If a tree falls in a forest and nobody witnesses it, is Nigel Farage still an arse?
That's a non-sequitur, in that the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. Both the premise and conclusion may be true (the conclusion definitely is in this case) but the truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the premise.
The statement could also be considered to be an ad-hominem argument, one where it attacks the character of the person making the argument rather than the substance of the argument. However, as NF is clearly an arse it is not an ad-hominem.*
When a dog whistle is blown on broadcast media without being identified as such, is that an example of bias, balance, or irresponsibility?
As has been happening for years there has been a strong desire to create a false balance between any two points of view of an argument. A leading expert is invited to discuss a particular point, and an opposing person is brought on to provide the 'balance' - i.e. someone from NASA and a believer in a flat earth. It matters not that the overwhelming body of evidence suggests to us that the world is spherical, the flat-earther has an equal amount of broadcast air-time to put their point of view that they believe the earth is flatter than unprimed beer. This can lead to accusations of bias.
In the example of the flat earth believer above this 'balance' is just mildly annoying, but in the case of the dog-whistle blowers on immigration, and other subjects that the far right seem to like, it is irresponsible of the broadcaster concerned to give an equal weighting.
That's obvious you would think, wouldn't you?
There is some movement to try and remove this false balance, and maybe it will succeed. But until then let's content ourselves with another consideration of a problem of unperceived existence.
If Nigel Farage leaps off his leadership perch in a forest, is he still an arse?**
* This is clearly a joke and not philosophically correct, whatever the outcome however Nigel is still an arse.
** We all know the answer to that, as it is a rhetorical question.
For official/internal use only:
7777
0-9
No comments:
Post a Comment