Beginning with the "petty semantics", it appears you concede that my initial comment equating your inclusion of the Post article in your original post with a red herring was correct, provided that one agrees with my assessment of why the article was included in the first place. In other words, my usage of the term "red herring" was correct. It's your motivation for including the article that is under contention. Since you're the only person who can truly explain your own intent, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that my interpretation of your motivation for including the "throw-away" argument was incorrect.
*sips cognac*
As for the cat pictures comment being both a "red herring" and a "non sequitur", I continue to disagree. In order for the cat comment to be a "red herring", it would have to have had something to do with the topic under discussion, namely conditions at Guantanomo Bay. It would not have. Instead, it would have been a reply that had no relevance to what preceded it; a non sequitur. However, since we're essentially arguing semantics over the hypothetical insertion of a comment used as an example, I suggest we agree to disagree and drop this point from discussion.
*puffs cigar*
Your main argument was well phrased, which is why it failed to raise any red flags in my mind the way your "throw-away" comment did. In other words, your main argument was well stated and you offered some logical framework, so did not prompt a response from me. In contrast, your "throw-away" comment was unsupported by an argument and instead seemed to imply a number of possibilities without giving a stance on any of them. I selected the only possibility that I believed required a response from me, and did so accordingly.
I failed to find your main argument convincing for the following reasons:
1) It is essentially a hearsay argument, lacking credible, verifiable sources. Which congressman did you intern with? Can this internship be verified? During what period of time did he visit Guantanomo Bay? Where are the congressional records logging his official opposition/denunciation of the torture there? Where is the report of his visit to Guantanomo Bay and what he witnessed there? These are questions which would need to be answered before I even considered your argument on the same level as the ones posited in the Post, Sun Times, or Rolling Stone. I was trained to discount hearsay arguments unless they could be verified independantly.
2) As a result of your hearsay argument, using facts which you provided and only you can verify, you posit that Jeff Tietz was either lying or fooled. I'm sorry, but whatever your opinion of the media, Tietz is still held to a higher degree of accountability for the facts in his story than you are with your hearsay. In other words, he's a far more reliable source than you are. I must discount any argument or conclusion springing from your hearsay. Once again, there are too many ifs.
no subject
*sips cognac*
As for the cat pictures comment being both a "red herring" and a "non sequitur", I continue to disagree. In order for the cat comment to be a "red herring", it would have to have had something to do with the topic under discussion, namely conditions at Guantanomo Bay. It would not have. Instead, it would have been a reply that had no relevance to what preceded it; a non sequitur. However, since we're essentially arguing semantics over the hypothetical insertion of a comment used as an example, I suggest we agree to disagree and drop this point from discussion.
*puffs cigar*
Your main argument was well phrased, which is why it failed to raise any red flags in my mind the way your "throw-away" comment did. In other words, your main argument was well stated and you offered some logical framework, so did not prompt a response from me. In contrast, your "throw-away" comment was unsupported by an argument and instead seemed to imply a number of possibilities without giving a stance on any of them. I selected the only possibility that I believed required a response from me, and did so accordingly.
I failed to find your main argument convincing for the following reasons:
1) It is essentially a hearsay argument, lacking credible, verifiable sources. Which congressman did you intern with? Can this internship be verified? During what period of time did he visit Guantanomo Bay? Where are the congressional records logging his official opposition/denunciation of the torture there? Where is the report of his visit to Guantanomo Bay and what he witnessed there? These are questions which would need to be answered before I even considered your argument on the same level as the ones posited in the Post, Sun Times, or Rolling Stone. I was trained to discount hearsay arguments unless they could be verified independantly.
2) As a result of your hearsay argument, using facts which you provided and only you can verify, you posit that Jeff Tietz was either lying or fooled. I'm sorry, but whatever your opinion of the media, Tietz is still held to a higher degree of accountability for the facts in his story than you are with your hearsay. In other words, he's a far more reliable source than you are. I must discount any argument or conclusion springing from your hearsay. Once again, there are too many ifs.