Hasn't the mindless hypocrite Obo given up in the face of his losing argument against KingBingo?
a) No I haven't given up. And b) losing would, to me anyway, imply that I am convinced by his argument. I am not.
Joy to read this. Obo coming unstuck off the rails, soon to get derailed into a bush at any given moment.
I'm very happy for you.
Obo - the man who slams Boaty & D on the basis that we allegedly pretend to monopolise libertarianism. Yet his own narrow dogmatic view of libertarianism is presented as anarchism, and furthermore, fact, on his site.
I promote anarcho-capitalism. I can quite easily defend my reasoning that it is the most libertarian policy and I fully accept that it's not to everyone's taste. What I do NOT, however, do, is represent social democracy as libertarianism (as John Demetriou does) nor do I represent social democracy as the path to libertarianism (as Kingbingo does).
Obo - the man who said we were wrong about blog censorship and the prerogative of private blog site / property owners, but who went ahead and took the same line as we did regarding 'a very public sociologist'.
And what line was that?
Obo - the man who slams me for using ad hominems and cognitive dissonance in my arguments, yet when it comes to being challenged on here, he is the first to pile out the rampant abuse (noted by King bingo)
Gosh, yes, it's the first time I've ever sworn on my blog, isn't it?
Fucking dickhead, the raison d'être of my blog is abuse. I thought I'd better fucking point that out, since it's clearly passed your thick fucking head by. However, there is a difference between calling someone a cunt and saying his arguments are meaningless because he's a cunt. Kingbingo's arguments completely fly in the face of all human history AND he's a cunt. His arguments aren't shit because he's a cunt, his arguments are shit because they're shit.
And yes, it is especially fucking frustrating when an apparently well-read and intelligent person continues to insist that red is blue when the artist is X rather than Y. And that may lead to some abuse, but that is not the same as an ad hominem argument.
And speaking of cognitive dissonance, do you not find it curious that you are applauding someone who consistently and unquestioningly votes Tory, despite your regular abuse of Tories? Do you not find it curious that avowed Tory statist Kingbingo's arguments are so compelling to you, despite the fact that you have ridiculed the idea of "libertarian Tories"? And yet you keep insisting that you are a "pragmatic libertarian", much the same as Kingbingo does -- even though he unquestioningly votes Tory?
Are you sure that these arguments would be compelling to a genuine believer in personal liberty?
Obo - The man who belittles Boaty & D on the basis we blog war and hunt for stats, when it is in fact he who writes endless shit stirring articles about us and others to get attention.
Really? I'm interested in all these shit stirring articles that get me so much attention. They might get your attention, but they certainly don't get me readers. There's a difference between slagging off Guido who has half a million readers (or whatever the fuck he claims) -- in the hopes that you'll drag a few of them over -- and slagging off Boatang and Demetriou. Because even if I pull all your readers, that's still only five people.
Unbridled hypocrite. Absolute shameless charlatan. No wonder you and your Country Cunt pals like Anna, DK, Bella, CF etc etc all pull together. All in your cosy little bottom right hand corner of the political spectrum, making out like your way is the true way.
I certainly find it easier to defend my version of libertarian than someone who thinks that coercion is fine, as long as it's coercing the things that you happen to agree with.
Oh, wait, we are the 'keepers', aren't we. Yes, of course. Us who dare to have a slightly different optinion...and say it on a blog!
You are entitled to your opinion. What you have never been able to do, and what Kingbingo has singularly failed to do, is convince me that there is ever a justification for blessing an armed group of thugs to steal money.
Exposed as not dwelling in the base world of realpolitik? Probably. But the issue is not to convince people that we need less government. Everybody will agree, even civil service mandarins will agree that other departments can be cut.
The real challenge is to make people question whether government is needed at all, whether there really is a justification for armed thugs stealing from you. Because that's a much bigger eye-opener than lazily saying "the state can be made perfect if we just tweak this knob and that lever."