United Kingdom

hideshow 23 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 2 points 4 days ago (22 children)

That’s the relevant part you muppet

You're just being silly now. Are abandoned houses unoccupied? If they are, then they're relevant. What's the real reason you're cherry picking.

That makes no sense.

To you maybe, it links to a report explaining why. But, given you haven't figured out whether abandoned houses are unoccupied...

hideshow 22 child comments

parent

[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 4 days ago (21 children)

How many are abandoned?

I don't really trust OBR projections, they're rarely correct.

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 1 point 3 days ago (12 children)

https://feddit.uk/comment/27885522

Thank you, that was a whole song and dance that was entirely unnecessary.

Obviously they're empty.

Let's just say that some are habitable. Therefore they're relevant. Therefore you cherry picked correct?

You don't know how many abandoned houses there are (see thread), you don't know how many are of any of the houses are habitable (see comment)

You cannot use partial quotes to cherry pick arguments. So back to my next question you ignored, why are you cherry picking?

You, of course don't know how many any of the examples are, so your ignorance as to how many there are, or if they're habitable is no excuse for why you chose some examples and omitted others.

Answer this one and we'll zip up to the first time I asked again.

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 3 days ago (11 children)

According to your source 97% of house are occupied. Your whole argument that empty houses are a massive problem is false.

The answer to housing shortage isn't going going to be found in current housing stock.

Build more.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (10 children)

Ah, you're back to deflecting again. How boring.

This is the comment thread we are currently in:

Those 700k aren’t just sat there empty.

>>There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, or under renovation

That is the argument we're currently unpicking. You can deflect all you want.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 3 days ago (9 children)

People die, houses go through probate, it can take years.

Perhaps learn something about the subject you refuse to engage in.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

People die, houses go through probate, it can take years.

More deflection.

Perhaps learn something about the subject you refuse to engage in.

Here's the subject you're refusing to engage in:

That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes. Could you answer that please? Do you consider a house that’s abandoned as unoccupied? Stop cherry picking please.

Is this going to be like the abandoned house thing again? Where it takes you 20hrs to answer whether they're occupied? That was such a dull thread.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[+] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 0 points 3 days ago (6 children)

It is deflection, and I've demonstrated to you why.

Now once again: why did you cherry pick the original article?

Now jog on

You know you came to me right? You can stop at any time.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[+] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 3 days ago (5 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Ok, my argument was that when we poors fight only the wealthy win. I understand it fine, do you? You don't seem to.

But anyways here was your comment which cherry picked the article:

Those 700k aren’t just sat there empty.

>>There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, or under renovation

That isn't the full sentence is it? You left off some relevant information didn't you? That's called cherry picking isn't it?

Oh look, I told you what I wanted you to do:

No partial quotes please:

>>There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, under renovation, **are occupied solely during the week or at the weekend, have been bought as an investment or have simply been abandoned.**

I'll ask you again: why are you resorting to cherry picking? I thought you wanted to jog on?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

why wouldn’t you tackle the problem at the source? build more houses and put a temporary hold on immigration?

This was OPs point. You had to ram a load of boring leftist wank about billionaires without answering his fucking point

You are the one deflecting.

Fewer people, more houses. It's not that deep

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

We'll get there. But, to get to the op we have to go through my reply, and to get to my reply we have to go through your reply.

The reply that was pure cherry picking. So I'll ask again, why did you cherry pick the article?

You see, what you did was cherry pick a very small, and incidental part, of a much bigger argument... Which I called out as a Reverse Gish Gallop. Until you see that we're not going to have a particularly productive conversation, are we?

It is going to be like when you couldn't answer whether an abandoned house was unoccupied. How dull, I really hoped you wanted to jog on.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[+] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 2 points 3 days ago

Oh gosh, it's you again. I had hoped you jogged on.

You see, what you did was cherry pick a very small, and incidental part, of a much bigger argument... Which I called out as a Reverse Gish Gallop. Until you see how ridiculous that was, we're not going to have a particularly productive conversation, are we?

Once again: Why did you decide to cherry pick?

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 1 point 4 days ago* (7 children)

How many are abandoned?

What a silly deflection, be better. Are they unoccupied?

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 1 point 4 days ago (6 children)

It's not a deflection, they've listed all the types of unoccupied, how many are in each category?

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 1 point 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

Are abandoned houses unoccupied?

It is a deflection.

To be clear now, they're now relevant enough to know how many in each category?

Let's just give this the sniff test:

Ok, you dismissed abandoned houses as irrelevant because you didn't know how many there are

There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, under renovation,

You think these ones are relevant because you did know how many there were?

Can you see why it's a deflection? It doesn't matter to your position how many there are. You, at the time, didn't know how many there were of any of them, but you made a distinction anyway.