Let me see if I've it right and short.

You're...

*claiming that I'm bad in many ways (scantily supported)?
Do you deny this? So you are claiming you aren't bad in many ways? Oh wait yes, you are indeed claiming you are better than others, even judging them with your erroneous and gratuitous claims and telling them how bad they are compared to you.

**irrelevantly claiming that I'm wasting my time (some support)?
already gave you some support, by the time you took to post you different walls of text, but well you ignore what you want to ignore, a common behavior seen among hypocrites.

**claiming that I think I've argued flawlessly here (no support at all)?
You only provided here again your own opinion of yourself (very narcissistic). Without letting others what they really think about you.

*You're wanting that I help you learn how to argue in a logic, polite, and likeable way?
Well most of the people wanting to help others would indeed try to be logic, polite in a likeable way, is this that hard to conceive this for you?

How is NRA not responsible? They are encouraging this policy, and closing their eyes on the problem generated by massive gun ownership.

In recent wars (2000 and after), tell me how France has urged to kill innocent? In the meantime innocent are shot and killed due to domestic and gun violence in the US, and this is an indirect cause of NRA supporting these policies.

An organization can do as bad things as states sadly, see Al Qaeda again, it is an organization too.

And if I am a fascist, then you are a National Socialist.

The NRA supports folk being good at shooting, only shooting for sport and defense, and doesn't support mass killings or mass extortion. France supports mass killings, mass extortion, and shooting if a person disagrees with you.

Did the NRA support any mass shootings? Did their policies contribute to those shootings happening? No.

French policies? Supporting America in wars, going to war, and robbing folk.

Actually he was wrongly using Mashriq since I think he was referring to Maghreb instead.

You still have not proved anything Major, you havent proved France in recent years was supporting mass killing.
NRA is an organization as Al Qaeda, and both are responsible of the death of thousands and thousands of people each year.

^ to anoym

Edited 5/13/2016 23:20:03

well, not as much as in Maghreb, France worst colonist policies were mainly in Maghreb, Africa and Indochina. As for Mashreq it did not lasted that long (only 20 years I think), and it was a mandate, Lebanon had good relationship with France, because culturally closer, and as for Syria they achieved independence early and weren't subjugated and colonized by the French as in Algeria or even Morocco.

did you miss "recent years" per chance?

The French gov. supports American military actions, supported going into Afghanistan, and has already killed masses of innocent folk in Syria via bombings.

The NRA taught folk how to properly handle a gun.

supported US military actions? Did you miss 2003 per chance?

France is NATO associated and American allied. Did you miss 2000-2016?

nope 2000-2016, it is rather actually 2008-2016 (when Sarkozy finally joined France to the NATO's commandment after 40 years of boycott). Anyway don't you think the whole thread has massively derailed?

Well yes, when you're losing the argument and decide to say that the thread shouldn't be argued, I agree , but only because it's quite tedious.

wats funny that in usa there r few million jobs open

no1 filling them in...

200k open manufacturing jobs...

plenty of jobs everywhere...

the question is who actually lost the argument? I am not the one that derailed it. It is almost a circular argument now anyway.

*claiming that I'm bad in many ways (scantily supported)?
Do you deny this? So you are claiming you aren't bad in many ways? Oh wait yes, you are indeed claiming you are better than others, even judging them with your erroneous and gratuitous claims and telling them how bad they are compared to you.

I'm not denying anything (yet), just trying to get it right. Which you appear to confirm, though there's so much zeal, it's hard to tell.

**irrelevantly claiming that I'm wasting my time (some support)?
already gave you some support, by the time you took to post you different walls of text, but well you ignore what you want to ignore, a common behavior seen among hypocrites.

I literally said that you have some support for this, and I was actually going to say originally (at least you've some support for this), but changed it as I did not want to be pretentious - such selfrestrain, you lack.

**claiming that I think I've argued flawlessly here (no support at all)?
You only provided here again your own opinion of yourself (very narcissistic). Without letting others what they really think about you.

I said that I was likely to be biased, that I'm definitely not infallible, and encouraged adding snarks about me - in which you've not, but somehow still find the gall to say I'm very narcissistic and arrogant.

*You're wanting that I help you learn how to argue in a logic, polite, and likeable way?
Well most of the people wanting to help others would indeed try to be logic, polite in a likeable way, is this that hard to conceive this for you?

It's not hard to conceive. That's why folk I often disagree with it, like Eklipse and DDB, they still have high thoughts of me since I rarely see them do snarks, and I, like a classic Juqster, very arrogantly and narcissitically believe that they have good thoughts of me as an arguer for (not) doing the same.

"Xy and I disagree on almost everything, but he's one of few people who I actually enjoy arguing with on the forum most of the time"

Now, it's not since I'm racist to French folk or anything, so why do you think it is that I've never had an enjoyable (in the same way - it's enjoyable to keep watching your weak argument (totally supported, not insult, as you'd agree) fail, but differently) argument with you?

Smedley acknowledge 16 points - can you? Maybe you should wield some other totally unbacked claims about me as well, like I zealously hate women and all Africans?

That said, an easy repentance from you for your vanity and meanness, and I shall repent in kind to whatever it is that you said I was, and I will go over each point and tell you how to fix them as you wish (don't say I'm condescending here, this is what you want) (lesson 1: knowing is half the battle).

can u guys stfu and go on topic

Answering your comments again is rather pointless juq since it turns to be always a circle argument and derailing further away this thread (incredible to see a waco here making more sense), and a total waste of time for both of us, I will just answer to this:

why do you think it is that I've never had an enjoyable (in the same way - it's enjoyable to keep watching your weak argument (totally supported, not insult, as you'd agree) fail, but differently) argument with you?

Where did I mention this?
If you read more carefully my previous posts some months earlier I clearly stated that we could have good discussions together. What isn't "enjoyable" is what you were currently doing: judging others in a bad patronizing tone, like you are (believing yourself as) a reference. Hence you accumulated all the flaws you were criticizing before: pretentious, arrogant, condescendent, insulting.
I would rather have peaceful arguments with you, no wall of text of pointless claims nobody would read, bitching around with words that were said earlier, whereas you could do well to take a look in the mirror or look in your own backyard before starting criticizing others.

Edited 5/14/2016 00:40:15

Answering your comments again is rather pointless juq since it turns to be always a circle argument and derailing further away this thread

1. circular arguments mean that you support an unproved claim#1 with an unproved claim#2, and unproved claim#2 with unproved claim#1. This is a flaw of one side only.
2. threads don't have rails.

Where did I mention this?

You didn't say anything, but it's pretty much impossible to argue informally and likeably with you, in my happenings. I haven't seen anyone say they like arguing with you, but seen many who like arguing with me.

judging others in a bad patronizing tone

Actually, the original purpose I made it was just to poke some fun out of a heating debate, though I can see now that maybe it sounded patronising, maybe.

If you read more carefully my previous posts some months earlier

Yes, I recall, and they were patronising as crap, but I'm not actually against the thought, but you are way too snarky.

You didn't say anything, but it's pretty much impossible to argue informally and likeably with you, in my happenings. I haven't seen anyone say they like arguing with you, but seen many who like arguing with me.

Well it is impossible to argue actually with you either, as I noticed you particularly are unable to reassess yourself and keep making headway. Ask yourself why many people also hate to argue with you (perhaps you ignored this, then it's time for a revelation!).
Again rather funny to see you are saying "people like arguing with me", how many people really like actually this? 1-2 people? And I Guess you haven't seen anyone that said they like arguing with me because basically you aren't part of the chats were we usually discuss together, and if you aren't part of it, it is mainly because many people do not want to see you participating here (Andrés, Pablo, Chuck Norris, most of CORP, and some others in game chats, but also mail chats made by Belgian and others where you aren't invited at all), seeing how boring it can be to argue for some stupid things (spelling of Galiza and stupid arguments for hours as a good example), you get stuck with some stupid arguing sometimes tbh. Anyway as I said, we can have decent conversations together too but sadly they are too rare.

This is the last comment I make about this since all have been already said, and nothing good is coming from it as usual. Good night Juq.