Another day another dirty Tory

[Heath]

Instead of picking on Sidey,tells us what you really think of Zuhawi and tax avoidance.

[Heath]

9 years ago he literally had his snout in the trough. He is so “careless”. More like couldn’t care less. Come on Bucks, easy to find this stuff.

A Tory MP has apologised and promised to repay part of a £5,822.27 expenses claim for his energy bills after it emerged taxpayers were paying for the electricity supply to his stables.

Nadhim Zahawi, a founder of the market research firm YouGov, said he was “mortified” to discover the error, which came to light after he was among politicians criticised over subsidised energy bills.

[Siderite]

All that can be discounted by the apparently awesome debating tactic of “what about Labour?” ;-) If you think otherwise you must think you’re superior and ate being quasi-intellectual.

[Bucksiron]

It isn’t personal, Siderite. All of this is just so symptomatic of the daft stuff now being hurled around the media, much of which has made its way to the public sector and corporate world, with so-called “purpose”; and the Beeb has taken this to a new level. I caught the final few minutes of ‘Newsnight’ last night and couldn’t believe the appalling standard of journalism around a discussion on the sugar tax, attempting to make a story where there wasn’t one. It really was atrocious. What’s happened to the John Tusas of this world, who once made this the best news programme on TV?

For clarification, the point I make when referring to “what about Labour” is not to defend anyone in the Conservative party, which is what your comment was implying. It’s simply to counter the massive left-wing bias on this board, typified by the nonsensical way that 64/Fans or whatever he’s calling himself these days posts anything and everything about the Tories.

That’s it. No more, no less; and when I say I’m not defending Zawahi, surprisingly enough it’s because I’m not defending him. Quite why this needs to be pointed out is beyond me, but apparently I’m attempting to ‘deflect’ or deliberately ‘not criticise’ him. This is complete rubbish. It seems that common sense has gone out of the window.

If TW believes I’m attempting to be superior, I’ll take it as a compliment. If only I was that clever, which I know that I’m not.

[Siderite]

It has nothing to do with the Beeb though or modern journalism. It’s an obvious flaw in an argument style, which can be shown to be flawed with basic logical reasoning. It doesn’t originate from there, and dates back to the 1970s. My point is that it’s a bad argument against any topic, left wing or right, because of the reasons I have laid out. The term doesn’t matter, responding to a point with “what about x?” is a logical fallacy, because it doesn’t counteract any of the points.

If you check my original point you picked up on wasn’t in response to you, because you hadn’t commented in the thread before me. I referred to Tory politicians, which I don’t think you are, so my point stands. I se “what about x or y?” being used all the time when anything gets criticised. And it does come across as deflection. So, no, I am not changing my original point. It’s a bad argument style. Saying what about x or y is a poor argument against a point is hardly daft, unless you can somehow show that valid arguments can be discounted by what others do. Which I would argue to be daft.

For those interested, the term whataboutery dates back to the early 1970s. It dates back to an Irish Times piece when they used the term to describe IRA arguments when confronted with questions about their terror tactics. The Irish journalist said that whenever he or others asked an IRA member about this they’d say “sure, but what about the Loyalist attacks on Catholics” or “sure, but what about bloody Sunday and British atrocities against the Irish?” He, correctly noted, that this did nothing to answer why IRA terror tactics are valid and just served as deflection and an excuse. It then caught on and people started using it to describe other situations, similar to this. It was commonly charged against communists who would always respond to Soviet Union wrongs with “well, you can’t criticise, because you excuse American problems.” None of this gives any argument as to why it’s ok for IRA terror or Soviet crimes, which is why it’s a logical fallacy. I have done and will continue to raise eyebrows and disregard such whatabouting nonsense, no matter the source, because it’s not a logical counteraction to an argument. Remember, the point you picked up on was not linked with you, and you have argued the toss about it, so I can only conclude you think anyone saying “what about x?” is some wondrous technique to argue against criticism, despite its lack of logical premise. Saying this, and thinking about it, does not make me superior to anyone else or whatever straw man you want to keep setting up.

In the academic scheme of things it is part of the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy. If it is somehow wrong to use academic terms, I apologise, but it doesn’t take away the issue of the problem, which everyone can understand. The fact is that “what about x?” is a tedious and flawed argument style. It doesn’t make me elitist or snobbish to point this out, but I do find refusals to engage with the reasons why and glib dismissals, as if they can never be wrong, to be a rather elitist point of view.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Deereyme66]

‘the massive left-wing bias on this board’

I’d hardly call around half a dozen posters with varying degrees of left of centre leanings ‘massive’! I can think of at least 3 right wingers who often post on here so it doesn’t stick Bucks.

[Bucksiron]

Well, that really is hilarious, Deerey. I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

I’m beginning to think this really is a Monty Python sketch. Apparently, “I’m certainly not defending him” doesn’t mean I’m certainly not defending him, Siderite’s submitting a dissertation, presumably for a PhD from the University of Scunthorpe and to cap it all, Deerey, you’re claiming there isn’t a massive left-wing bias on this board. Or maybe you’re not?!

If nothing else this has certainly given me a good laugh at the end of the week.

[Siderite]

Your smug superiority complex where you expect to be taken as some sage beyond question, and no-one else can critique anyone, is rather tedious.

I must admit your stubborn refusal to understand anything I have said, given you never actually respond to simple points, is rather funny.

[Siderite]

I don’t know why you keep blabbering on about how you’re not defending him. My points were never that you were or about that. I have now said so three times, not like that will make any difference. You will still parrot this, not bother to understand anything I have said and make out everyone else is an idiot. You’re right, common sense has gone out the window, if someone thinks arguing that “what about x?” is a poor response to an argument (which was my original point you took exception to) is actually common sense going out the window. I can only think such given that you have tried to mock over me just arguing this. Which just shows you to be daft.

You’re right about it being a Monty Python sketch in that regard.

[64]

deflecting is defending by steering the arguement away
Tories are wrong uns ,even if not doing the deed they atre protecting people who do.
The simple fact is he and Sunack benefitted from evading[avoiding tax while making decisions on spending
The amount of avoided tax by their types would fund a whole new health system ,the money is there,they just don’t want to collect it from their mates who own the narrative by control of the media and media.People who vote for them are wrong uns by proxy.
It’s a powerful tool,ask Meghan Markle and Corbyn what it can do

[64]

Allowing people to sidestep sanctions and sue British journalists.Nice work Tory scumbag
What is it about billionaire Russians and the Tories?

[Author]

Posts