I'm a big fan of https://www.memeorandum.com/ but I saw a story on there that "almost 200 people had been arrested for setting fires" ... only to find Alex Jones was one of the sources. Crikey.
24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.
>The Australian Productivity Commission has calculated that between 2001–02 and 2006–07, [there was] an average of nearly 54,000 fires per year (SGRSP 2008). ... It is estimated that 50 percent of fires are either deliberately lit or suspicious in origin as shown in Figure 1.
https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab059
edit: and to compare arson charges specifically, the same article says that between 2001 and 2006 there were 133 convicted bushfire arsonists in New South Wales - or about 20 per year convicted in a single state. Since there probably isn't a 100% conviction rate, I'd expect the total number charged each year for the whole country is along the order of 50 people.
Commented elsewhere:
Arson has been stable for 24 months to September 2019, it's a shame the data capture stops there. It's made up to deflect.
https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/RCS-Quarterly/NSW_Re...
crime / 2018 / 2019 / Trend
Arson / 5,692 / 4,934 / Stable
A broken clock will always be wrong. Even if you already know what the time it, the fact that the broken clock looks like it is working will lead you to wanting to believe that it might be right just this once.
https://m.dw.com/en/australia-police-arrest-man-accused-of-s...
I’m not sure what would possess someone to do this. As if the earth needs any more “help” from idiots, right!?
> Light or use a tobacco product within 15metres of any stack of grain, hay corn, straw or any standing crop, dry grass or stubble field – up to a $5500 fine.
Mum grew up on a wheat station (meaning: huge farm/ranch) and always said that the wheat fires moved pretty quickly, so I suppose that's where this law comes from.
The original police statement was "The NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year." of which only "24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires". https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_s...
Most of the offenses are for having a barbeque/campfire during a "total fire ban" day or discarding a lit cigarette - these receive formal cautions or fines
> Discarding a cigarette from a vehicle can attract a fine for littering of $250, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority states. If it’s lit and tossed away, the fine is $660, which doubles on a day of total fire ban to $1320.
> Lighting a fire on a day of total fire ban attracts an on the spot fine of $2200. If the matter goes to court, you could face a fine of up to $5500 or 12 months behind bars.
Was he right or wrong? I love the "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem" arguments made by people.
Would you rather a lie from an "authoritative" source or a truth from a "wacko"?
Well, an authoritative source can still be wrong but by definition does not lie, while a wacko can get it right occasionally without being truthful.
It kind of feels like you're confusing single-roll probability with cumulative odds; who are you going to bet on over the long term?
That's the type of thing I imagine someone in north korea saying. By definition does not lie? That's news to me and certainly not true of any "authoritative sources". Every authoritative sources has lied. Even more, every autoritative sources was created specifically to lie. If you think I'm wrong, go read about the creation of these "authoritative sources". Who created them and why?
Even the hallowed BBC by definition told lies. Orwell worked for the BBC Eastern Service as a propagandist. It was one of his inspirations for 1984. You might have heard of him.
> who are you going to bet on over the long term?
Neither - especially when it comes to important issues. As I said the slavish "appeal to authority". It's the basis of all tyranny.
It marginalizes them and ostracizes them from civil society in precisely the way they deserve, and increases your likelihood of finding the truth.
Note: this is different from assuming the truth is the OPPOSITE of what they say.
I'm not going to defend Alex Jones here, but surely you realise that this metric includes many main stream, "respected" media organisations?
I try to consume sources that generally do their best to get it right.
Only because you already know the facts from reliable sources.
So given you already knew the facts in order to ascertain that the whacko was telling the truth, why are you bothering with the whacko?
Worse, by pointing out that the whacko was right this time, you encourage others to believe other claims by the same whacko, since they have been right at least once!
Facts are sometimes very tricky things....how might one even determine what the actual facts are in this situation?
> you encourage others to believe
I feel similarly about anyone using the term "fact" so casually.
The facts in this case are easy to discern: they are numbers reported by NSW Police. The basis for those numbers is irrelevant: the only fact here is a media release from the police containing certain statements, and the claims made by certain agencies reporting on that media release,
For example, are we discussing:
- numbers of fires actually started by people (and, deliberately vs accidentally)
- (the unknown) number of people who have actually engaged in risky behavior
- numbers of people who have been arrested (charged?) for any of the above
> The basis for those numbers is irrelevant
In terms of my "casual" accusation, agreed. I think it's fair to say that in this case it was actually me who was speaking too casually due to a preoccupation with the philosophical ideas around facts.