An easy way to avoid name calling is of course if we give our real names, then there will be no excuse for using the wrong name, will there?
Oh wait, I've already done that...
Then there's the matter of Straw Man arguments, and putting words into other people's mouths:
“your self-contradictions and ideological support for the corporatisation of the planet...” No, if you check back I specifically spoke out AGAINST the corporatisation of the planet.
“stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence...” No, I have always spoken out against aggressive violence.
“childish tactic of insult and mirespresentation (sic) which he now admits is wrong...”
It's always fun to argue with someone who completely oblivious to sarcasm. Did I insult you, Jardine? Would you like to make a count of my insults to yours?
“He still thinks misrepresentation is fine when he does it...” Precisely what have I 'misrepresented', Jardine?
“Is aggressive violence okay if it's done by an elected government, or not?”
No. Aggressive violence isn't okay for elected governments, non elected corporations or individuals. Nor have I ever suggested it is. Surely that must be plain enough that even you can't misconstrue it?
As to the legitimate role of Government, I'm quite happy with this:
“Government ought to protect the individuals within the country against the violent and fraudulent attacks of gangsters, and it should defend the country against foreign enemies.”

Peter Lang

That assumes that the opponent's is motivated is to find out the truth, or at least to identify what's false, by rational discourse.

But what if they're not?

What if you can show that what they're saying is untrue, and self-contradictory, and fallacious, and unethical by their own standards, and violent? And what if they make the whole argument depend on personal detraction first and foremost every time, and misrepresent what you're saying, and confuse correlation with causation, and get cause and effect back-the-front, and jumble up all the issues, and ad evade, and shift, and can't answer, and don't answer? And then, when finally confronted with a test that will settle the whole issue one way or the other, they don't admit what they can't defend, and instead just go quiet, and slink off? And then, having hopelessly lost the entire argument, they just re-appear somewhere else, and enter with all the same personal argument, and making all the same assumptions and assertions all over again?

Then we have demonstrated that what they're doing is deliberate intellectual dishonesty, and that's what's just happened here. Grim and Poirot know full well that if they answer the questions I have asked, either way, they will settle the whole argument against themselves - not just in this thread, but in all the threads in which they constantly defend violating people's peaceable freedoms. And that's why they enter and carry on the argument with all their illogic and confusion - because that's all they've got.

JKJ,

LOL!

Still at it?

(Change the record...we're all getting drowsy)

Hi Poirot,

Gosh that's clever ! I'm sure you can't wait to tell your besties in Year 8, they'll wet themselves.

Any chance of getting back to the topic ? i.e. the actual meat of the topic, instead of this silly schoolgirl sniping and wounded-goose diverting ? I'm sure you might have something to actually say, although I could be wrong.

Just trying to help :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Oh, golly gee, you'll have to excuse my shutting down JKJ's generic twaddle - which he trots out ad nauseam on this forum.

I'm trying real hard in "Sarcasm 101" to try and emulate the great Joe Lane.

I don't think it's possible to reach those heights...but it's worth a try.

JKJ and Loudmouth - two of our sterling debaters on OLO - each with a device they employ repeatedly - and neither of them enjoy being called out on their spiel.

Just trying to help :)

Cheers,

JKJ (or whatever your name is this week) I have answered your questions.
You asked if I supported aggressive violence, I answered.
You asked about the legitimate role of government, I answered.
Why do you not answer my questions?
Where have I ever supported violence?
Where have I ever advocated aggression?
Where have I ever suggested that elected governments are "presumptively better than your freedom to make the decision in question, or not?"
Surely with your intellectual integrity, answering these questions without misrepresentation shouldn't be too challenging.
And one last question:
Care to do a word count on who has been most verbally abusive on this thread?