I realise that Neil Harding has some difficulty arguing a case. This may be because – as when discussing identity cards, for example – he is frequently attempting to defend the indefensible, but there are times when his inability to hold down a discussion with someone who is broadly agreeing with him defies all reason.
Given that we started from a position of broad agreement, the descent into logical fallacy and wild misrepresentation makes amusing reading. This little corker for a start:
You said that 30mph limits were half-assed because there were no fatal collisions on these roads
Yeeeesssss. As strawmen go, this is one of the better examples I’ve seen as nowhere during the discussion could a reasonable person have drawn that conclusion about my postion. The strawman is Neil’s favourite fallacy and one that is used repeatedly throughout his discussions in the land of blog. Not content with misrepresenting me during the discussion, he goes on to do so on his own site. I noticed in my stats that he has linked to the discussion in question in his sidebar under “Blog-Crawl” (ta for the link BTW).
Notice the title he chose to give the link: “Defending Speeding Drivers”. If this was a product or service, Brighton Regency Labour Supporter would find himself on the receiving end of an investigation by the Trading Standards Office.
I think I’ve decided on a new code of conduct for managing my comments. If anyone uses a logical fallacy, then I will simply refuse to respond beyond pointing out which fallacy is being used.
Now, I wonder how long I can keep it up?
I suppose labeling me an idiotarian is not breaking any trading standards? Even the battle between SKY and Virgin has not descended into Virgin calling Murdoch a ‘lying bastard’ in their advertising (true as it may be, I am sure they wouldn’t be allowed).
Ok, can you explain how supporting LIBERTY spending your money on a case ‘defending speeding drivers’ is not ‘defending speeding drivers’? How arguing that speed limits should be increased and arguing against having cameras that catch people driving over the spped limit is anything other than trying to defend speeding drivers? It seems a pretty accurate and succinct name for the link.
What language do they speak on your planet? It clearly isn’t English. Read the fucking post properly before responding, then respond to the points made without conflating statements made out of context to construct your strawmen. The post in question was not fucking supporting Liberty following the case, for fucking crying out fucking loud – can’t you bloody well read?!? It’s not as if I used long, complicated words. It is written in simple English, you should be able to follow it if you are prepared to put aside your narrow minded prejudices.
Your continued inability to construct or follow a logical argument more than deserves the tag idiotarian. For someone who accused me of being a paranoid luddite, you’ve got some fucking cheek. Yes, I know that’s a tu quoque, but deserved in this case as my normally inexhaustible supply of patience is rapidly running out.
Another stinking turd of a strawman. For Christ’s sakes, go to Google and look up logical fallacies.
The deafening silence that follows my somewhat colourful, invective ridden outburst makes interesting reading. It is a tacit acknowledgement that Mr Harding failed to read the original post correctly, therefore all following comments were erroneous; based as they were on a false premise.
That failure to read properly before responding is insulting enough, but the subsequent accusations such as “defending speeding drivers” (which I do not and never have) and that of having a “laissez faire approach to speed” (which I most certainly do not) are demonstrated to be false – indeed, they border on the libellous.
An apology would have been nice, but the silent admission will do.