[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But complaining about style rather than content is a good way to get a couple of ad hominems in while looking civil and sophisticated.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, you're just being nasty and snide. I've spent a lot of time addressing the content of your arguments, and doing my best to do so fairly.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."

Complaints about style are not ad hominems. Perhaps it's a 'meta-complaint' but I am not attacking you as a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
Responding to someone's thoughts in their entirety, rather than line by line, shows that you're making an effort to understand them and address their overall intent and meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

We report, you decide.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
What you are saying is that anyone who supports, accepts or acknowledges the existence of coercive states in general has a completely illegitimate approach to politics.

----

See, there you go again, using your personal definition of a word I use differently to frame my position incorrectly. And since I've explicitly called you on it, you must be doing it on purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused by this objection. Do you feel that including the word 'coercive' makes it redundant, because you view ALL states as initiators of illegitimate force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I feel that you should include it when you're using YOUR definition of "state" because I don't object to a whole slew of things that fall under your definition.

I *added* that word to your post. You didn't have it there.