I think we can guess who has this definition of debate

And that’s why anyone who wants serious tax debate has to exclude them from contributing

29 thoughts on “I think we can guess who has this definition of debate”

  1. bloke (not) in spain

    Well you can see his point. If you were debating methods of capital punishment, you’d hardly value input from the abolitionists.
    Personally, I’m in favour of live interment in a sack. With rats. But only for tax avoidance campaigners.

  2. I was on Twitter for one day, made one tweet and i got banned by a person with similar disposition; I am sure it would be beyond coincidence if they are one and the same.

  3. Add ‘debate’ to the list. Is there a single word the extreme left hasn’t redefined as it’s exact opposite?

    Having a conversation with one of them must be exhausting. Except you wouldn’t have a conversation, as they would ban/block you a nanosecond after meeting you.

  4. “Which is why I won’t be on Jolyon Maugham’s blog again, because much as I admire his ambition his terms of engagement do at present prevent any possibility of success.” LOL

  5. The hilarious thing about the whole post is that it appears to have taken him two to three weeks to come up with it – having been mauled in the two Maugham blogs by multiple contributors on here, he has finally adopted an utterly spurious justification for not putting anything else up there.

    I did also enjoy this line:

    ‘the first was to try to discredit him using a narrow interpretation of a phrase’

    This from someone who interpreted a comment referring to him and another tax campaigner as ‘Teenage Trots’ literally and banned the aforesaid contributor from his website permanently- his lack of irony or awareness of his own ridiculousness is truly mind- blowing.

  6. I’m on Ritchie’s auto-delete list – twice. A free email account and a copy of Tor and you’re good to go again!

  7. What are the odds against this comment appearing?
    I hope you will consider these purely linguistic points a constructive contribution to the debate:
    1) How about ‘polysemous’ rather than your neologism ‘polysemic’?
    2) Since ‘eructation’ is a noun and ‘burping’ is a present participle or a gerund they can hardly be synonymous.
    3) You might have used the word ‘flatulation’ but it would have been a coining of your own.
    4) ‘The ten (or less) people’ should, of course, read ‘The ten (or fewer) people.

  8. Read further in his post:

    “This is this groups standard modus operandi. It is, no doubt, deliberate. It is largely effective – these people do very clearly discourage debate – and it therefore suppresses free speech by many so that the very narrow view of these very limited number of people appears to have more support than any reasonable analysis might suggest appropriate.

    I understand that a dog is also too thick to comprehend that its image in a mirror is of itself.

  9. As well as this call to supreme certain voices and opinions this is also the man who believes that people don’t wish to choose; they prefer to leave the big decisions go “experts”, people like him.

    So let me state the obvious: the man is not a democrat; he is a nasty, nasty little fascist.

  10. Richie is either a fantastically clever man, able to mimic Leftist attitudes and opinions with uncanny and brilliant accuracy, or he’s an even bigger Leftist loony than the average.

  11. I don’t suppose this comment will get through either, in response to his latest defence of his reinvention of language:

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

  12. . . . and it’s gone! I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the grumpy sod had to delete it – and to read it first.

  13. Andrew K: Yes it is quite satisfying and particularly so when there’s not much traffic from his claque on the thread.

    It’s also quite joyous when he accuses contributors, whom he has deleted, of pedantry in a thread where he’s quibbling about semantics and yet gets so much wrong.

    We owe it to posterity to ‘like’ anything mildly critical that escapes his blue pencil and ‘dislike’ Murphy’s sniping and tendentious replies.

    Your H Dumpty reference is thoroughly apposite.

  14. It must be terribly frustrating for you lot; libertarians all (though that’s an intellectual stretch), but frankly most of you just criticise anything worstall wants you to read.

    Jesus, there’s no-one up their own arsehole as Ian B with his “i’ve got a book coming about how feminines are puritans”.

    So Much For bum-fuckery reckons he’s worked out that white anglo-saxons are more intelligent than “borderline retarded” africans [you fucking shit]

    And the rest of you just spaz about repeating yourself.

    Especially Worstall. All Worstall does is reiterate a failed ideology. Your adherence to his waffle only highlights your lack of quality control.

    ffs, a metal player? hang your elderly heads in shame

  15. You probably know this Arnald, but Worstall always deletes the critical stuff and just leaves the sycophantic stuff written by his claque of admirers. Or is that Murphy? I can never remember.

  16. Ironman

    Absolutely spot on, and this is forgotten by his numerous devotees. At the same time he is calling for certain people to be excluded from the debate, he is also pointedly saying many people ‘don’t want the pressure of choice’ – strangely I think his lack of historical understanding prevents him from realisation that his ideology is neither novel nor radical. Indeed it would sit very nicely in the 1920s. To expect any hint of self- realisation from such an egotist is quite a futile exercise. As you say he is a fascist who lacks even the self- awareness to realize that is what he is professing.

  17. Sorry guys I got a bit homophobic and ableist in my last rant! It’s not easy being a disappointed musician whose family business went bust!

  18. Arnie, dear, I don’t think anyone cares that much for your comments or your commercial circumstances but sweet of you nonetheless to explain how your performance in both areas correlates.

  19. Or someone’s posting using my name. Not a lot I can do about that. Whoever’s doing it is obviously juvenile.

  20. bloke (not) in spain

    @whichever Arnald
    Sorry to hear about the barrel organ player. Can’t you keep dancing ’til you find another?

  21. I think I understand your need to feel like you’re a genius by discovering you can do Let’s Pretend on this internet, so I reiterate a comment elsewhere, it is worstall rather than murphy that perpetuates the stifling of debate.

    By allowing wags like the whomever-can-be-bothered-to-post-under-someone-else’s-tag, weakens the worstall ‘brand’. He’s pretty much ridiculed as it is, his friends shouldn’t be helping.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *