No problem, Grim...I realised to which you were alluding.

Peter-Pedo-Quim-Rimmer-Dim-BrainGram

Thank you for admitting the intellectual bankruptcy of every single one of your tactics against me; and demonstrating that you were either too dumb or too dishonest to recognise until they were used back at you. Now do you get it, Pedo?

Now perhaps if you would stop trying to squirm out of your self-contradictions and ideological support for the corporatisation of the planet, and actually answer try to focus on what, according to you, will prove what is in issue.

Is aggressive violence okay if it's done by an elected government, or not?
What is the principle, if any, on which government power should be limited?

Poirot
"Pull the other one...you spend a goodly dollop of your time on this forum impugning your opponents and calling them names."

Wrong. I never initiate personal argument, only ever respond to it, like Grim's chronic childish tactic of insult and mirespresentation which he now admits is wrong, but only as applies to himself. He still thinks misrepresentation is fine when he does it. But you didn't call him on it, did you? Ho hum, standard left wing modus operandi. The fact you think all argument is personal argument doesn't improve your position.

So anyway, look, stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty and just answer the question, will you?

Is aggressive violence okay if it's done by an elected government, or not?

I would argue there is context here, via (coincidental?) connections between many in the list, leading to one man and his anti-immigration nativist network, John Tanton:

From The New York Times ‘Anti-immigrant crusader’ - ‘‘In a memo titled “Latin Onslaught,” John Tanton says that White people’s “power and control over their lives [is] declining” as “a group that is simply more fertile” procreates itself to majority status.’ http://tinyurl.com/ly7md3n

Paul Ehrlich and Sea Shepherd’s Paul Watson, were allied with Tanton in The Sierra Club (not unlike like the ACF), and attempted takeovers in the USA some years ago:

‘In the U.S. the first big greening of hate wave occurred in the mid-1990s when conservative anti-immigrant forces began mobilizing within the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest membership-based environmental organization, to pass a ballot initiative supporting a “reduction of net immigration” as a component of a “comprehensive population policy for the United States." ..... One does not have to scratch very far beneath the surface to find the links between the green wing of the anti-immigration movement and nativism and white supremacy.’ http://tinyurl.com/nj355gj

In Australia this tactic appears to have translated into some selected ACF directors becoming patrons of Sustainable Population Australia, along with Paul Ehrlich’s mate Bob Carr, but what is Bob Carr doing with friends like these?

From Climate and Capitalism, ‘Green Fascism and the Greening of Hate - Population control — the ideology of the green right.

Aren’t these just political games?

Hartmann: It’s more than that. There is an academic journal called Population and Environment, …. edited by Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist who writes about a Jewish plot to liberalize immigration policies. In 1999, MacDonald appeared in court in Britain to defend the historian and holocaust denier David Irving. The journal’s advisory editorial board includes famous environmental scientists such as Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb….. http://tinyurl.com/k95lpjn

Like McDonald has finally lost tenure at his university, maybe Australia’s ‘best demographer’ (according to Bob Car) could do the same at his university? Nowadays it seems we are overpopulated with ageing white and often wealthy middle class ‘environmentalists’..

JKJ,

"Wrong. I never initiate personal argument, only ever respond to it..."

You have to be joking : )

Your posts are often bulging with derogatory and inflammatory remarks liberally peppered throughout your rants.

You are in no way a courteous poster.

Here's a perfect example you just directed at me.

"So anyway, look, stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty and just answer the question, will you?"

Charming!

For some reason a 'wild erratic fancy' has come upon me, that perhaps refreshing memories about poor debating tactics might be in order.

- Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man" an example of this might be suggesting a person is irrational, rather than a person's beliefs are irrational.

- Non sequitur. Latin for "It doesn't follow". An example of this might be suggesting that because a person believes in democratically elected governments, one must therefore believe in everything an elected government does, -even if one didn't actually vote for the government in question.

- Straw man tactics. Making a caricature out of a position in order to make it easier to attack. This is when people Assume they know someone's point of view, and begin arguing a made-up construction about their opponent, rather than just debate the words of their opponent. In short, you assume that your opponent believes something that he or she did not explicitly state.

Of course mentioning names would be most inappropriate, particularly if I don't know the real names, or if some people choose to change their names on a frequent basis.

Andras Smith,

Thank you for your comment. It's possibly the most interesting and informative comment on this thread.

Some of Jardine K. Jardines comments cut through to the nub of the issues too. It's worth reading his comments.

BTW, Jardine, if you're still reading the comments, did you see my comment at 12 September 2014 12:26:53 PM- it's about 12 comments up. I hope you might look at the links and consider the suggestion. It's a far more serious and constructive (mostly) group that participates here.