First, the petty semantic stuff: You're correct that bringing up the cat issue is a non-sequitur. But it is also a "red herring" in the technical sense of the phrase: "something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting" (Oxford American Dictionary, emphasis added). Cat pictures are not misleading, but they are distracting, and mentioning cats can be "something that draws attention away from the central issue" to use your definition. (Particularly if the cats in question are cute.) You can commit multiple fallicies with the same statement.
In any case, your first response--"What on earth does that article have to do with anything?"--seemed to take the term non-sequitur and red herring to be interchangeable in this case as well. Your second response changes this impression, indicating that the article I posted was "subtle" in changing the subject--or at least my argumentation was. I suppose I should take this as a complement.
You are also correct that the article in question isn't by itself enough to "dismiss an allegation that, if true, tarnishes our collective honor and integrity." I never said it was, and I didn't initially cite it as such. I cited it as a throw-away comment attached to my main argument for why I didn't take the Rolling Stone article seriously. The argument was:
1) The congressman for whom I interned inspected the facility while I was interning and found nothing untoward.
2) The congressman in question was opposed to Guantanamo and related activities before his visit and was thus on alert for abuses. (As opposed, say, the a congressman who had supported detention for unlawful combatants from the start and wanted to keep a lid on any abuses to avoid embarrassment.)
3) Therefore, it is highly unlikely that prisoners at Guantanamo were suffering abuses during the period while the congressman visited. (Experience + Motive for accurately reporting experience = Likely accurate report of experience.)
I have the qualifier "highly unlikely" because this proof can obviously be disputed: I discussed the possibility of him being deceived by a "Potemkin village"-style set-up and why I considered such a possibility unlikely. One could also mention the possibility that he was bribed, that he was deliberately concealing his support for Guantanamo before his visit so his stance after his visit would seem more convincing (if so, he was fooling even his legislative assistants), or that I am misrepresenting the congressman either inadvertently (faulty memory from an event three years ago) or maliciously. But, absent convoluted conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation is that the when Jeff Tietz tells us that torture was routine in Guantanamo in 2002-2003 period, he was lying. (Or fooled, which is another possibility.) That was the point of the initial post. It also implies that such activities are not happening now, as representatives and senators are still informed of what happens at Guantanamo and media scrutiny has only intensified since then.
Now, it seems you don't actually find the Rolling Stone convincing. But you apparently don't consider the argument posed above convincing either. Is that for a reason I previously mentioned, or something else? I'm mildly curious.
I do have more to say about the food article. I'll post on that shortly.
no subject
In any case, your first response--"What on earth does that article have to do with anything?"--seemed to take the term non-sequitur and red herring to be interchangeable in this case as well. Your second response changes this impression, indicating that the article I posted was "subtle" in changing the subject--or at least my argumentation was. I suppose I should take this as a complement.
You are also correct that the article in question isn't by itself enough to "dismiss an allegation that, if true, tarnishes our collective honor and integrity." I never said it was, and I didn't initially cite it as such. I cited it as a throw-away comment attached to my main argument for why I didn't take the Rolling Stone article seriously. The argument was:
1) The congressman for whom I interned inspected the facility while I was interning and found nothing untoward.
2) The congressman in question was opposed to Guantanamo and related activities before his visit and was thus on alert for abuses. (As opposed, say, the a congressman who had supported detention for unlawful combatants from the start and wanted to keep a lid on any abuses to avoid embarrassment.)
3) Therefore, it is highly unlikely that prisoners at Guantanamo were suffering abuses during the period while the congressman visited. (Experience + Motive for accurately reporting experience = Likely accurate report of experience.)
I have the qualifier "highly unlikely" because this proof can obviously be disputed: I discussed the possibility of him being deceived by a "Potemkin village"-style set-up and why I considered such a possibility unlikely. One could also mention the possibility that he was bribed, that he was deliberately concealing his support for Guantanamo before his visit so his stance after his visit would seem more convincing (if so, he was fooling even his legislative assistants), or that I am misrepresenting the congressman either inadvertently (faulty memory from an event three years ago) or maliciously. But, absent convoluted conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation is that the when Jeff Tietz tells us that torture was routine in Guantanamo in 2002-2003 period, he was lying. (Or fooled, which is another possibility.) That was the point of the initial post. It also implies that such activities are not happening now, as representatives and senators are still informed of what happens at Guantanamo and media scrutiny has only intensified since then.
Now, it seems you don't actually find the Rolling Stone convincing. But you apparently don't consider the argument posed above convincing either. Is that for a reason I previously mentioned, or something else? I'm mildly curious.
I do have more to say about the food article. I'll post on that shortly.