Friday, 18 July 2008

Pooter's Second Law

by Charles Pooter

Pooter's First Law

Pooter's Second Law:

“Anyone who compares their opponent's opinions to the reactionary editorials of the Daily Mail, to avoid engaging with the substance of their opponent's arguments, automatically loses the debate.”

6 comments:

Quink said...

I find it very hard to believe that this comment made you run away and draw the blinds:

So, I think subject to sensible precautions, people should be allowed to have weapons to pursue legal pastimes or tasks. But to encourage gun ownership to defend oneself against fear (which is what you're really saying) is, and I repeat, lunatic.

If you want to do that, you'd be better off confiscating people's copies of the Daily Mail. Not giving them weapons and giving criminals an added incentive to get armed.


Incidentally, it in no way compares your opinions to Daily Mail editorials. All it says is - in a mildly tongue in cheek way - that there are more effective ways of protecting yourself against fear.

I suggest reading it closely.

Charles Pooter said...

Dear Quink,

I've been meaning to post Pooter's Second Law for a while. It is the second in a potentially infinite series of pompous strictures.

Your comment did indeed remind me to post the law, but it was in no way aimed at you and I wasn't accusing you of committing this particular debating offence with your hyperbole!

No offence intended.

Cheers,
Charles.

Quink said...

Can't say fairer than that...

You're not armed, are you?

Charles Pooter said...

Only with my laptop and two cats who will attack on command...

bill said...

Isn't it rather worse to be accused of being the Daily Mail? I mean Nazis have a certain style and evil glamour.

The Mail on the other hand is an unspeakably vulgar collection of Middle England prejudices.

To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke: No one ever fantasised about being tied to a bed and ravaged by someone dressed as a Daily Mail journalist.

Charles Pooter said...

I don't pretend to hate the Daily Mail as much as some. The hatred always seemed like posturing to me: a proxy for hatred of anything "provincial" or from so-called middle-England. The trouble with such prejudices, like all prejudices, is that they lump the good in with the bad (the good about "middle-England" I mean).

I'm not saying the Mail isn't awful, it clearly is. It seems to consist largely of a mix of knee-jerk authoritarianism with the occasional spinkling of New Age mumbo jumbo. But, I don't swallow the idea that, as a tabloid, it is uniquely bad or that all its readers are close-minded bigots. The Express is awful, the Sun is awful and the Mirror seems to me to be downright terrible.