Three year emergency brake would prevent rents rising above CPI, wage growth or 2% – whichever is lowest Zack Polanski will today [2 Oct] unveil the Green Party’s plan for an emergency brake on private rents to put an end to the ‘fear and uncertainty’ plaguing renters and tackle the runaway rents which have outstripped […]
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?
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.
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?
Removed by mod
It is deflection, and I’ve demonstrated to you why.
Now once again: why did you cherry pick the original article?
You know you came to me right? You can stop at any time.
Removed by mod
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:
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:
I’ll ask you again: why are you resorting to cherry picking? I thought you wanted to jog on?
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
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.
stfu
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?