I'm sure you're absolutely correct, Peter Lang; Mr What-ever-his-name-is would surely be more comfortable on Curry's forum. It is clearly a far more objective, unbiased and even handed discussion than you'll ever find on these poor pages, as evidenced by your no doubt very apt discription:
“...loony Left and the rational realist Right..”
No bias or “language of the extreme” there.

Peter-Pedo-Quim-Rimmer-Dim-Brain-Gram

So is aggressive violence okay if done by government, or not?
On what principle should government power be limited?

Jardine K. Jardine,

You start your comments with 'Peter'. But which Peter are you referring to? I trust you haven't confused me with the one of the CAGW alarmists, have you?

You haven't acknowledged you saw my comment I addressed to you at at 12 September 2014 12:26:53 PM so I am wondering if you are confusing me with someone else and misinterpreting the intent. The comment is genuine and no hidden meaning intended.

LOL thanks Peter Lang, no I'm not confusing you, and thanks for your link to the climate website. I'm addressing Peter-Pedo-Grim. He has apparently just discovered that ad hom and misrepresentation are illegitimate, but only when I reflect his tactics back to him; the rest of the time it's all he's got.

If I'm wrong, we'll see from his answer to my questions. If I'm right, we'll just get another serve of his standard sneering ad hom, assuming he's right in the first place, and misrepresentation.

You see Grim the difference between your approach and mine is that mine is falsifiable; yours isn't. I offer you what you need to disprove me; you don't.

"Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man""
That's the literal translation, not the meaning, as in fallacy, which is, confusing the merit of an argument with some supposed personal characteristic of the person putting it forward - you know, like your idea that my net name has some relevance to whether people advocating genocide is okay?

"even if one didn't actually vote for the government in question."
So are you admitting that elected governments aren't presumptively better than your freedom to make the decision in question, or not? Why aren't you contradicting yourself?

"In short, you assume that your opponent believes something that he or she did not explicitly state."

At last you recognise your own tactic when I reflect it back to you: oh planet-corporatiser.

Come on, let's cut to the general issue. What are the answers to my questions?

Poirot
"So anyway, look, stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty ...?"

Ad hominem doesn't mean personal insult. It means argument *logically depending on* irrelevant supposed personal characteristics - like Grim's imagined intellectual triumph at constantly remarking about my net name, as if that has any substantive bearing on anything to do with politics or economics.

I have independently established your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty, therefore my argument is not ad hominem.

But if I haven't, then what are the answers to my questions?

Jardine,

Thanks for that. Climate Etc. is mostly much better but it is being trashed at the moment because there is a thread running about the Michael Mann court case and it's attracted a host of Mann's defenders, so there site is being trashed. When Judith wakes up I expect she'll probably make a comment and delete a whole lot of comments (but she may not because they are visitors from the Mann supporters, so she may just let it runs it course).

Many of the regular commenters here could benefit from adoption the suggestions in this new post on Climate Etc.:

"How to criticise with kindness"
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/15/how-to-criticize-with-kindness/