Paul1405,
What about those socio-economic terrorists in the ranks of bureaucracy plying their insidious trade within Democracy ?

Indy, I deputise you in the name of the Lord Jesus! Now boy, skedaddle off and arrest those varmints and drag em' down to the kalaboso where we'll dish em' out some good old fashioned rawhide justice!

Indy,

Peace and joy to you and your folks for the festive season, and all the best for 2021.

Proud Boy Jose'

I hope the Dangerous Doctor Donald, will pardon you for your past, present and future sins, he thinks he has such power. At the moment he's pardoning low life's and criminal murdering scumbags mates, thinking of pardoning family members, and maybe even himself, all awhile playing god with the lives of those convicted of other crimes.

Anything to say about William Barr, Trump's AG and one of his most loyal supporters. Barr made the mistake of putting duty above Trump, not finding any election fraud, a fatal mistake in the eyes of this grubby president.

Based on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement I would say the Paul1405 is using DH0 or DH1- I guess it shows his level. ;)

Thanks for explaining how you view the world Paul1405.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

CM, are you apologising for calling me a Communist. Could have done it with far less cut and paste. Apology accepted if that's what you're doing.