Despite not intending to engage with Dumb Jon further; (it’s even worse than attempting a logical discussion with Neil Harding, such is the arrant stupidity) as attempting to reason with the unreasonable is generally an exercise in futility and this has been no exception; I feel that I have no option but to take issue with his latest piece of bollocks as he has strayed into libel:
Don’t be shocked, but paedophile apologist ShortBusRider* refused to answer my question about whether or not Zuzanna Zommer could have been saved by a harder line on paedophiles. He claims it’s not a fair question because killer – and convicted rapist – Michael Clark might just have killed someone else anyway.
*oh, yawn, sooo clever – award yourself a medal for wit. Well, half of one anyway.
The term “paedophile apologist” is libellous.
DJ – have you stopped beating your wife, yet? That is what is known as a false dichotomy. If you attempt to set a trap then you shouldn’t be too surprised if people observe it and walk around it. But then, if your reasoning was that well developed, you wouldn’t be attempting to set a trap in the first place. It really is simple even though you clearly have huge problems grasping it.
I did, indeed, answer the question asked, although I notice that it has been subtly changed in a attempt to demonise me. It’s just that you don’t like the answer I gave as it doesn’t fit in with your black and white world. That is; it isn’t that simple.
Had Clark served a life term (my preferred option) this girl would, indeed, have been alive today. Had he been sent to Scunthorpe, he would, most likely have chosen a different victim. Nowhere did I suggest that there not be a hard line. That is nothing more than an invention on your part. Someone, somewhere decided that this man should go free. As it turned out, he killed again. This means that the assessment was flawed. Other criminals reoffend and other people die as a consequence. Therefore the question was asinine. I repeat, it was a false dichotomy – look it up if you are too stupid to understand it. Here, I’ve even provided a linky incase you can’t manage it.
As before, DJ is incapable of discussing the issues and possible solutions in an adult and rational manner. My position is clear enough if you follow the discussion – where other, more rational voices have picked up on points made.
Meanwhile, I guess it’s down to the rest of us to try and find any key parts of their doctrine which differ from those of the paedophiles themselves.
Ah, I see, so because we object to the hysteria and grandstanding by the home secretary in response to one high-profile offender based on tabloid journalism, we are paedophile apologists and little better than them ourselves. Now, there’s a mature, well thought through argument. Not to mention a libellous one. It’s on the same level as George Bush’s “you’re with us or agin us” nonsense. Indeed, the whole argument boils down to one great big false dichotomy. If you dare to dispute the finely honed logic of Dumb Jon, you are little better than a paedophile. What a vile piece of shit.
That’s why I generally avoid this subject; fuckwits throw around wild allegations such as this and seek to demonise anyone who prefers discussing the issues in a rational manner and who may not agree with their analysis.
I’ll make it really, really simple for you as following a logical argument in plain English is somewhat beyond your limited intellect; I believe in the rule of law, that parliament should make law with due consideration of the evidence. That those charged with upholding it should do precisely that. In short, the rule of law is paramount. I do not accept hysterical over reaction based upon one particular offence that has been blown out of all proportion as a rationale. I do not necessarily agree with all of those laws or the penalties for infringement that are on the statute book (now, there’s an understatement).
I’m inclined to agree with Zorro, House of Dumb really is an aptly named blog; possibly the best I’ve seen on the Internet so far. Deserving of an award possibly. Maybe the News of the World will oblige. Given DJ’s reasoning and writing skills they may even offer him a job. They like to make up garbage and present it as if it makes sense, too.
I’m reminded of something Tom Paine said a while back about PDF. If this person takes issue with you, then you are probably doing something right.
—————————————————
Addendum: On reflection, I think that the original spark to this discsussion; Carol Sarler’s piece in the Times last weeknd has an element of false dichotomy about it too. In essense, she was saying; mad or bad, make a choice. Through discussions here and at JuliaM’s, people have made comments that suggest it really isn’t that simple. Life isn’t though, is it?
“…it really isn’t that simple. Life isn’t though, is it?”
Well, no. As regards ‘bad or mad’, it’s entirely possible to be both…
The problem is that the criminal justice system just doesn’t seem to be equipped to deal with them properly. Kill a few children and you’ll get a life sentence, sure. But ‘just’ ruin their lives with persistent sexual assaults, and someone in the Probation Office will one day decide that you’ve ‘served your sentence’ and are free to go.
Perhaps the chemical castration being suggested recently might be a way forward?
JuliaMs last blog post..Another Day, Another Outrageous Extension Of Powers…
I agree entirely – always have.
Update This comment was left on Carol Sarler’s original article:
I wonder how accurate that is – no source was quoted. If it is true, then punishment and finish is the appropriate response. So, too, would be an assessment on an individual basis. Assuming, that is, the method of assessment produces reliable results 😐
“I wonder how accurate that is – no source was quoted.”
Out of interest, I Googled the phrase. Couldn’t find anything clearly stated on a cursory search, but got this website:
http://myinnerbitsy.com/?p=10
Interesting that the offender claims that his (State-provided, presumably?) counsellor pointed him in the direction of the supposedly-low figures.
Food for thought, maybe..
JuliaMs last blog post..Another Day, Another Outrageous Extension Of Powers…
I did as well. Couldn’t find anything definitive. This tends to point to it being rather more complex. Although, a cursory scan of this paper
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/5761/RECIDIVI.htm
suggests that the recidivism rate is lower than is generally reported.
“‘just’ ruin their lives with persistent sexual assaults, and someone in the Probation Office will one day decide that you’ve ’served your sentence’ and are free to go.”
And “just ruin someone’s life” by carrying out a heinous but non-sexual assault on them, and you’ll get a shorter sentence still, and won’t be hounded by deranged tabloid readers until the day you die. That’s the significant dichotomy, not the “make someone dead” versus “make someone screwed up in the head” one.
john bs last blog post..Mental anti-pie
Frankly, John, the whole system is out of kilter – and I agree with your point. It isn’t helped by the hysterical over-reaction to one particular type of offence made worse by political grandstanding on the back of it.
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
(As I’ve found to my own cost.)
Obnoxio The Clowns last blog post..Shaved Chimp vs Economic Genius
“Despite not intending to engage with Dumb Jon further”
Ah yes, good example of the well understood online debating gambit which translates as ‘Ive lost the argument’.
Are you wilfully stupid or is it congenital? What part of the series of logical fallacies that dj engaged in did you not grasp? Or, are you like him and unable to differentiate between fact and fantasy? Refusing to respond to a position that I have not and never have taken is not losing the argument, you plonker. There never was an argument. I responded reasonably to a point he made; he then went off on one, inventing a series of assumptions about things I had not stated and argued with them. Not wishing to engage further is merely recognising that one cannot reason with the unreasonable – or more succinctly as Obnoxio put it in the previous comment; arguing with idiots is a fruitless exercise. Best to cut one’s losses.
You, too, are engaging in the same cheap tactic as dj. When someone trots out such trite, clichéd bollocks as this (and, my God, isn’t the Internet full of such puerile “wisdom” spouted by morons who think they are being clever?):
I know that I am dealing with a fuckwit.
Now, while I am happy enough to support your absolute right to behave like a cretin, unless you have something valid and intelligent to contribute here rather than merely demonstrating that you are as idiotic as dj by presenting tedious Internet homilies as if they are original rapier-like arguments, piss off, there’s a good fellow.