I’m going to draw a line under this discussion. It has demonstrated conclusively my opening point that attempting to discuss the issue of paedophilia and how society should deal with it is impossible as sooner or later, some half-wit starts to make wild assumptions and throw about unfounded assertions in a childish hissy-fit because someone dares to disagree with them.
There was a brief point (much like a cat toying with a half dead mouse) when it was mildly entertaining to see just how many logical fallacies DJ could notch up. In the space of three posts I counted the strawman (by far the most common – the latest post is almost entirely strawman), the false dichotomy, the loaded question, the red herring, the non sequitur, the lie, the appeal to emotion, appeal to ridicule, poisoning the well, and, of course, despite my original comments being a rational and polite disagreement with points he had made, the ad hominem. To be fair, I’ve responded with one or two of those, myself, so I’m inclined to let that one slide. That said, given his behaviour, they were thoroughly deserved.
I expect, if one bothers, there will be more. In essence, if you don’t agree with Dumb Jon, you are a paedophile apologist and don’t understand morality. His statements to that effect are libellous. This is not “a desperate talking point”; it is an observable fact. I said it before, I’ll say it again; what a fucking nasty, abominable little shit this man is. One might, given the hysteria, be inclined to be reminded of Hamlet Act 3, scene 2. One might, but I wouldn’t be that cruel… would I? Okay, maybe I would.
Zorro, commenting here on DJ’s debating skills, suggested that he has the reasoning and writing skills of a nine year old. This, I suggest, is unfair to nine year olds. I’ve come across plenty in my time who would outwit this man of limited intellect with ease.
Still, it’s nice to know that it is not only the left of blogistan that produces semi-literate morons with a malicious temperament, eh?
I’ve been discussing with Doctor Vee the merits of those blogs I read on a regular basis.
That is what I look for; good use of language, well constructed arguments and a thoughtful – hopefully thought provoking – discussion.
Yes, well, don’t expect to find any of that over at House of Dumb.
Okay, that is it. No more. I’ve already given him more attention than he deserves.
——————————————-
Update: From Obnoxio on the previous post:
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Indeed. Point taken.
——————————————-
Update: It’s funny how something can happen that drags up long forgotten memories. Somewhat belatedly, this incident reminded me of someone who I had thought forgotten some thirty years ago. I met this indivudual during my college years. Initially he was popular as he was always laughing and joking – the life and soul, as it were. However, lacking any genuine wit or cleverness of his own, his humour was of the predatory kind, needing a victim to be the butt of the jokes. Mostly, it was practical humour but sometimes it was a crueler variety whereby he would take a statement someone had made, twist it out of all proportion until it was unrecognisable and then use it to ridicule and belittle his chosen target; always delivered with a self-righteous, sneering, jeering tone so typical of the despicable little bully that he was. These days, I recognise the logical fallacy he used as the strawman – although it is not usually used quite so deliberately or vindictively.
As people became the target of his puerile, sociopathic humour, one by one, they cottoned on and realised that he was not a jolly fellow after all, but an arsehole. These days in the Internet age, we have a different term. We refer to such people as trolls.
To any readers who twigged this already, I apologise for my tardiness in catching on. Sometimes when involved in what you think is a discussion, you are too close to see it. I have now.