Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

I'm fine with immigration of people who bring value to the country in one way or another, who wouldn't be? What I'm not in favour of is people who bring nothing to the country in terms of skills, education, money etc. I wouldn't expect the many millions of useless Britons to be able to go the other way either just for balance.

What policy is has actively being engaged to stop people of a particular race unable to enter the country anyway? I've not seen any.

[super_realist]

Never Mac.

[beninho]

Also what about the instances where journalists were shot with rubber bullets. On one of those videos it was a pretty empty street and the police taking the shots would have known they were firing at journalists.

What about all the non journalists shot with rubber bullets?
I'm not arguing that journalists haven't been involved in police action, simply that they aren't targeted on the basis of their occupation.
America police are too stupid and too poorly trained to get down to that sort of level.

They seem to be attacking anyone in front of them, rather than picking out any particular groups.

#whataboutery

[beninho]

Never Mac.

Its usually used by racists, who want yo belittle the blm movement.

[super_realist]

Also what about the instances where journalists were shot with rubber bullets. On one of those videos it was a pretty empty street and the police taking the shots would have known they were firing at journalists.

What about all the non journalists shot with rubber bullets?
I'm not arguing that journalists haven't been involved in police action, simply that they aren't targeted on the basis of their occupation.
America police are too stupid and too poorly trained to get down to that sort of level.

They seem to be attacking anyone in front of them, rather than picking out any particular groups.

#whataboutery

You always say that. If you are trying to prove that Journalists are being targeted, then you have to consider who else is being shot at, which you don't seem to be able to accept and have simply ignored . There's nothing to suggest that journalists as a group are being targeted at all and it is simply more obvious that everyone is being attacked who is in their way.
Whataboutery isn't always a bad thing, especially when used to point out how fallacious your argument is.

[Soul Requiem]

Also what about the instances where journalists were shot with rubber bullets. On one of those videos it was a pretty empty street and the police taking the shots would have known they were firing at journalists.

What about all the non journalists shot with rubber bullets?
I'm not arguing that journalists haven't been involved in police action, simply that they aren't targeted on the basis of their occupation.
America police are too stupid and too poorly trained to get down to that sort of level.

They seem to be attacking anyone in front of them, rather than picking out any particular groups.

#whataboutery

How? You seem to resort to that all the time and don't seem to understand what whataboutery is.

[beninho]

How, he literally said what about....

[super_realist]

How, he literally  said what about....

As did Mac, so why didn't you accuse him of it?

[beninho]

Also what about the instances where journalists were shot with rubber bullets. On one of those videos it was a pretty empty street and the police taking the shots would have known they were firing at journalists.

What about all the non journalists shot with rubber bullets?
I'm not arguing that journalists haven't been involved in police action, simply that they aren't targeted on the basis of their occupation.
America police are too stupid and too poorly trained to get down to that sort of level.

They seem to be attacking anyone in front of them, rather than picking out any particular groups.

#whataboutery

You always say that. If you are trying to prove that Journalists are being targeted, then you have to consider who else is being shot at, which you don't seem to be able to accept and have simply ignored . There's nothing to suggest that journalists as a group are being targeted at all and it is simply more obvious that everyone is being attacked who is in their way.
Whataboutery isn't always a bad thing, especially when used to point out how fallacious your argument is.

My argument is sound. Yours is make believe. You think that out of every single person in the American police force, none would have believed the rhetoric about journalists being enemies, and none would have taken the opportunity to gave a go when they had a chance. Those assaults at journalists, arrests shootings, all just a coincidence. While, I question what is happening i think your faith in the American police force is commendable.

[beninho]

How, he literally  said what about....

As did Mac, so why didn't you accuse him of it?

I didn't notice it, but I'm not a fan of whataboutery whoever does it.

[Soul Requiem]

That isn't how it works, many salient points have been made so therefore whataboutery is not relevant, i'm sure you yourself are aware of that.

[super_realist]

How, he literally  said what about....

As did Mac, so why didn't you accuse him of it?

I didn't notice it, but I'm not a fan of whataboutery whoever does it.

You do it all the time, besides you don't seem to understand the difference between using whataboutery as part of a bad argument and using it as part of something which is relevant to responding to your claim.

[beninho]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/business/media/reporters-protests-george-floyd.html#click=https://t.co/RatvCVsQQH

Interesting stories.

Though I'm sure the Sr twins think its all just made up or a lot of coincidences, that so many people are still being attacked after stating and showing journalist passes even includes the pepper spray journalist, the vudeo I shared, which realist things proves nothing.

[super_realist]

Can you not get it through your thick head that I accept that journalists have been attacked, that does not mean they are specifically being targeted as you claim they are when you take into account that there is a sea of people (from all backgrounds) who have been similarly attacked. This means that all you can say is that everyone is being attacked rather than any particular group being deliberately targeted.
For you to claim that journalists are actively been singled out you'd need to show some actual statistics and not just anecdotes.

[beninho]

So again, just to clarify.

When a journalist tells an officer that he is press, and he is doing nothing wrong apart from his job, and is still assaulted for no reason. You do not think that journalist is could be targeted by the officer due to him being a journalist?

I'm fine with a simple yes or no answer.

A no will indicate, that you believe that not one journalist has been assaulted for being a journalist, which is a strong take.

[super_realist]

Prove that he was attacked because he was a journalist.

I believe that journalists have been attacked, but neither you nor I is in a positon to make a claim that it is on the basis of their profession, and to claim otherwise is known as leading the evidence.

You don't seem to understand that you don't have to take a yes /no answer. There isn't any evidence to come down on any side, which is why I'm claiming that you have no reason to believe that they are or are not being targeted.

[beninho]

The question was do you think?

I think,based on my reading and seeing videos that yes they are.

So, you can't have a thought? Your life isn't a court of law.

Are you incapable of thinking? What are you some sort if weird robot?

[beninho]

actually you do have views. You claim all protestors are idiots, or something like that, but can't have a view on whether police have targeted journalists after seeing a video on journalists being targeted.

[super_realist]

In the absence of evidence that journalists are being specifically targeted I can't honestly hold the view that they are. That does not mean they aren't being targeted, but does mean I can't believe that they are.

Are they being targeted?  It doesn't appear that they are when you look at all the people being attacked. I can see why you have come to your point of view, but you have form for looking at things from one point of view, confirmation bias and looking at the information in isolation of related evidence.

It's not a journalist being targeted, it's a video of a journalist being attacked. If you can't see there is a difference then you should buy a dictionary. You are making an assumption that they are being attacked because they are a journalist. You don't know that to be the case.

[beninho]

Do you agree that people in the American police have targeted people due to colour?

[super_realist]

It would seem likely yes, given that it has been proven that the American police have a systemic racism problem. It hasn't been proven the same for journalists.
However did you know that most black people in America have been killed by black police officers?

[beninho]

So, you accept that the American police can and have acted against people in a racially motivated manner, yet doubt a police officer would target a journalist, after taking into account the rhetoric from the white house.

I am aware of the claim about black officers killing black people, I doubt any of them are racially motivated though.

[McLaren]

As far as I am aware whataboutery isn't necessarily about saying "what about", although that helps, but rather it is the informal name for the tu quoque fallacy. In that you don't refute someones point you just try and introduce some sort of hypocrisy or distracting example.

[McLaren]

I actually don't think ben always uses the term correctly. Although often the arguments he points out as whataboutery suffer from many other fallacies.

[beninho]

I hold my hands up about my poor #whataboutery skills.

[McLaren]

super

What is your motivation for adopting the stance that journalists haven't been specifically targeted?

[super_realist]

So, you accept that the American police can and have acted against people in a racially motivated manner, yet doubt a police officer would target a journalist, after taking into account the rhetoric from the white house.  

I am aware of the claim about black officers killing black people, I doubt any of them are racially motivated though.

I don't doubt that they COULD target a journalist , but that's not what you claimed. You claimed they WERE targeting journalists and you don't have reason to think that. Sorry to use capitals but it's important to point out what's wrong in your reasoning.

You haven't looked at all the attacks, you're only looking at attacks on journalists, so if you look at only a fraction of the evidence it's obvious how you came to your conclusion.
If I'm being honest, I'm having more of a go at your sloppy use of English.

[super_realist]

super

What is your motivation for adopting the stance that journalists haven't been specifically targeted?

Jesus mac. I haven't said they aren't. I'm saying there's no evidence that they are.
As I've just painstakingly explained to Ben, they appear to be attacking everyone. There is nothing to suggest they are selectively targeting any group in particular.

[beninho]

super

What is your motivation for adopting the stance that journalists haven't been specifically targeted?

I can only assume he is waiting for a press release confirming it from the various police forces involved.

[super_realist]

super

What is your motivation for adopting the stance that journalists haven't been specifically targeted?

I can only assume he is waiting for a press release confirming it from the various police forces involved.

Unbelievable, you are deliberately ignoring all the other people who have been attacked and have jumped to the conclusion that because journalists have been attacked its because they are journalists. It could be, but apparently they don't need a reason for attacking other people? You also haven't considered the journalists who have not been attacked.

[beninho]

I don't think its policy to attack journalists. I don't think all officers are targeting journalists. Same as not all officers are racist bumholes.

I do think, that some officers, are using the situation as an opportunity to target journalists when they get a chance. I am also sure sone officers are taking the opportunity to attack black kids. And im sure some rioters are taking the opportunity to attack coppers and police stations.

I think its pretty clear that some officers are pushing through what they want to do.

Just my thoughts though.

[super_realist]

I don't think its policy to attack journalists. I don't think all officers are targeting journalists. Same as not all officers are racist bumholes.

I do think, that some officers, are using the situation as an opportunity to target journalists when they get a chance.  I am also sure sone officers are taking the opportunity to attack black kids. And im sure some rioters are taking the opportunity to attack coppers and police stations.

I think its pretty clear that some officers are pushing through what they want to do.

Just my thoughts though.

Well that sounds a far more reasonable way of explaining it.
I think we can all agree though that the rioters are morons, just as Police are for any attacks which are not provoked.

Speaking of morons, did you hear the woman who is supposed to be behind the UK protests claiming she's more likely to die at the hands of a police officer in the UK than she is from Coronavirus? This was her justification for her pathetic demo.

[kwinigolfer]

So you're agreed then?

Good.

Is this Rees Mogg as intolerant, almost to Johnson as McConnell is to Drumpf, as he appears to be?
Just the sort of guff that will create the divisions in GB&NI that some seem to want.

[McLaren]

Super

I asked because although the methods of skepticism are not political, the topics you choose to apply the methods to are. For example I have more interest in examining claims about climate change, medicine, religion, social policy.

I just wanted to understand why you picked the topic of journalists being targeted as one where you would refuse to the accept the accounts as currently presented in the news (of all flavours).

[super_realist]

Super

I asked because although the methods of skepticism are not political, the topics you choose to apply the methods to are. For example I have more interest in examining claims about climate change, medicine, religion, social policy.

I just wanted to understand why you picked the topic of journalists being targeted as one where you would refuse to the accept the accounts as currently presented in the news (of all flavours).

Mac, accounts of attacks do not confirm they were targeted because they are journalists. That's the point.
I'm not refusing to accept they were attacked, I'm just not buying that people can positively claim they know the motive for the attack, especially in light of hundreds of other non journalists who have also been attacked.

[McLaren]

Mac, accounts of attacks do not confirm they were targeted because they are journalists. That's the point.
I'm not refusing to accept they were attacked, I'm just not buying that people can positively claim they know the motive for the attack, especially in light of hundreds of other non journalists who have also been attacked.

I accept that without some sort of academic study of police attitudes, police orders, rates of journalists being attacked, review of footage etc etc we cannot know for sure that journalists are being specifically targeted. But the same is true for the hundreds of claims you come across every day. I mean if someone tells you they prefer 2 sugars in their tea it could just be some lie they tell for laughs. Or they might just prefer it.

The point is this, why have you picked this claim and decided it needs to cross a higher bar of evidence to be accepted compared to many other similar claims?

[super_realist]

Why does it matter Mac? Ben made a claim that had obvious problems attached and he couldn't back them up. It's what we do on this particular post. We often disagree on current affairs and I was pointing out the dangers of jumping to conclusions and being selective with information when forming opinions which he has done repeatedly in the last few months.

[McLaren]

But as has happened with the UKGs response to covid you can't just deny every claim and not begin to look like a fool. Becoming a cynic isn't a much better school of skepticism than using faith.

So I will ask for at least the third time, why did you choose the topic of police brutality towards journalists as something which requires an inordinate amount of evidence?

[super_realist]

But as has happened with the UKGs response to covid you can't just deny every claim and not begin to look like a fool. Becoming a cynic isn't a much better school of skepticism than using faith.

So I will ask for at least the third time, why did you choose the topic of police brutality towards journalists as something which requires an inordinate amount of evidence?

Mac, it sounded like an absurd claim to make in the way that Ben made it and was obviously fallacious. I haven't seen any evidence that journalists are being specifically attacked for being journalists, have you?
As for the UK response to Covid, again. I didn't state it was a good response, I stated that it clearly wasn't the only reason for the figures we have, just as you can't ignore all the other people who have been attacked in America. Got it?

It's as silly to aim you know that Journalists are being targeted (as opposed to attacked) as it is to claim that the UK death rate is enttiely attributable to the UK government policy on it.

[McLaren]

Super

Good skepticism is applying sound critical thinking skills, and in the case of the UKGs covid response and journalists being attacked you have to work out what sound conclusions you can make on the fly and what needs to be answered as evidence becomes available as time goes on. To just deny all claims and claim no truths can be found is just pointless cynicism.

What good would skepticism be if it couldn't be used in time sensitive scenarios like assessing the UKGs covid response when there was still time to do something about it?

[super_realist]

Mac, why the hell are you talking about the governments Covid response? I've never claimed it was good.

The fact a small number of journalists have been attacked is not proof of being targeted.

[McLaren]

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly, but I thought you along with Navy were the chief proponents of the "we can't conclude anything about bojos covid response yet" argument, back in March and Arpil when all available evidence pointed to an utterly incompetent UKG response?


If you were one of those people I was using it as another example of where you have confused critical thinking for a series of denials that any conclusions can be made. The second example being your response to the debate about journalists being targeted.

[super_realist]

Mac, my stance was that the response was only part of the reason for the deaths and level of infection we had. The way the conversation went at the time was that the government response was responsible for our rate of death and infection. Even you would see that as a stupid  and one dimensional claim to make.

Anyway, certainly from March I think we have all changed our mind on many things relating to Covid since then.

[McLaren]

The current party has been in government for ten years. They are responsible for almost all the social and welfare factors which contributed to the UK's high death rate.

[super_realist]

Mac, you cannot talk about covid death rates without considering ALL the factors which contribute. Focusing on just government policy is lazy and clearly political point scoring.
There are plenty contributing factors for UK rates for which the government is not responsible.

[McLaren]

For example see todays report from PHE which analyses why people from BAME backgrounds were disproportionately effected.

[McLaren]

The testing numbers are such a joke that the head of ONS has had to publicly out Hancock over it.

Sir David Norgrove response to Matt Hancock regarding the Government’s COVID-19 testing data




Dear Secretary of State,

Thank you for your letter of 27 May, in which you described some welcome, though limited, additions to the official data on COVID-19 tests, including a proposed note on methods (not yet published at the time of writing). I am afraid though that the figures are still far from complete and comprehensible.

Statistics on testing perhaps serve two main purposes.

The first is to help us understand the epidemic, alongside the ONS survey, showing us how many people are infected, or not, and their relevant characteristics.

The second purpose is to help manage the test programme, to ensure there are enough tests, that they are carried out or sent where they are needed and that they are being used as effectively as possible. The data should tell the public how effectively the testing programme is being managed.

The way the data are analysed and presented currently gives them limited value for the first purpose. The aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding. It is also hard to believe the statistics work to support the testing programme itself. The statistics and analysis serve neither purpose well.

To mention just a few issues in relation to the data as currently presented:

the headline total of tests adds together tests carried out with tests posted out. This distinction is too often elided during the presentation at the daily press conference, where the relevant figure may misleadingly be described simply as the number of tests carried out. There are no data on how many of the tests posted out are in fact then successfully completed. The slides used in the daily press conference do not show the date when the tests were carried out;
the notes to the daily slides rightly say that some people may be tested more than once and it has been widely reported that swabs carried out simultaneously on a single patient are counted as multiple tests. But it is not clear from the published data how often that is the case. Figures for the overall number of people being tested have previously been published but are not available in the published time series;
the top summary presents the number of positive results from diagnostic tests (pillars 1 and 2) alongside the total number of tests across all pillars. This presentation gives an artificially low impression of the proportion of tests returning a positive diagnosis;
more generally the testing figures are presented in a way that is difficult to understand. Many of the key numbers make little sense without recourse to the technical notes which are themselves sometimes hard to follow. This includes the supporting spreadsheets, which, while welcome, make it difficult to extract even basic trends.
With regard to new data that are not currently made available:

test results should include for example key types of employment (e.g. medical staff, care staff), age, sex and location (by geography and place, such as care homes). How many people in what circumstances are infected? Where do they live?
for Test and Trace it is important that a statement of the key metrics to measure its success should be developed systematically, and published, to avoid the situation that has arisen in relation to the testing programme. The statistics will need to be capable of being related to the wider testing data and readily understood by the public, through for example population adjusted maps of hotspots.
I warmly welcome of course your support for the Code of Practice for Statistics. But the testing statistics still fall well short of its expectations. It is not surprising that given their inadequacy data on testing are so widely criticised and often mistrusted.

I also welcome the Department’s willingness to work with colleagues from the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) and I know they have been in touch to discuss how the data and their presentation could be improved and gaps addressed. OSR will be happy to help further in any way they can.

It would be useful to develop a published timetable for the changes that need to be made and for the development of the metrics for the vital new programme of Test and Trace.

I do understand the pressures that those concerned have faced and still face. But I am sure you would agree that good evidence, trusted by the public, is essential to success in containing the virus.

Yours sincerely,

Sir David Norgrove

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-response-to-matt-hancock-regarding-the-governments-covid-19-testing-data/




(But yes, other factors)

[McLaren]

To be clear, other factors. Don't forget those important other factors.

[McLaren]

For example see todays report from PHE which analyses why people from BAME backgrounds were disproportionately effected.

Hint, some pretty specific "other factors".

[super_realist]

Why aren't you having a similar go at Sturgeon Mac? Health is devolved to Scotland, but testing is even lower here and care home deaths are considerably higher. Scotland is not doing very well on Covid, but you only seem concerned with the Torys. I'm happy to say that both have made big mistakes, easy with hindsight but why won't you?

[McLaren]

Now that is whataboutery. Whether sturgeon performed well or not does not invalidate the premise that the UKG were Poopie at dealing with covid.

[Sponsored content]