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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.