48
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
48 points (98.0% liked)
United Kingdom
6967 readers
284 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You're just being silly now. Are abandoned houses unoccupied? If they are, then they're relevant. What's the real reason you're cherry picking.
To you maybe, it links to a report explaining why. But, given you haven't figured out whether abandoned houses are unoccupied...
How many are abandoned?
I don't really trust OBR projections, they're rarely correct.
What a silly deflection, be better. Are they unoccupied?
It's not a deflection, they've listed all the types of unoccupied, how many are in each category?
Are abandoned houses unoccupied?
It is a deflection.
To be clear now, they're now relevant enough to know how many in each category?
Let's just give this the sniff test:
Ok, you dismissed abandoned houses as irrelevant because you didn't know how many there are
You think these ones are relevant because you did know how many there were?
Can you see why it's a deflection? It doesn't matter to your position how many there are. You, at the time, didn't know how many there were of any of them, but you made a distinction anyway.
700k houses isn't a large % of UK housing stock.
Oh gosh, you're back. More deflection from you I'm afraid.
Once again, how many times now?
Are abandoned houses unoccupied?
Answer that and we'll zip back up to where I originally asked the question, and we can put your whole song and dance behind us.
What? You've never asked that question. I asked you how many there were. You've got a big list and no numbers. Do better.
https://vger.to/fedinsfw.app/comment/2595705
Incorrect. I asked you that question from the link comment onwards.
Obviously an abandoned house is empty. Is it habitable though?
https://feddit.uk/comment/27885522
Thank you, that was a whole song and dance that was entirely unnecessary.
Let's just say that some are habitable. Therefore they're relevant. Therefore you cherry picked correct?
You don't know how many abandoned houses there are (see thread), you don't know how many are of any of the houses are habitable (see comment)
You cannot use partial quotes to cherry pick arguments. So back to my next question you ignored, why are you cherry picking?
You, of course don't know how many any of the examples are, so your ignorance as to how many there are, or if they're habitable is no excuse for why you chose some examples and omitted others.
Answer this one and we'll zip up to the first time I asked again.
According to your source 97% of house are occupied. Your whole argument that empty houses are a massive problem is false.
The answer to housing shortage isn't going going to be found in current housing stock.
Build more.
Ah, you're back to deflecting again. How boring.
This is the comment thread we are currently in:
That is the argument we're currently unpicking. You can deflect all you want.
People die, houses go through probate, it can take years.
Perhaps learn something about the subject you refuse to engage in.
More deflection.
Here's the subject you're refusing to engage in:
Is this going to be like the abandoned house thing again? Where it takes you 20hrs to answer whether they're occupied? That was such a dull thread.
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.
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.
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?