48
Greens announce plan for three-year emergency brake on private rents to give renters ‘breathing space’ (greenparty.org.uk)
submitted 5 days ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 3 days ago (5 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent