.

I should put this more simply. You're trying to fight against your ideological opposites. You're never going to convince them of anything. You will present something you believe is right, the other person will deny it and present what they think is right, then you will deny it. No one will progress and the argument will stand still, as it ever was.

In order to convince someone, a person must first be willing to be convinced, and the person attempting to do the convincing must acclimate his/herself to the level of understanding of the individual wanting to be convinced. Both parties must meet each other half way and understand why each other believes as they do. That is the only way an opinion will be changed.

It's futile to argue when the intention of both parties is to destroy the other. Neither are going to admit defeat when they've lost an argument, and both are going to fight till the bitter end. However, unlike in a physical confrontation, you do not disable or kill the other person to win the disagreement, and so the argument will continue forever, or until the person gets tired. This doesn't end in a satisfying conclusion either, as one side might simply get tired of arguing at the other side for perceiving they do not understand an obvious message, while the other side might perceive this as a weakness and that the other has lost. Both sides will undergo such a feeling in both ways. There is no satisfying conclusion. This can't end in a meaningful way.

furst, you couldntve shortened this into a few sentences? be concise, my guy. ill do it for you

‘you cant convince one if theyre unwilling to be convinced’

what did my shortened version of your essay not convey?

I like to look at things in more depth than you do (on particular subjects of interest), pointing out multiple situations in which something happens and explaining why it does. I've been giving you more insight than you realize, but it looks like only the surface messages get through.

As well, if I were not to make it so blatantly obvious, you'd inevitably find some reason to disagree with me and I'd have to elaborate anyway. It's best that I save myself the trouble and have you condemn me for being too verbose.


Let me condense it further for you then:

1: yes, you can't convince someone not willing to be convinced
2: two sides will make the same mistakes without realizing and blame the other side, which is a reinforcing action for both
3: the nature of online argumentation is unlike physical confrontations which can reach finite conclusions, as nobody is harmed but mentally or energetically
4: there is no satisfaction in arguing this way
5: the only solution for either side is greater self awareness

Count 4057 9263
  • 12 Jun
 DerFurst

@yourcrippledson said:
You came to realise a bunch of retards thought you were retarded, so you became retarded... bad story bro

It looks like I've cast pearls at swine once again, not even following my own advice

I hope that one day you take my advice and cultivate some self-awareness. The vitriol you've been spewing has contributed nothing to this thread but pages of angry responses from everyone thusfar.

Count 4057 9263
  • 2
  • 12 Jun
 DerFurst

@Huggles said:

@DerFurst said:
Oh well, I tried to help elucidate you on the problems inherent to arguments themselves. Continue to rationalize your own ignorance in the hopes of beating the other side.

I should put this more simply. You're trying to fight against your ideological opposites. You're never going to convince them of anything. You will present something you believe is right, the other person will deny it and present what they think is right, then you will deny it. No one will progress and the argument will stand still, as it ever was.

In order to convince someone, a person must first be willing to be convinced, and the person attempting to do the convincing must acclimate his/herself to the level of understanding of the individual wanting to be convinced. Both parties must meet each other half way and understand why each other believes as they do. That is the only way an opinion will be changed.

It's futile to argue when the intention of both parties is to destroy the other. Neither are going to admit defeat when they've lost an argument, and both are going to fight till the bitter end. However, unlike in a physical confrontation, you do not disable or kill the other person to win the disagreement, and so the argument will continue forever, or until the person gets tired. This doesn't end in a satisfying conclusion either, as one side might simply get tired of arguing at the other side for perceiving they do not understand an obvious message, while the other side might perceive this as a weakness and that the other has lost. Both sides will undergo such a feeling in both ways. There is no satisfying conclusion. This can't end in a meaningful way.

That's why western capitalism dominates the world atm ofc.

I think I understand the way you think, I think you understand the way I think. I just don't see how we could ever be compatible ever tbh. There's no way to co-exist with someone who is fundamentally opposed to co-existing lmao.

Initially I was on-board for peaceful co-existence as a philosophy for life, but as I grew in knowledge and awareness I began to understand the differences in how other groups of people thought. I realized that co-existence with them was never an option, despite how much I wanted to believe otherwise. I realized that while I may be individualistic, other people may be group oriented and themselves desired group conflict and group dominance. This wasn't an exception, but rather the norm. I was the exception.

As such, I came to realize that if I want to survive as an individual, I must understand that others view me as part of a group. My personal beliefs did not matter. In this life, on the physical level I am not strictly "me," or an eternal "I am." I realized that my consciousness is indeed attached to a biological entity that is the culmination of all things that come before me, and whether or not I like it, every physical body has its own destiny and potential - that one can refuse to acknowledge and suffer for as a result, or accept and profit from consciously.

Understanding of others may not bring you to the peaceful co-existence that you wish were possible, but it will allow you to understand yourself on a different level, and see that there are those who do not wish to co-exist with you. The first step to tolerance is not forceful co-existence, but true understanding. With understanding comes the realization that for some, co-existence is impossible, or undesirable, and may lead you to the conclusion that distance is the only healthy option.

Even now I attempt to connect with you, despite knowing the futility. I believe in individualism more than you would think, Huggles, but i have come to realize that not all groups share the consciousness required to act as individuals.