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.
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?