Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
That wasn't a loaded question. A loaded question is what each party ask their own member in parliament to make an often biased statement or a point.
A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
While in personal relations loaded questions are usually frowned upon as being provocative, not trusting, but for police loaded questions are a basic tool to get to the truth to force people to confirm or deny a point. Similarly for 'constructive' investigative reporters.
We don't need reporters to just be mouth pieces for a political or business lobbyists do we?
Q: Did you know who killed Joe Blow? Likely answer no, but also likely avoid answer. Little useful information gained.
Q: Why did you mutilate her **** is such a disgusting way with you knife after robbing the shop to feed your drug habit? A refusal to answer could lead to a finding of guilt in a court of law and certainly a court of public opinion. A partial answer could implicate him in the crime especially if certain info was not widely known or deliberately 'faked'.
BUT if you knew you were innocent and had a solid alabi, you'd likely disclose it to clear your name AND expose the accuser for making false accusations, ie lying.
The fact that Abbott could not turn the leaded question around to backfire on the questioner is a sign of weakness and or hiding something. He missed a golden opportunity to win in the court of public appeal. His attempt to attack the questioner for doing their job, only further highlights the determination to hide something or insistence to repaint the facts with his bias, but with increasing venom.
As for the PM being restrained, he lost his restraint by attacking the questioner rather than the question.
What do you think when people accuse you of doing what they are guilty of themselves?...or accuse other politicians of doing what they did themselves? just hypocrite? or hum this is aggressive domineering behaviour trying to make you feel responsible and guilty for everything including what they are planning to do.
We depend so much on various media sources for our information. We also trust our financial advisors, accountants, Lawyers, doctors and in some cases, our party officials to tell us the truth. Surely our politicians are on the bottom of the heap of 'trust' and must conform to more scrutiny, even from their own brand followers.
For me, the fundamental test of a sound position or argument is the ability to withstand any scrutiny or questioning with decorum.
That's why people who have nothing to hide and are confident in their position engage in open dialogue, discussion and critique at leisure.
The reason why I don't have a problem with loaded questions from the ABC through to Andrew Bolt, is if your case is so strong and you are up to the challenge you can easily exploit it to prove your point, as above.