“inhumane: without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.” At least, that’s the definition that pops up in Google.
I’m OK with “lacking compassion and cruel.” I didn’t realize we were arguing over adjectives. Sounds like we largely agree.
So you’re saying it’s without compassion for misery or suffering, or cruel, but not inhumane.
It’s the definition of inhumane, IN YOUR WORDS, but not inhumane.
I think we’re more in agreement than not . . . but I wish it were more common to be able to say, “I think this is a poor argument against X,” without people hearing, “I favor X.”
This is cruel, and lacks compassion, and uses immigrants as pawns in a political battle, all of which I dislike.
But it’s really not “inhumane.” There is no starvation, no torture, no beatings. Other criminals are separated from their children, and there is no wide-spread consensus that this is an inhumane practice. I believe that when battle lines are drawn, it somehow becomes difficult to say, “I disagree with such-and-so policy.” Instead, the policy must be called detestable, inhumane, likened to the worst abuses of totalitarian governments. How is that remotely useful?
I think this policy is cruel, uncompassionate, and unwise, in part because what drives it is political point-scoring as opposed to genuine legitimate national concerns. Why can’t THAT be the critique?
Nobody has really answered the question. Suppose I am driving with my daughter in the car. I am not drunk or under the influence of drugs, but I am tired and drive over the center line.
I am pulled over and arrested. Bail is set, but I am too poor to post it. We have no other family.
Does my daughter go to the county jail with me?
Aren’t you an attorney? Why are you asking us this question?
Answer it yourself–and while you’re at it, explain why:
- There aren’t camps set up across the nation to house the children of DUI offenders; and
- Why this change in policy is necessary.
This is ridiculous. You’re not even nitpicking the meaning of adjectives, you’re nitpicking some connotation of adjectives that’s not necessarily there. How much effort are you spending on this bizarre nitpickery, compared to how much you’re spending trying to stop this cruel, lacking-compassion, unwise policy?
Excluded middle. I have time to spend on both goals.
How about you? Why don’t you simply concede my point so you can devote your every waking moment to ending this policy?
Goddamn, dude.
This is not a rebuttal that is remarkable for its cogency.
…if you have so much time available to you, do you have the time to answer the question I put to you earlier, or the questions that Eva put to you?
Trying to win a debate by begging “your opponent” to concede is a new one on me. It shows you don’t have a point.
Was your daughter also arrested for doing exactly the same thing that you were doing?
…Bricker: do you think that it would be fair to characterize the refusal to let a father comfort his child for five minutes as “inhumane?”
How about taking a child away to get bathed and then telling the mum “you won’t see the child again?” Would you consider that action “inhumane?”
Or how about telling the parent “we are taking your child away” and when they ask when will they see them again the response is “I don’t know?”
I was certainly not begging, and my request was a rhetorical device intended to high the lack of validity associated with the comment “How much effort are you spending on this bizarre nitpickery, compared to how much you’re spending trying to stop this cruel, lacking-compassion, unwise policy?”
Your use of “begging,” is unjustified.
…Left Hand of Dorkness isn’t the one who has redefined “inhumane.” The only person spending time on bizarre nitpickery in this thread is you.
I disagree.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. ETA: Perhaps. The method by which this response is delivered would matter a great deal.
Now, please cite the policy that requires these things be done. I’m against it. It’s an inhumane policy.
Which specific policy is it, exactly?
Here is an analogy:
POSTER 1: It’s outrageous that Baltimore police have a policy that lets them plant drugs on innocent people.
POSTER 2: What? They do? That can’t be true.
POSTER 1: Oh, it is. Cite.
Do you see the problem that POSTER 1 is missing?
…chaos Bricker.
Fucking chaos.
I’ve talked before about chaos theory, and how it applies to complex systems. In a well structured, managed system chaos is reduced. If a well managed system you put procedures in place before you implement a policy. You roll-it-out in a managed fashion. Everybody works to the same play-book. Things become predictably predictable.
But this isn’t how the Trump administration works. The Trump administration is defined by chaos. The i’s are not dotted, the t’s are not crossed. And this is where we find ourselves now: with the President and Miller claiming a policy exists and with Sec Nielson denying that a policy exists, and everybody else trying to figure out what-the-fuck is going on.
I’m not going to play your game. Because your game is hurting people. You are asking me to cite a policy when it should be crystal fucking clear that this administration can’t even get their story straight on whether or not there is a policy.
The reality is that parents are being separated from their children at borders and that the people at the borders are “making things up” because there are no formal “procedures” in place. We don’t know where the girls are. We don’t know where the infants are.
This is, by any measure, inhumane. And it is a direct result of directives from the Trump administration.
The chaotic situation produces some results that can fairly be characterized as humane, then?
Do you see any daylight between that claim and the claim that the policies are inhumane?
In Kentucky, in 2017, a police detective is accused of turning his offer to drive a sexual assault victim home into a trip to a motel, where he raped her again, at least according to the indictment.
That was inhumane treatment. But it was not (I hope you agree) the policy of the Hillview Police Department to rape sexual assault victims on the way home.
Here is a report about immigrant children released to human traffickers.
Was that also “directly attributable” to chaos and the President’s fault? Inasmuch as it happened during the Obama administration, I suspect not.