I'm far from the only one who accuses you of that here and in other threads
Thats true, but accusing is one thing, backing it up with facts is another.
Take a look at my post last Sunday (page 10). I was re-acting to BB post that touched on another topic "Is the State competing against homebuyers?".
I agreed with that sentiment.
I then went on (without quoting or disagreeing with anyone) to make what I think to be a reasonable observation about housing and homeless crisis in other capital and major cities of the world ( I back this up with media reports).
In my view it boils down to an economic policy that has, almost exclusively, outsourced the provision of housing to the market driven private sector.
The
immediate reaction to my post was to quote it, but not to address anything substantive in the point I made, but to divert it back onto proposals of evicting social houses tenants on the basis of their employment status and the number of vacant bedrooms in the property.
These proposals are futile, in my opinion.
I have asked a series of simple questions that have gone unanswered and pointed out obvious contradictions (for instance, prioritizing low-income households for social housing near where they work, but only building social housing outside congested areas).
For this I get accused of diversion and or 'rabbit holes'.
Im quite happy for anyone to point out the flaws in my substantive point that it is economic policies that are driving the housing crisis.
But the diversion, deflection lies elsewhere and is recorded.
As for pointing out the 'flaws' in my arguements, I did make a mistake in writing about the "legitimate refusal to pay rent".
That was, correctly pointed out to me as flawed.
Within my very next two posts I acknowledged the legal requirement to continue to pay rent. I subsequently repeated on half a dozen occassions thereafter that those who can pay, but refuse to pay, should face eviction.
Three days later, and still I was being accused of saying something different! For that I get accused of diversion and deflection!
Just because I haven't offered my own opinion on the subject matter does not preclude me from pointing out the flaws in your arguments
But you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. By your own admission "you haven't commented one way or another".
All you have done is accuse me of having a flawed arguement, but have failed to substantiate that accusation.
Instead, not only did I answer directly the question you put to me, I exposed your false impression that I was
trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent.