(I know this thread is probably far too gone, but WTF, eh?)
I totally agree with Rand Rover here. I’ve been on the exact same opposite side of a similar argument with a conservative friend, and I found the argument “but you’re ignoring the larger narrative” rather irritating when I disagreed with his narrative!
Jamster, I hope you were able to avoid the bolt of lightning that must have come crashing down immediately after you hit submit.
I can only assume that if you disagree with the larger narrative then you explain your case about the larger picture, clearly and succinctly.
I’m willing to bet that, unlike our colleague Rand, you don’t simply swing your giant internet penis, and argue that you’re right because of your expensive scotch intake.
:rolleyes:
Once again, we are stunned by the mighty intellect at play here.
Hat’s off to you sir!
Although your post is self-evidently stupid and I was trying to save you the embarassment of explaining why in excruciating detail, your continued insistence upon showing your ass has left me know choice.
You said in that post that I have not clearly stated my position on the larger narrative and have instead just insisted that I’m right about my position on the larger narrative simply because I have more money than the rest of you (which is true BTW, in case anyone forgot). But that is not what has happened in this thread at all.
Rather, I have been arguing that it is OK to have a debate about an issue within the larger narrative without discussing the larger narrative at all. My position on the larger narrative is therefore irrelevant. Also, I have not insisted that I am right about my position on the larger narrative because I have more money; first, I have not stated a position on the larger narrative at all, so I couldn’t insist that that position is right, and second, that whole “I’m rich, bitch” thing was a meltdown by special request of the white Biggirl (IOW, what is sometimes referred to as a “joke”) (but I am richer than almost all other dopers if dopers’ incomes match the national averages, in case you were wondering).
Therefore, we are all dumber for having read your post, I award you no points, etc. and etc.
To be strictly fair, RR never actually claimed his relative wealth meant his argument had more substance. He just wanted us to know. “Oink!” is not an argument, but it doesn’t have to be.
No, I don’t disagree with the larger narrative in this case. Guantanamo is an abomination, and I was happier than shit when I read this presidential executive order that seems to ban torture by any agent of the US Govt, (explicitly) including the CIA. Heck, I even agree with the OP.
However, Rand is partially right. If someone told me that Hitler was a child molester without historical evidence, I would be rather dubious. His killing 6-10 million people doesn’t make him a child molester. Plenty of people, (including Rand) have turned what could have been a short side argument into a multi-page train wreck. From what I could tell, Rand could have been clearer in what position he was taking, but others did not need to assume that he was defending Guantanamo in general just because he thought the article linked to in the OP was sloppily reported.
I mean seriously, people, if it’s so obvious that he’s wrong, then why the need to pile-on? Why not just argue the merits of the linked article? One thing I like about this board is that, even in the Pit, there is a certain standard of discourse, but this thread is just an embarrassment.
On preview: And, really, no one else got that the “meltdown” was a joke?
Sorry for the double post, but this one has to do with the content of the thread:
Rand: There was a story on This American Life recently which establishes that that the kind of bullshit in the linked article has been SOP at Guantanamo.
As I stated before in the thread, before I realized that Rand McNutty was just not worth the effort, there are ways to make your position clear.
It is not difficult to say “I agree with X and Y, but let me state for the record that Z constitutes poor logic.” For someone who claims to be a wealthy and important law-talking person, that seems like a basic, elementary skill.
Since this has apparently moved beyond Rand’s trolling to other people actually defending him…
If you’re arguing which side is correct in a he said/she said, then the past credibility of the parties and the wider context of the dispute are pretty damn important.
Rand asks us to believe that the reporters are lying about what their sources said. So we have to ask ourselves which is more likely: that the Bush administration bungled the case files or that these reporters risked their credibility on making the ex-president look bad and that various lawyers perjured themselves in federal filings. Given all the other stuff they’ve fucked up re: Gitmo (and the fact that the same lack of proper files happened at Abu Ghraib), most of us think it is more likely that what the sources are saying is accurate.
To say that we must evaluate the credibility of the claims in a vacuum is silly. The evaluation of the credibility of a statement necessarily calls in a broader context.
Absolutely.
You are dumb. And have less money than me probably.
If Poster A says “Hitler was a child molester” and Poster B says “I don’t believe that idea is supported by the evidence”, it is not incumbent on poster B to also say “but I agree Hitler is bad for killing Jews etc.” Anyone who would assume that poster B does not agree that Hitler is bad based on the post above is an idiot. Moreover, poster B may have made a valid argument even if poster B is a neo-nazi skinhead who lurves him some hitler.
Also, thanks for the support luci and jam.
No he isn’t. He’s asks us to believe that the reporters prefer some sources in the story over others. If you actually read the article, the sources contradict each other. Some anonymous sources say the data is scattered and unavailable. Other named sources say the data is scattered, but easily obtainable via a database. So spin ensues.
Not that I should speak for him, but I don’t think he even has a problem with a little bit of spin. Both sides do it. He has a problem with (Dio., et. al.) spinning from 'The information is comprehensive, but difficult to consolidate into a single source perusable after dinner by the President", to “The information does not exist”.
However, when Dio et. al are called upon this extreme exaggeration, Crazy man starts barking about bigger issues, rather than try to refute the specific points being made about this particular issue.
It is entirely possible that Bush is the biggest douche bag in existence AND that there exists comprehensive yet unconsolidated case files for prisoners in Gitmo.
False dichotomy.
It’s also possible that the Bush administration bungled the case files, but not to the extent that the reporters imply. This would not be due to the reporters lying, of course, but to a sort of subconscious confirmation bias. (“Well, we already know they are incompetent, so if they messed this up at all, they probably messed it up a lot”). On preview: what Sinaijon said.
Look, I’m certainly more inclined to believe Bush and Co just fucked it up entirely, but I do understand that not all of my reasons are 100% fool-proof. And it would be easy enough to argue this thread against Rand using the quotes from the article, and without resorting to name-calling.
(For the record Rand: If you shout “false dichotomy,” it’s good manners to actually provide a third option.)
(On preview) As for the support, Rand: Voltaire and all that, right?
Bullshit. First, Charles D. Stimson is a named source saying very clearly that the files are hard to obtain. Second, the other named source, Geoff Morrell, does not say all the files are easily obtainable. He says they are “sufficiently organized” and that “most” are in a database. He goes on to say, in accord with everyone else, that a comprehensive assessment of the record will be time-consuming. Third, the most reliable source of all, the Justice Department’s filings in court, indicates that the records are indeed scattered and that putting them all together takes a lot of time.
This is not, as you suggest, named sources saying one thing and reporters choosing to side with anonymous sources saying another. To the extent the sources disagree, it is over the degree of disorganization. No one is saying there exists a comprehensive file with everything relevant in it.
Moreover, at no point did Dio say or imply what you quoted, that “no information exists.” Sadly, you’re the one exaggerating his position.
Here is some more exaggerating
Oops. Sorry about that last one. I guess the fact that he’s fucking wackjob isn’t really relevant to the question about the existance of the information.
Well,FWIW, several other posters did make that exact argument through the course of this thread, so the counter-argument can be applied to those posters instead of Dio.
. . . or in addition to Dio, as it turns out. Sorry for steeping on your toes a bit there Sinaijon.