Comment: To paraphrase Rothbard

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Ad hominem attack (see in situ)

To paraphrase Rothbard

I attack the argument then attack the man.

There is no fallacy in doing this. I don't say his arguments are wrong because he's suspect.

I say he's suspect because his arguments are so ludicrously specious.

I use '3$BILL' because not because it's needed. But because it's wanted:D

It may be that you have not followed all of our interactions, or more generally his interactions with pretty much everyone here. He's routinely rude, antagonistic, and dismissive.

But best of all exhibits ridiculously and hilariously unwarranted arrogance and superiority.

I love that.

In fact I have made more than one post in support of keeping him around. For that reason.

When we are less than courteous with him, we are responding in kind. Had he kept it high brow I would have followed suit. I follow the lead of the person I am engaged with.

But I have not joined the chorus of those asking to ban him. Just the opposite.

In my humble opinion we couldn't be better served than by 'clever' argumentative statists like him.

I know you are a kind soul. If you prefer I not engage with him I will respect your wish.

On the other hand you may wish to consider what a service our banter does to the debate.. and maybe your hits.

Maybe there is a place here for consenting adults to play hardball?

Because he's playing it regardless, and he won't respect your wish unless you ban him.