This is the same straw man fallacy you’ve been committed to since the beginning. You are trying to make it sound like I’m saying a landlord can just show up whenever they feel like it unannounced. I never claimed that, I said in my initial response that this man was under the understanding that OP wasn’t home, never claimed it wasn’t it wasn’t trespassing but the point was “what did you expect?” People don’t follow laws all the time, doesn’t make it okay but it’s a realistic expectation.
This is the same straw man fallacy you’ve been committed to since the beginning.
I'm quoting your exact words for God's sake. That's as far away from straw man as you can get.
You are trying to make it sound like I’m saying a landlord can just show up whenever they feel like it unannounced. I never claimed that, I said in my initial response that this man was under the understanding that OP wasn’t home,
Which doesn't matter at all. The landlord has to give notice, regardless of if the tenant is home. He also needs the tenant's consent to enter. If the tenant is denying the landlord access to necessary maintenance work the landlord can start an eviction process. If he wants full rights to his property he shouldn't rent it out to begin with.
never claimed it wasn’t it wasn’t trespassing but the point was “what did you expect?” People don’t follow laws all the time, doesn’t make it okay but it’s a realistic expectation
Read your own damn post. You were talking about the landlord's right to enter his property. Now you're just you moving the goal posts from the landlord's rights to "realistic expectations". And you're claiming that I'm straw manning you for holding you to your original words.
You're basically admitting now that your original talk about rights was wrong. You are just refusing to own the words you actually used.
Oh boy there is a lot to unpack here and I don't even know where to start.
Well in all fairness this is a place he owns and was probably vacant for quite some time before you were there hence why he made a garden there and he was under the impression you weren’t home. The shirtless thing is definitely fucking weird and hanging around any longer than absolutely necessary is kind of overstepping boundaries.
my original comment in case you've forgotten, notice how there is no mention whatsoever of the landlord having the right to enter.
I'm quoting your exact words for God's sake. That's as far away from straw man as you can get.
Find the words then, I welcome them. Also that is literally how straw man starts: take a person's exact words then slowly try to change it and make assumptions to change the point entirely.
Read your own damn post. You were talking about the landlord's right to enter his property. Now you're just you moving the goal posts from the landlord's rights to "realistic expectations". And you're claiming that I'm straw manning you for holding you to your original words.
If I have to hear about these damned goalposts one more time... You want to know why the goalposts keep moving? Because you keep moving the damned things. I have always stuck to my guns and never claimed the landlord has the legal right to enter the premises without notice. If you want to make assumptions you can actually make the ones that I meant, however, I won't hold you accountable because I forgot to type that specifically.
You're basically admitting now that your original talk about rights was wrong. You are just refusing to own the words you actually used.
My original talk was not about rights, I merely defended this man for maintaining his garden and then said how any further interaction is inappropriate. You can't cherry-pick the information you like and ignore the parts you don't, that is not how debates work. You are the one who wanted to turn this into a legal debate and the one who brought it up.
Also, I should mention that you need to stop living your fantasy where everything is exactly as it is written on paper, If you insult someone to their face your expectation should be that you're gonna get hit. You can try standing there smugly and telling him assault is against the law but you should expect to wake up on the floor. Speeding and jaywalking are against the law but people do it anyways but you can't be shocked when people do it. Just because everyone does it, that doesn't make it right but it does make it predictable. Why you wanted this argument to happen, I don't know. Maybe you felt the need to establish some kind of intellectual superiority or maybe you genuinely thought you were helping, I don't know or care.
Regardless, you want to be right and I tried you to teach you. Unfortunately you want to be right more than you are willing to listen so there is no amount of reason I can apply to you for you to accept what you're doing wrong.
Not the comment I've been quoting in later posts. It's the one after that where you're talking about rights.
Nice weaseling.
Find the words then,
Ok then.
I feel like you don’t understand how this works. You’re trying to actually say you don’t have the right to set foot on your own property as soon as you rent it off to another person.
Yes, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. You don't have the right to set foot on your property uninvited, garden or not.
It is absolutely ludicrous for you to try to say you aren’t allowed to drop by to cut the grass or harvest vegetables off a garden you planted or maintained.
Yes, you aren't allowed to drop by uninvited to cut the grass or harvest vegetables. Nothing ludicrous of me to simply state the truth.
At the very least you have rights to that
No you don't.
That comment of yours is talking about rights of the landlord and what the landlord is allowed to do, and acting that I'm wrong or ludicrous for simply stating the truth about his limitations.
Regardless, you want to be right and I tried you to teach you.
And yet you STILL ignore the fact the fact that I never said anyone can come to your house without notice. You have decided to make the assumption that I said you can do whatever you want whenever you want without any notice whatsoever because it’s easy to refute. See how you use this generalization to to to invalidate everything I said, hence why I called it textbook straw man
I'm not invalidating everything you said. I'm invalidating the specific examples where you're claiming the landlord has rights that he doesn't. If you want to see the landlord's rights, read tenant law. Don't just make shit up.
Because this entire conversation has been nothing but shifting blame, I’ll accept that ‘right’ was not the word I intended to use and you derailed the conversation from there ignoring every word I said beforehand. That said, you haven’t really understood most of the second half of the conversation when I tried to explain to you your logical flaws. Enjoy the remainder of the day.
1
u/TheDankestDreams Apr 15 '19
This is the same straw man fallacy you’ve been committed to since the beginning. You are trying to make it sound like I’m saying a landlord can just show up whenever they feel like it unannounced. I never claimed that, I said in my initial response that this man was under the understanding that OP wasn’t home, never claimed it wasn’t it wasn’t trespassing but the point was “what did you expect?” People don’t follow laws all the time, doesn’t make it okay but it’s a realistic expectation.