1*do you think that is normal too? (pretentious)

Tell me how a simple question is pretentious here? Isn't your own behavior here rather pretentious too?

Later you say Smedley is dumber than you, so why do you care about his thoughts? You don't, and just is trying to daemonise his argument, through making his point seem it was that workers who work for years are still paid much less than commmon workers, which is what he is saying, but he is also saying to take into account work and hardness of the job.

2*Easy to criticize others when you do not know what you are talking about. (insult, pretentious)

Insult? tell me what could be qualified as an insult? Do you see any offensive language?
And pretentious about what? I said earlier my own father is a teacher, I have a sufficient knowledge about it, don't you think it is pretentious to overgeneralize all the time like you do and Major?

It's an indirect insult, Smedley is critcising, and you say then that Smedley doesn't know anything.

3*I fear your comment is wrong here. (pretentious)

Not pretentious at all, I even used the CONDITIONNAL.

You did not wield the conditional form (would). And you do not "fear" that I'm wrong - if I'm wrong, then the outcome to you is, you're right, so actually "hope" would be a better word, since you always need to be. Furthermore, you

4*Admit it Major what you are advocating is pure socialism (pretentious, false)

pretentious? do you know what this word means at least? And false well sure, you are defending him, but you have then to explain me why it isn't pure socialism.

I'm defending him? I put every snark up that I saw of his, too, and you can give more if you have some. Anyhow, it's pretentious since you're implying that Smedley is just trolling by saying that it is a libertarian thought, though he really does know it is socialism. As for false, you have the claim here, actually, you'd be the one to shield it. But show me where he is advocating for pure socialism, where he himself says he is, since he's actually said the opposite several times. Or, you can first make a convincing argument about why it is "pure socialism" that he advocates, so this could be classed as passing of a claim as axiom, too.

5*generalizing is rather stupid and childish. (insult)

Not an insult, I did not again used any offensive language as Major did earlier ("screw off", "screw you", "dumbarse"). Just making a statement which is not really false since generalizing is quite stupid and childish.

An insult doesn't need to have offensive tongue - "you're empty of brain" this is not an insult, to you? Also, seems like...you just made a generalisation about generalisation.

6*If you paid attention I said I was not socialist (false, pretentious)

False? So now you know better myself than me? (some people would say it is here indeed very pretentious here Juq)

Apparently I do know you better than yourself. Go and find where you said that you were not socialist before that comment, if you doubt it. Also, I'm ignoring all what you've to say about me here, since saying that I'm bad doesn't redeem you. Anyhow, you've not talked about the pretensy.

7*I am actually quite unaffiliated picking from different ideologies (circular argument, also false from my happenings)

false? Got to explain me again how you know better what I think

It's just in my happenings, you are always a socialist, and you even called yourself patriot not too long ago. I've seen several times that you have shielding the left, but never the right; you have criticised wars, but never shielded them. This is not "unaffiliation". Anyway, that's not the point that got you on, I would not base it on subjectivity alone, the point that got you on was the circular argument.

8*your comments show that you are (unconsciously) supporting the worst socialist policies, since you are against meritocracy. (circular and unsupported claim)

Unsupported claims? well it is what you are currently doing since none of your claims here were right for the moment, how is mine unsupported? He is supporting and even precised unconsciously some socialist policies, he denies it, that's all right, but still being against meritocracy is part of Socialist ideologies (the worst ones).

Taking an unproven claim as axiom, again. Furthermore, this is an unsupported claim, too, and now you apparently know Smedley better than himself, eh? Anyhow, in the quote, you're saying he's socialist. That's a contested claim - but you just pass it off as truth that you're right. Furthermore, you're not even letting him shield himself since you'll just say he's doing this subconciously.

9*You are constantly contradicting yourself here. (unsupported)

He was indeed contradicting himself? Do you need a specific source to back up my claim? Gosh stop being childish Juq, read the chat.

I haven't seen it, so yeah, a source'd be nice, a source that is undeniable.

10*try to respect your own ideology please. (pretentious)

It was actually just an advice

Shut up. This is just an advice. Furthermore, it's clearly not an advice'ere, at the greatest goodgain of doubt, it's you pleading him to do something. But please - you're not being polite here.

11*Again Major your opinion is purely irrelevant here since it is not objective at all, the fact that your own teachers supposedly suck, does not mean every teacher sucks. Your argument is weak here. (insult, unsupported, also doesn't know what "opinion" means, it's French word, not even English...)

Opinion was the right word, Major only gives his opinion not any objective facts, aren't you the one not knowing what "opinion" and "objectivity" mean?
Tell me again where are the insults?

An opinion is pretty much always subjective. You're either being very obvious and pretentious here, or just faffed the meaning of a word. Calling, without any backing, Smedley's thoughts as irrelevant, and his argument weak are the insults. Again - I can say that your brain is a very high level brain, but everything that comes out of the mouth is rubbish - would this be insult? Also, unsupported.

12*you change your mind like a wind vane aren't you? (pretentious)
Nope, realistic, but the truth hurts him like it hurts you Juq, I also noticed it.

Even if it was realistic, this whole thing is written very pretentiously. Change your mind like a wind vane? Maybe this should be classed as insult salted with melodrama.

13*you are defending a wrecked socialist policy (insult or false (can't be both))

It's probably false, as he has nowhere defended a wrecked socialist policy anywhere. But if it's true, then you're insulting the socialist policy as wrecked.

14*stop whining and being mad for nothing. (insult)

Well that was rather harsh indeed, but no offensive language, hardly conceive it as an insult (unlike "dumbarse" or "screw you")

But we're not talking about Smedley, and I would definitely see this as an insult...I think most folk would. Is there something else you class it as? Advice?

15*They deserve their salary, unless you want to live in a Marxist World, where everyone is paid the same. (false narrow)

False, everything is false when it goes against your own biased views, right Juq?

You're narrowing it down to two outcomes, when there's way more. So yes, I say this is a false narrow.

16*Sadly they are anyway low paid, so I do not get why you are arguing about it socialist texan boy. (unsupported, pretentious)

Low paid it is, if you read carefully I even said how much teachers in France were paid

It wasn't that that I was saying was unsupported, it was that Smedley is socialist, also, "socialist texan boy" is very pretentious.

17*you have to ask yourself why (pretentious)

pretentious? a part of sentence is "pretentious"? paste it at least entirely before judging pretentiously.

Frankly, this is getting as pathetic as D. Trump supporters when they're always claiming the quotes are taken out of context. The meaning is still the same (full: Anyway, I noticed you said that in the US, "standards were lowered", you have to ask yourself why, perhaps it is because less and less people want to become teachers, instead of criticizing a profession that you know nothing about, judging them behind your screen with a totally extreme Marxist biased view, you should see how this profession is one of the hardest one, and that's why fewer and fewer people are choosing this profession, and this is why perhaps in the US they are lowering "the standards".). You are implifying that Smedley never doubts libertarianism and is a bigot.

18*instead of criticizing a profession that you know nothing about, judging them behind your screen with a totally extreme Marxist biased view, you should see how this profession is one of the hardest one (insult, pretentious, unsupported)

where are the insults?
again I can speak from my own personal experience: my father.

You are implying that Smedley knows nothing about what he's talking. +pretentious +unsupported

19*Not my fault if you "lowered your standards" (pretentious)

You tend to use "pretentious" but I am seriously wondering if you know what it means?

Why would it be your fault? You are implifying that Smedley gets furious and attacking in arguments, and is blaming you for all the problems...which isn't happening.

20*how is this logical? (pretentious)

Again tell me how this question is pretentious.

Implifying Smedley is illogic, when you actually gave no backing of this (illogic =/= wrong).

yall need livez

21*Again you are pissed by your own teachers obviously (unsupported, probably false)

I have to admit here I made myself a personal opinion

Ok, so it's clearly not obvious, as you don't even know for sure yourself. Calling this an opinion is an overstatement.

22*Only Marxists such as you are happy to see low workers are paid as much as a teacher/professor. (unsupported claim now passed off as axiom, pretentious)

Sarcasm?

Sarcasm means you say the opposite of what you mean, but you have been meaning to call Smedley marxist over and over again.

23*generalizing it to the whole population of professors/teachers is really idiotic and childish. (insult, unsupported)

Insult? Give me again the offensive words please.

(idiotic) (childish)
"Wielding an username like Angry Koala is really idiotic and childish."

Unsupported is rather irrelevantly made here, how saying "generalizing it to the whole population of teachers" is "unsupported, it is rather common sense.

Even common sense is based on something, furthermore, common sense is not a justification even if it were supported. In Christianity, it is common sense to believe in a god that is.

24*You are basically against meritocracy, and supporting a Marxist utopian policy. (unsupported, probably false)

tell me how you know it is "probably false"

But it is unsupported. As for probably false, well, your claim here's unsupported, and Smedley several times has said he's not marxist or socialist or anything of the kind, nor supporting any policy of theirs (here).

25*And you are pissed by your teachers so you are generalizing (as usual since you do it also for other threads), I often wonder why you are so prone to generalise. Generalisations are seldom if ever true and are usually utterly inaccurate. (unsupported, insult, pretentious)

Insults? Tell me again where are they?

generalisations are "utterly inaccurate" -> smedley generalises -> smedley is "utterly innacurate".

It is unsupported as for the statement I made about his teachers (only my opinion here indeed), but you have to tell me how is it pretentious to say "I often wonder why you are so prone to generalise. Generalisations are seldom if ever true and are usually utterly inaccurate"?

How often do you wonder? Have you ever wondered about it? You're just phrasing this in a way that makes you think like you are, unlike Smedley, "utterly accurate", like you are smart and he is not. Very pretentious.

26*People complaining constantly and whining for no reason, this is really pathetic tbh. (insult)

Again show me the offensive language I used?

"complain", "constantly", "whining" "for no reason", "pathetic". Not even taking into account that this is a whine in itself.

27*Again overgeneralizing, all public schools aren't bad, it is a rather simplistic view again major. (pretentious, unsupported, insult)

Pretentious, unsupported, well it is more like it is you here, how can you caution overgeneralization?

So even you agree it's pretentious.

And tell me how is it unsupported? He said public schools were bad, obviously all aren't bad

I don't think he said all were bad, and now you support it in some way, but too late.

again common sense, you are the ones that have to tell me how all schools could be bad, your claim Major here are indeed unsupported.

One wrong doesn't justify the other, and in such a setting, it is up to both sides to back their claims, since both their claims are absolutely provable. And my claim? I never claimed all or even most schools were bad or good.

And insult, well as usual tell me how is my language offensive here again?

You are calling Major simplistic and overgeneralising.

27 points, 27 wrong points, congrats Juq, you are a champion in wasting your time for really nothing.

Some of these you hardly argued against, even. Some kind of insult here about wasting my time, but frankly, I had some time to waste writing this, and you, whose post was twice as long as my root one, even while cutting out all that I wrote, would be a hypocrite to say I am wasting my time.

Making self supported claims and personal opinions, acting in a very condescending and arrogant manner with nothing relevant to bring to the debate. Impressive work.

Are you competing to be the most pretentious fellow on Warlight? I'd definitely capitulate if I am competing you. Your pretensy is impressive. Feel free to add my snarks, if you want, I will add them, too, as long as they are well-justified.

you have criticised wars

(You were talking about how Koala only criticizes the right and is always anti-war)

Koala did defend a war; the French killing folk in Mali war. You know, the war France is doing to try desperately to keep it's interests alive there. Well, if France does it, they can't go wrong, if America does it, shame!

Frankly Juq if by wasting my time you mean that because I was debating with Major, opposing our views, what about you then? You did not provide again anything relevant to the debate, excepted bitching around words for hours (such a waste of time honestly I pity you here Juq) and sentences we all made, and most as I commented earlier are wrong, look at the supposed insults: you have to be more convincing about how "complain", "criticize", "childish" are insults, well if those are insults, the "shut up" you stated is a great insult, dear God!
Again, it is a very arrogant posture, talking about being pretentious, just look at yourself here. You are basically giving your own lessons about how we are pretentious and making insults, but look at yourself instead : There is no participation of you here without pretension and false claims at all.

Frankly Juq if by wasting my time you mean that because I was debating with Major, opposing our views, what about you then?

Don't detract - first resolve this point: do you think it is right of you to say that "I am wasting my time" when you wrote an answer twice as long?

As for me, I just wanted to highlight everyone's badness in arguing here, and just for fun, really; I was bored. But you wrote your answer out of vanity - to shield your ego and to attack specifically me (while what I wrote could maybe be thought as an attack, I attacked all, not anyone specific). To shield only your points and to somehow find all of them invalid (you must really be perfect).

You did not provide again anything relevant to the debate

Arguably I have given the most relevant thing of all to a debate: a fault list of everyone, so that maybe they can improve themselves, or know of their faults. Far more handy than the goal of your argument (which hasn't got anywhere): to convince each other of a relatively small outlook. If one of you convinces the other, then the other is a bit smarter for it, but otherwise the same. If I convince with the list (and I don't see Smedley vanely shielding every point he has, so obviously it's working at least partially), then you both become more logic, polite, and likable arguers, a knack better than just a kind of outlook.

bitching around words for hours

It didn't take that long. Who do you think has wrote more on the thread, bitching words, as you say, anyhow?

honestly I pity you here Juq

Frankly, I pity you, for being too spastic to have a thought process.

most as I commented earlier are wrong

You said all are wrong, actually, and that's where I came to look at your appeals - this is more axiomising on your part.

if those are insults, the "shut up" you stated is a great insult

Do you say it's not an insult?

Again, it is a very arrogant posture, talking about being pretentious, just look at yourself here. You are basically giving your own lessons about how we are pretentious and making insults, but look at yourself instead : There is no participation of you here without pretension and false claims at all.

I never claimed not be arrogant or pretentious, probably I lose stand and am sometimes. I'm obviously going to be biased, that's why I invited you to put some specific examples on there.

They're already hiding assets as is, also, have you heard of any big businesses from socialist countries - they leave and don't get built, which is sometimes ok, if there's enough employment in government.

one of the biggest businesses in the world is from a socialist country : ikea

Ikea was founded decades before socialism came to Sweden, and currently it's based in the Netherlands, not Sweden.

Koala did defend a war; the French killing folk in Mali war. You know, the war France is doing to try desperately to keep it's interests alive there. Well, if France does it, they can't go wrong, if America does it, shame!

Did not get why you were talking about this, but anyway I am usually anti-war, the war in Mali was not started by France, for once it wasn't motivated by the "Françafrique" doctrina, this is why I indeed defended it. Since you seem to not know what happened, Mali was invaded by Al Qaeda's soldiers terrorizing the whole country. I have a Malian friend that was worrying every day about his family, since AQMI forces were dangerously approaching Bamako. The French intervention was asked by the Malians actually, and it worked since it repelled the Islamist forces far to the Sahara, the French weren't even composing the majority, the African Union forces and Western Africa coalition were contributing for most of the intervention .
I never defended France's bad operations in Africa, I am quite aware of the abuses made by France, I also know a Burundian girl that told me how France colluded during the Rwandan genocide and atrocities.
I try to have a rather neutral view on it.

Btw, funny to see you are calling me pro war, whereas you are pretty much pro NRA, you can be against state's army, nonetheless you are for militias, armed groups (Al Qaeda is basically a stateless army, you could be interested to join, ever thought about it?) and you are hence basically pro-violence. So tell me how is this better?

Not everyone is against you, you're now not even protentious, just zealous. I mean, you keep on trying to legitimise your stances by trying to call out someone else's stances.

Don't detract - first resolve this point: do you think it is right of you to say that "I am wasting my time" when you wrote an answer twice as long?

As for me, I just wanted to highlight everyone's badness in arguing here, and just for fun, really; I was bored. But you wrote your answer out of vanity - to shield your ego and to attack specifically me (while what I wrote could maybe be thought as an attack, I attacked all, not anyone specific). To shield only your points and to somehow find all of them invalid (you must really be perfect).

Well Juq, you basically wasted your time here, and by twice as long, how is my answer longer since you just replied here with 3 massive walls of text full with nothing worth to read? You are a champion in this domain. Congratulations.

"highlight everyone's badness in arguing", whereas you are not better than most of us, seriously Juq, you talk about pretention, tell me how is this not pretentious?
Shield my ego? Well I think that the person taking it the most seriously is you Juq, calm your tits and take it easy, this is only a chat, we are discussing and sharing our opinion, we can disagree (major and me) but your own comment "highliting everone's badness in arguing" is a real waste of time, showing a behavior full of pretention and arrogance.

Arguably I have given the most relevant thing of all to a debate: a fault list of everyone, so that maybe they can improve themselves, or know of their faults. Far more handy than the goal of your argument (which hasn't got anywhere): to convince each other of a relatively small outlook. If one of you convinces the other, then the other is a bit smarter for it, but otherwise the same. If I convince with the list (and I don't see Smedley vanely shielding every point he has, so obviously it's working at least partially), then you both become more logic, polite, and likable arguers, a knack better than just a kind of outlook.

Again a statement full of pretention and arrogance "given the most relevant thing of all to a debate", you are not the one qualified to judge your own participation, let other people reading your post judge it instead.
And "a list...so they can improve" do you really believe you would make me swallow this enormous lie? You were clearly adopting a condescending posture with no objective to help others at all, but denigrate what they say. Frankly if it was for helping us, instead of enumerating our sentences and randomly state "pretentious, false, insult", you should explain to us clearly how to improve our "poor" rhetorical skills like "instead of saying it, you should say". A Juqish saying for you because I like it: "Curb your arrogance".

It didn't take that long. Who do you think has wrote more on the thread, bitching words, as you say, anyhow?

Did not take that long? Let me check something: you started answering my response at 3:07 (actually you just published it so you may have started to type your post some min before), and you finished your last wall of text at 5:29, 2 hours wasted, well I suppose that for you it is "not that long", since you may be used to waste hours posting loads of lame paragraphs that nobody would read anyway.

You said all are wrong, actually, and that's where I came to look at your appeals - this is more axiomising on your part.

Aren't you "axiomising" yourself? Truth is universal. Perception of truth varies.

Nice to see you believe propaganda. A ethnic group in Northern Mali that was largely left alone by the government decided to go independent, seeing this as a opportunity, the US sent Al-Qaeda in to destabilize the country and prevent China from further investing in the country, while France went in to fight the ethnic rebels and Al-Qaeda to protect it's interests in Mali.

*is against the unjust initiation of force*

*supports armed groups that defend themselves and others from the unjust initiation of force while not committing violence against others unjustly*

Yeah I must be pro Al-Qaeda.

About the Touaregs (I suppose you were referring to them), I am aware of it, remember I am part myself of a minority? There are often many cultural events gathering Basques and Berbers, often musical but also political debates, very interesting actually.

The thing is Touaregs were duped by Al Qaeda they took advantage of their hatred against the Malian State, this is why they formed a coalition. It is rather funny you constantly try to minimize the presence of Al Qaeda here and other islamic groups. I also noticed you weren't even aware that Touaregs broke their solidarity with the Islamists. The Touareg fight has to be taken in count, and I am actually in favor of a recognition of the Touareg nation. Borders in Africa were made by colonisers, this is mainly why sadly there are wars like this one.

Tell me anyway how the US sent AQMI there? Would be interested to know it, since AQMI originates mainly from Algeria, a very anti American state actually (it used to be one of the most important socialist state and anti imperialist); tell me how Algerians were indoctrinated by US agents? I am rather ignorant as you know, so if you could enlighten me about it please do it.

But anyway to go back to the topic about Mali, tell me how would be the region if nobody would have stopped Al Qaeda and allies there? Easy answer: see Iraq and Syria. Timbuktu was basically the Raqqa of Africa before the coalition retook it.

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

You're...

*claiming that I'm bad in many ways (scantily supported)?
**irrelevantly claiming that I'm wasting my time (some support)?
**claiming that I think I've argued flawlessly here (no support at all)?
*You're wanting that I help you learn how to argue in a logic, polite, and likeable way?

So how does this relate to the validity of the 28 (and growing) points?

Also since you have a hard on for hating the NRA , how about we compare the deaths caused by the French government and them? I'll make sure to only start from NRA foundation onwards though.

NRA: A organization dedicated to teaching marksmanship, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership. It isn't a army or a government, just a organization.

French government 1871 onwards: A government with it's own army , that ritualistically practices in indoctrination of youth in occupied areas, prohibition of drugs in occupied areas, and mass extortion in occupied areas.

NRA 1871-1900:

It teached marksmenship and gun safety.

French government 1871-1900: It participated in heavy imperialism in Africa and Asia. Thousands were subjegated, killed and oppressed.

NRA 1900-1939: Taught marksmenship.

French government 1900-1939: Is responsible for millions of deaths across Europe, occupied and subjegated folk in Anatolia and Mashriq, continued occupation of places in Africa and Asia.

Do I need to go on?

Considering the US cooperated with Al-Qaeda agents before the formation of it, the leader was a CIA agent, the US used a Al-Qaeda attack as an excuse to invade a country, let them into another, and is currently acting as Al-Qaeda's Air Force in Syria, it's hard to believe that the US isn't colluding with Al-Qaeda in some form.

if you want to compare them compare it well not again in a obvious biased way.
In recent years, NRA is responsible of ten thousand of death each years caused by domestic violence and guns.
Even France participating in wars in recent years is not responsible of that many deaths of innocents in the different operation these last 15 years.
NRA and gun ownership are the direct consequence of why an American guy has 50 times more chance to get killed by domestic violence and guns than a French guy. With 88% of American citizens armed, the only country beating the US in terms of gun ownership is Yemen, a model nation in terms of non violence... The US are also dominating for the number of young people killed by guns (below 15 yo).

And NRA is supporting it, keep defending it Major. Keep believing their lies.

Yet show me the US were colluding and helping AQMI would you.

The NRA is responsible for those deaths how exactly? They don't go handing out guns to terrorists, but France has done that. They don't urge folk to kill, but France has done that. They aren't responsible for more violence in the Americas compared to Europe, though France does have some guilt for its invasion of Mexico.

Go ahead say a organization that gets money from donations can outspend a government with much larger stores of money and has a much greater use for propagandized folk than the organization. Honestly, the person who loves indoctrination, armies and mass violence against innocents is the one trying to get the moral high ground? You're a fascist, Koala, you just can't admit it yet.