Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News" channel.

  1.  @Bestpolevaulter  The question were not out of context, they were about Ben's book and in context with his actual comments. He even admitted in this interview to holding the beliefs in the statements made as true. The questions were not loaded, they were perfectly answerable. Ben's inability to answer them reflects poorly on him, not on the questions. Ben got agitated because he got his feelings hurt while failing to answer difficult questions. Andrew was not offended, more perplexed by the child talking to him. He never personally insulted him, so that's just a strawman. He directly attacked his beliefs with difficult questions, using a Devil's Advocate style of questioning to target Ben's ideas. This type of questioning allows a seasoned individual to answer their harshest critics with strong responses, but Ben folded like a cheap suit.
    4
  2. Nothing bias about it. They took things Ben said and directly contrasted them with his book on how we should try to improve political discourse. Ben got so stumped he couldn't answer, so he went full reactionary.
    4
  3.  @BraeburnTV  He's not on the left, he's on a left, Ben's left specifically, but so is most of the western world.
    4
  4. What exactly did he do wrong?
    4
  5. How so? He gave Ben every opportunity to present his position, showing numerous examples from Ben's book and his previous work, and Ben caved. How is that bad journalism?
    4
  6. Well done what exactly? He ragequit the interview after failing to sufficiently answer questions and being shown to be a massive hypocrite.
    4
  7. But Ben did explain why he was anti-abortion. The fact is that this interview pushed him to do that, when in any normal interview he would have attacked the pro-choice movement and moved on without any actual explanation, as he is prone to do. But sure, complain about Andrew Neil for having an accent and not letting Ben sneak away when not answering questions. As for Ben's social media comments, you are right they were indeed cherry-picked, in that they picked all the worst things he has ever said. Why wouldn't you cherry-pick that?
    4
  8. You're wondering why the interviewer didn't answer questions? Are you serious?
    4
  9.  @bronktug2446  Bit then you get 2 potential outcomes. 1. You can't use those drugs on those groups. 2. We get a repeat of thalidomide. These trials exist for a reason, and keeping back a potentially lifesaving drug could do more harm than good. Ethically there is no reason to hold back something that could help millions from undergoing trials. If you want to look into the potential cardiovascular or neurological issues then do that, although things like myocarditis and pericarditis are not only always a possible complications after literally any kind of viral infection or vaccine, they are also hundreds of times more common in covid patients than vaccine recipients.
    4
  10. Not really, no. Ben is still a lying hypocrite, just like he was in this interview.
    4
  11. He's an interviewer, why would he answer questions?
    4
  12. Ben openly stated he lost multiples times. You can indeed lose an interview.
    4
  13.  @joeoreilly3039  The definist fallacy requires one to defend a position. This is not a debate and Andrew Neil is not here to defend anything, therefore this is has nothing to with that. Secondly, the fallacy requires that you defend some "other" position, however the claim that it is a return to dark ages IS the position. And 3, while Andrew Neil questioned of this was a return to the dark ages, he never actually outright stated it.
    4
  14.  @joeoreilly3039  "Maybe logical fallacy is not the correct term but asking loaded questions for the sake of getting a ratings boosting response certainly violates something in terms of having a logical political conversation." It's not a loaded question. Loaded questions rely on something being assumed. When you ask "why is this not a return to the Dark Ages" you are no assuming anything, it's a question. The question may seem lopsided or bias, but it's not loaded. The classic example is "when did you stop beating your wife" the assumption being that at some point you did in fact beat your wife, a very loaded question if you have never done so. As for ratings, the BBC doesn't require ratings and is therefore free to make what they want, which is funny because it actually ends up in better TV. "Both of these heavily imply if not outright declare that this is his viewpoint." Correct, heavily imply, but they are not in fact his actual views. "Who else’s would it be? If it is another individual or group’s statement and not his, it keeps the questions objective to specify." It is his statement, but not his viewpoint. Andrew Neil conducts his interviews using a Devil's advocate approach. He directly counters his interviewees position when asking a question, giving them both a tough question, and also an opportunity to respond to such tough criticism. This approach gives him great results, as he is able to push people to dodge, recant, or answer truthfully. This very interview displays a good smattering of all 3. The questions however are still objective because they are all still implied and assumed positions, designed to create a dialogue. "Also I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean in your second point with an “other” position. Could you point me to the source you’re referring to?" The definist fallacy is "defining a term in such a way that makes one's position much easier to defend." In other words, you define something, then launch a defense off that faulty point. If you are to argue that "return to the dark ages" is the fault in the argument, and Andrew never argued anything around that topic, then how on earth is he using his definition to form an argument? What's worse, Ben has been guilty of this exact fallacy multiple times, especially any time he gets into the abortion argument. He just says "science" when defending his position, then goes on a rant about murder, but that murder argument is all built on his claim of "science" something he never defines, explains or supports in any fashion. He simply states that science supports him and if you disagree then you are both anti-science and pro-murder.
    4
  15.  @joeoreilly3039  "Some of the ideas that are popular in your side of politics would seem to take us back to the dark ages" That is the original statement regarding his comments about the dark ages and new abortion laws. A loaded question in this context would be more akin to "Why are you so in favour or these new laws that push us back to the dark ages?" or even "Why are Republicans in Georgia currently passing a bill that would but us back to the dark ages?" for example. The addition of a word like "seem" is paramount in the initial question. This can make the original question hit from a certain angle, or feel like a question from one side of the aisle, and it maybe even be a question from one side of the aisle, but it's not loaded.
    4
  16. Agreed. This comedy never gets old, more of this please.
    4
  17. He literally tweeted after this interview that he got beaten.
    4
  18. This was an interview. These are real questions. They get Ben to open up quite a lot about his current position, even contrasting it with his book. The best part about the old tweets is when Ben lightly condemns them, then openly states that he still holds the various opinions exhibited in them. Maybe try listening next time.
    4
  19.  @easymoney8535  They don't even personally cherry-pick the data. They get it fed to them, then when they are told something that disagrees they shutdown. They are using inductive reasoning to arguing for something they "know" is right. My favourite was earlier I got sent a study that agreed with everything I had just said, and it was being passed off as evidence I was wrong. You can't make it up.
    4
  20.  @thedescendergrimoire7893  1. So what is the context, because people keep saying that but nobody has actually been able to explain the context. My favourite part actually is where he is explaining his tweet about telling Jews to turn in their badges if they voted for Obama, then, in an effort to explain the context, shows that Andrew Neil had it 100% on target. Ben's issue is that other Jews in America aren't exactly like him, and he uses his personal zealotry and interpretation to claim that other Jews in America are not really Jewish at all. It's the same as Catholics claiming they are the one true Christians, or something equally silly. 2. Yes, it's appropriate to use a person's previous statements to contrast their current ones. Ben makes a variety of claims and statements in his book, one of which is about political discourse being too angry in the US. Then he gets shown that he is a part of the problem. You can talk about the tweets being old if you want, but Ben openly showed that he STILL holds these views. So who cares how old the tweets are when Ben shows he actively holds these positions still.
    3
  21. He's right wing. Insulting him doesn't change the questions.
    3
  22. Sure he is. I'm sure Ben didn't cop out of the whole interview after getting absolutely dunked on.
    3
  23. I've seen them, they really aren't out of context. They are in fact very much in context.
    3
  24. Andrew Neil is a Conservative. Not sure what context you think could justify Ben's comments, and if context could justify them, then why did Ben fail to do so?
    3
  25. To lie, attack your interviewer and run away?
    3
  26. You mean Ben, since he lied in this interview.
    3
  27.  @happydog4862  Or at all. For example: Big Muff doesn't beat his wife.....yet. Idiot.
    3
  28.  @slackdee  The fact you're calling it gene therapy is exactly why you're wrong. And yes, it qualifies as a vaccine.
    3
  29.  @nomoremrniceguy8106  Organ damage, not failure, and the virus absolutely does cause organ damage 7% of the time.
    3
  30. @Lee Davies 1. Anecdotal example that has no bearing on overall stats. 2. Israel numbers are actually 60% vaccinated in hospital, and while previously the vast majority were over 60, the numbers are now closer to 50:50. This comes after over 60s, the most vulnerable group, are 92% vaccinated. They lowered their own hospitalization rates substantially. 3. Israel is also 60% vaccinated, so the hospitalization rate is at worst on par with the unvaxed. In truth it's far better than that due to the most effected group. 4. Your viral load example is based on vaccinated people with the delta strain when compared to the alpha strain. It is not a direct comparison. 5. Your 13x number is just a lie. I know people who have caught covid more than once. Their natural immunity was no help whatsoever. Get your facts right.
    3
  31. ​ @happydog4862  Apparently you haven't followed closely as blood clots are absolutely a symptom of covid. There is a study posted by the name of: "Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study" They reviewed 29 million examples and found that the risk is far lower from vaccines than from covid.
    3
  32. Because he's an interviewer, not a debater. His own motives, views, beliefs or what have you are completely irrelevant.
    3
  33.  @philip8888  You disagree with the verifiable fact that Ben openly and publicly apologised for his performance in this interview? He interrupts because Ben isn't answering the question.
    3
  34. Because it's not a debate, it's an interview.
    3
  35.  @luketroxell2311  He literally tweeted that he lost.
    3
  36.  @luketroxell2311  It's relevant because Ben's book has a whole section on respectful political discourse, then he had to have his own history pointed out to him. What's worse is the claim that these comments were out of context is just not true. Ben even agrees with the context they are put by restating it exactly how Andrew Neil presented it, all the while claiming the context is wrong. He even openly states he still holds many of the views he posted, showing he still holds the views to this day. And yes, once a question has been answered or a point has been made, Andrew moves onto the next point. Amazing I know, but that's how interviews work. Ben owns himself every time he opens his mouth in general. He's a debate-phile, looking to "win" in the eyes of the audience regardless of truth. That's why he lies in this very interview, such as about his own YouTube channel. Go back to jerking it to Ben's edited discussions with students.
    3
  37.  @williamturkewitschturkewit1549  No, they are questions. Hard questions, but questions all the same.
    3
  38. And zero ad revenue because, you know, that's not how the BBC gets funding.
    3
  39. Sure it is. Pull the other one mate.
    3
  40. Then got pissy about it for the rest of the interview lol
    3
  41. Someone doesn't know what playing devil's advocate is. Maybe learn how Andrew Neil is before you make more of a fool of yourself.
    3
  42. Why, because the opinions he presented disagree with you?
    3
  43. You're right, he lost the interview.
    3
  44. Andrew Neil is on the right. He was asking critical questions and Ben couldn't respond effectively.
    3
  45.  @walterrussell779  Actually that IS Devil's advocate. He is putting forward arguments as if they come from the opposing opinion to Ben's own stance. Just because he didn't softball it or make it blaringly obvious, does not make it something else. These aren't even his own views.
    3
  46. Ah yes, the ruse of asking hard questions.
    3
  47. You mean the famously right-wing chairman of a right-wing news paper who left the BBC to work at a right-wing media outlet? That reporter?
    3
  48.  @williambalyx1053  He never changed. You just can't distinguish between opinion reporting and devil's advocate.
    3
  49. I mean, you're half right, once Ben is stuck in his ways no matter of pointing out his hypocrisy will stop him.
    3
  50. He's on the right, and Ben got so destroyed that he admitted as much on Twitter right after this interview.
    3