In other words you cannot offer a defence for why whataboutery is a good defence, which isn’t a surprise, because it is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t matter what you call it, or how quasi-intellectual you think it sounds, it doesn’t detract from the point that whatabputing is not a defence against anything and those who use it for such (as they 9ften do) are making an error. It’s got sod all to knowing better, it’s a term to describe a type of flawed arguments. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out why, but evidently we are all idiots and faux experts for thinking Bucks’ ‘expertise’ is flawed.
I don’t know why you’re trying to gaslight me into this debate about you saying you aren’t defending Zahawi, my point was never in response to that. My original point on this predated that, so once again, pack it in with the deliberate misrepresentations.
