House of Dumber

In “Blogwars”, HoD demonstrates that he is becoming even dumber:

First up, it’s ShortBusRider. He’s heard the old line about how bad arguments should be refuted not just named, but he thought it was all a statist trick. God knows what his point actually is…

Then reading plain English isn’t your strong point. Come to that, neither is humour. Must try harder.

…so I’ll make it real easy for him, and boil it down to one question: would Zuzanna Zommer be alive today if we’d been less concerned about the rights of a known predator? Yes or no?

Another false dichotomy. If Clark had gone to Leeds he may well have attacked and killed a different victim. We don’t know whether an ex-con will commit another offence once released. We cannot ever be sure. If we are to take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, all violent criminals will be locked up for life; that or we are all treated as potential perps. However, having been convicted and imprisoned for their crimes, once freed, time served, debt paid; they are the same as the rest of us under the law. Which is exactly as it should be. Or, perhaps we should go for a Minority Report style solution?

This is what so revealing about these people. They’re all about the criminal.

No. We. Are. Not. This much is plainly obvious to all but a fool.

Do you even understand what a strawman is? Come to that, do you understand logical fallacies at all? You use them well enough. You manage to make Neil Harding appear rational, coherent and logical in comparison. I don’t think even he managed so many logical fallacies and mischaracterisations of a philosophical postion in one posting as you have here.

I trust you’ll be off to Brussels to collect that subsidy in person, then? You’ll need a big briefcase, mind.

I’m not going to bother fisking the rest of this asinine rubbish – as it is merely more of the same ill-informed, hysterical tabloidesque assertions, stupid assumptions, willful ignorance and bullshit. It’s why I usually keep away from this particular subject – people cannot or will not discuss the issues without resorting to stupid and emotive nonsense.


  1. And he accuses me of being a geriatric teenager. Pots, kettles etc, etc. The bloke’s an idiot, I’ll not be bothering further. I’ve said what I want to say.

  2. Rob, indeed. That is the crux of the argument I and others have been making. An argument that House of Dumb finds difficult to follow. There is also the degree of risk. The risk posed by predatory paedophiles is small – very small, yet has been blown out of proportion for political gain and circulation figures. Consequently, idiots have jumped on the bandwagon to see who can cry “dirty paedo pervert” the loudest.

  3. Christ he has the writing and debating skills of a nine year old. I vote that the most appropriately named blog on the tubes..

  4. I second that vote.

    What we have is a combination of misrepresentation, logical fallacy, unfounded assertion, wild generalisation and pure unadulterated gibberish presented as if it was a coherent argument. Amazing. As an example of how not to put an argument together it hits all the buttons – a classic textbook masterpiece in its own perverse way. And this twat accuses me of being an adolescent rebel.

  5. his twat accuses me of being an adolescent rebel

    Are you not a fifty something year old man who writes about his right to wear long long hair free of prejudice though?

  6. And at what age, pray, should men not wear their hair long? And At which point does a desire not to suffer discrimination become adolescent? Please do tell. Or perhaps, please don’t – your insinuation says it all.

Comments are closed.