GB News / Talk TV

Originally Posted by jfman

I love the smell of whataboutery in the morning.

You say that like its a problem, "whataboutery" as you call it is still perfectly valid, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Paul

You say that like its a problem, "whataboutery" as you call it is still perfectly valid, whether you like it or not.

Er no, logically, it isn’t a valid argument at all. One TV channel’s adherence to legal requirements is measured against the law, not the behaviour of another TV channel. And in the context of topic-based discussion it doesn’t take the discussion forwards either, it’s just a fairly transparent tactic to try to divert attention away from one thing and on to another.

It’s valid in the sense that it’s not illegal to complain ‘what about?’ and it’s not against forum rules, but as a debating tactic goes it’s just amateurish.

Originally Posted by Chris

Er no, logically, it isn’t a valid argument at all. One TV channel’s adherence to legal requirements is measured against the law, not the behaviour of another TV channel. And in the context of topic-based discussion it doesn’t take the discussion forwards either, it’s just a fairly transparent tactic to try to divert attention away from one thing and on to another.

It’s valid in the sense that it’s not illegal to complain ‘what about?’ and it’s not against forum rules, but as a debating tactic goes it’s just amateurish.

Rubbish. Like hell it is.

Two celebrities, both encourage breaking the law, only one is arrested, where is the consistency in policing ?

I’ve no need to divert attention away. Forum topics can & do branch out it’s not centrally just about one aspect of the topic, dead on and you’re not telling me it’s always been like this on here, no way Chris, not having it.

[jfman]

It's possible to condemn Fox, or GB News, on it's own merits on the basis of the facts available without the conversation descending into the polarised finger pointing that's a sad import from Americsn politics.

Given enough time and enough opportunity there will always be the possibility, or even likelihood, of other people of different political leanings being open to similar criticism. None of thus actually changes the facts at hand.

It's a straw man the right now put up given it is now devoid of any moral or economic leadership.

Originally Posted by Chris

Er no

Err.. Yes.

Originally Posted by Chris

it’s just a fairly transparent tactic to try to divert attention away from one thing and on to another.

Dismissing it is a transparent tactic to try to divert attention away from the fact its actually correct to point it out. Something several people on this forum do all the time.

If one person doing something causes a certain action, and another person doing the same thing does not, then its perfectly valid to ask why. Trying to dismiss it with as "whataboutary" simply shows you cant actually defend it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Trying to dismiss it with as "whataboutary" simply shows you cant actually defend it.

Ever thought that he doesn't want to defend him, I get it on twitter a lot, crap like what about so and so's crimes, what about them, if they've got something to answer for so be it, don't really get excusing someones crimes because someone else may have done something similar, lock them both up

Originally Posted by jfman

It's possible to condemn Fox, or GB News, on it's own merits on the basis of the facts available without the conversation descending into the polarised finger pointing that's a sad import from Americsn politics.

Given enough time and enough opportunity there will always be the possibility, or even likelihood, of other people of different political leanings being open to similar criticism. None of thus actually changes the facts at hand.

It's a straw man the right now put up given it is now devoid of any moral or economic leadership.

What on Earth are you rambling on about?

Answer the question that you’re conveniently ignoring, former GBN Presenter arrested for encouraging to break the law (damaging ULEZ Cameras), other presenter, Chris Packham, suggests activists should break the law, even suggesting blowing up an oil refinery, which is far worse, why hasn’t this stupid clown been arrested?

It’s all well and good throwing out sound bites, “whataboutery”, this is just a cop out to the fact these people are politically aligned with you and you cannot defend them (as Paul stated above).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

What on Earth are you rambling on about?

Answer the question that you’re conveniently ignoring, former GBN Presenter arrested for encouraging to break the law (damaging ULEZ Cameras), other presenter, Chris Packham, suggests activists should break the law, even suggesting blowing up an oil refinery, which is far worse, why hasn’t this stupid clown been arrested?

It’s all well and good throwing out sound bites, “whataboutery”, this is just a cop out to the fact these people are politically aligned with you and you cannot defend them (as Paul stated above).

Mick it is you that is "copping out" of criticising Fox and GB News - solely on the basis of their political leanings.

Do you believe in a democratic society individuals should attack state apparatus (which enforcement equipment absolutely is) for policies they disagree with. Yes or no?

I'm under no obligation to either criticise or defend Packham for a broadcast I haven't seen and comments I haven't read. Forgive me for thinking they are likely more complex and nuanced than you present. Equally, it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold that state apparatus is a legitimate target, but Fox crying about ULEZ doesn't make the cut in my personal morality barometer.

[1andrew1]

When Chris and Mr K agree on a point, odds on they are correct.

GB News and its presenters' actions can be judged on their own merits and against legislative considerations. Two wrongs don't make a right is a saying that has stood the test of time for a reason.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When Chris and Mr K agree on a point, odds on they are correct.

Some say Chris and Mr K agreeing on something is a harbinger of Armageddon. A sort of postmodern horseman of the apocalypse if you will

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Some say Chris and Mr K agreeing on something is a harbinger of Armageddon. A sort of postmodern horseman of the apocalypse if you will

I reserve that description for Old Boy and jfman agreeing on something.

Originally Posted by jfman

Mick it is you that is "copping out" of criticising Fox and GB News - solely on the basis of their political leanings.

Do you believe in a democratic society individuals should attack state apparatus (which enforcement equipment absolutely is) for policies they disagree with. Yes or no?

I'm under no obligation to either criticise or defend Packham for a broadcast I haven't seen and comments I haven't read. Forgive me for thinking they are likely more complex and nuanced than you present. Equally, it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold that state apparatus is a legitimate target, but Fox crying about ULEZ doesn't make the cut in my personal morality barometer.

And why should I have to criticise?

Why is it so important I call someone out, surely I can take YOUR stance and say I’m under no obligation. Works both ways!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

And why should I have to criticise?

Why is it so important I call someone out, surely I can take YOUR stance and say I’m under no obligation. Works both ways!

You shouldn't have to, but it says a lot that your immediate response is "what about....?" rather than offer no opinion at all. The events aren't even loosely linked. Even if they were, one wouldn't excuse the other.

[SnoopZ]

Boris Johnson: Former prime minister to host GB News show.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67242822

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

Boris Johnson: Former prime minister to host GB News show.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67242822

He can't have been cheap. Will be interesting to see how it goes.