Moderated Trump announces new concentration camps

[plague311]

*snip*

All ******** and just more pathetic nitpicking anyway. You edit out all of the actual parts you should be addressing to go on little cherry picking ******** adventures. Does this ever get old? Do you ever get sick of avoiding real conversations just to try and make semantic points?

Anyway, cute reply. Once you get close to actually making a point let me know.

 

[I Am The Scum]

My position was pretty clear. But since you can't seem to improve your reading comprehension, I'll give you a hand. Just so we're all clear, this was the exchange in question:



What am I rolling my eyes at? The suffering of other people? The concern that other people have for the suffering of other people?

No. I'm rolling my eyes at the accusation that I'm indifferent to suffering.

Elementary reading comprehension would have made that plain, but evidently you aren't up to the task.

So let's make this as clear as possible.

Donald Trump should immediately rescind his "zero tolerance" policy and reunite all detained children with their parents or nearest family member wherever possible, leaving open the possibility that a similar, more "effective" version of the policy can be reinstated at a later date.

Agree or disagree?

 

[thaiboxerken]

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-07/OIG-19-51-Jul19_.pdf

This adds quite a bit of context to the situation.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. It makes no difference if what AOC said is true or not, other than giving her statements more weight in the future.

Well, that's.... interesting. I would think that the truth value of her statements would be pretty important for evaluating the conditions there. There are plenty of other reports about what's going on in these camps that're making my blood boil, but each report should be weighed on its own merit as well.

 

[Belz...]

You do realize that the entire point of Trump’s child separation program was to deliberately mistreat migrants and refugees as a means of dissuading them from coming to the US in the first place, right?

Bingo.

Is disdain for either the welfare of these children, or for the people who have concerns about their welfare a better look in your world than faux outrage?

Come on, man. That's clearly not what he meant.

You clearly are indifferent to the suffering, if not happy about it.

I'm sure Joe will be along soon to tell you to get those children out of cages before you start throwing tomatoes at Zig. To do otherwise would show one's indifference to the suffering.

Oh, wait. We're just having an academic discussion here. None of us are going to do squat about these kids. But it sure feels nice to point fingers at one another.

 

[Belz...]

It's sad watching one of the posters who complains the most about personalization try to insult other posters.

Didn't you start this train? You thought he didn't care enough about these children (i.e. he didn't use the right words in a discussion) and proceded to attack him. And now you're surprised that he fought back? The hell?

 

[Upchurch]

So let's make this as clear as possible.

Donald Trump should immediately rescind his "zero tolerance" policy and reunite all detained children with their parents or nearest family member wherever possible, leaving open the possibility that a similar, more "effective" version of the policy can be reinstated at a later date.

Agree or disagree?

Oo. Tough question. Zig’s SOP for tough questions is to claim he’ll come back when he has more time, disappear just long enough that you might’ve have forgotten your question or his claim, and then come back pretending it never happened.

Also maybe just call people stupid. Let’s see which happens here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, that's.... interesting. I would think that the truth value of her statements would be pretty important for evaluating the conditions there. There are plenty of other reports about what's going on in these camps that're making my blood boil, but each report should be weighed on its own merit as well.

Because you're not stupid and you know how the game is played.

As long as some "Democrat / Liberal / Leftie" said anything "wrong" (which now includes includes things such as comparisons, colorful language, metaphors, and reasonable exaggerations) then they'll talk about that forever instead of the topic.

Oh, wait. We're just having an academic discussion here. None of us are going to do squat about these kids. But it sure feels nice to point fingers at one another.

I was wondering how long before that particular chestnut got dropped.

 

[plague311]

Well, that's.... interesting. I would think that the truth value of her statements would be pretty important for evaluating the conditions there. There are plenty of other reports about what's going on in these camps that're making my blood boil, but each report should be weighed on its own merit as well.

I don't disagree with anything you said here, which is why I don't rely on AOC to be my #1 or even top 10 sources of information. If what she said is true, that's terrible, but it's been terrible for awhile now. That isn't the straw that broke the camels back or anything. That was and is my point.

 

[Belz...]

Because you're not stupid and you know how the game is played.

Well, is it better to play a game where the truth value of claims is irrelevant so long as the spirit of the truth is in there, somewhere? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that sort of thing, as I'm sure you well know.

I was wondering how long before that particular chestnut got dropped.

Do you disagree?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you disagree?

Errrr... sorta. It's complicated. Give me a little bit to figure out how to word it.

Simple version: (Pending context and deeper clarification) is no, not being in a position to affect the situation is no excuse to be a showy heartless bastard about it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Errrr... sorta. It's complicated. Give me a little bit to figure out how to word it.

Simple version: (Pending context and deeper clarification) is no, not being in a position to affect the situation is no excuse to be a showy heartless bastard about it.

Someone made an inaccurate claim. I corrected it. How does that make me a showy heartless bastard? It could have ended with that single post. The only reason it didn't was because I got attacked for correcting the record. I'm still being attacked for correcting the record.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Someone made an inaccurate claim. I corrected it. How does that make me a showy heartless bastard? It could have ended with that single post. The only reason it didn't was because I got attacked for correcting the record. I'm still being attacked for correcting the record.

Because you always, always, always have an excuse for why the actual thing being discussed can't be discussed yet. You caring about these children is always exactly where Jabba's proof of immortality was at... perpetually around the corner and we'll talk about it as soon as this one last... no this one... okay this one last little detail and this time you mean it... gets addressed.

I'm not going to sit here and explain to you what "pedantics" is in detail. Kind of defeats the purpose.

The "aw shucks all I'm doing is correcting a falsehood" is dishonest when it delays the topic forever. You can nitpick to your hearts content and still answer basic questions. One doesn't get put on hold for the other, that's where the dishonesty shines through.

But sure, I believe you. We'll get around to talking about the kids in cages as soon as you've found every 'i' to be dotted and "t" to be crossed, checked all the spelling, labeled organized the cites for every claim, agreed on the font, and solved peace in the Middle East.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because you always, always, always have an excuse for why the actual thing being discussed can't be discussed yet.

I never told anyone not to discuss anything. You're the one here who wanted to disallow a topic, namely the factual basis for someone's claim.

The "aw shucks all I'm doing is correcting a falsehood" is dishonest when it delays the topic forever.

Like I said already, it could have ended with one post. The only reason it didn't was because I was attacked, rather unfairly, for posting relevant facts. Had you not done that, were you not continuing to do so even in this post, we could have moved on long ago.

And the question of whether conditions are bad because of inadequate resources or because of deliberate and avoidable mistreatment is not a nitpick. It's pretty god damned important. If you actually cared about detainees rather than just bashing Trump, you would recognize that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Like I said already, it could have ended with one post.

That works both ways. It could have kept going with one post as well.

That's the difference between pedantics and nitpicking. If talking about how trustworthy of a source AOC is is just that important to you, knock yourself out.

It's this idea that you don't have to answer any questions or engage in the discussion until that little side topic is addressed to your satisfaction is the problem.

Here. I'll prove it.

I hereby acknowledge that AOC's testimony has not, as of this posting, been verified enough for it to be entered into the general discussion as proof or evidence of the living conditions of people currently held in American refugee camps.

Okay, not that's that is off the table. Multiple, independent sources have described the conditions in these camps in negative light, referring to them in terms ranging from "unsatisfactory" to full on "human rights crisis."

Do you agree this is a problem?

Option 1: I will not get an answer. You'll have an excuse why you aren't going to give me one yet.

Option 2: I'll get an answer. Why didn't you answer this the first time someone asked you?

 

[Ziggurat]

That works both ways. It could have kept going with one post as well.

It's not symmetric. I was attacked unreasonably for posting relevant information. I shouldn't have to just put up with that. And you're the one complaining that we aren't discussing other topics, yet you're not discussing other topics. You still want to attack me.

If talking about how trustworthy of a source AOC is is just that important to you, knock yourself out.

The relevant question was never about AOC. The relevant question was whether ICE was deliberately mistreating detainees. So you're misrepresenting the entire exchange to claim something was irrelevant when in fact it's obviously relevant.

It's this idea that you don't have to answer any questions or engage in the discussion until that little side topic is addressed to your satisfaction is the problem.

Nobody ever has to discuss anything. But I won't just let you attack me without responding. Why would I?

Here. I'll prove it.

I hereby acknowledge that AOC's testimony has not, as of this posting, been verified enough for it to be entered into the general discussion as proof or evidence of the living conditions of people currently held in American refugee camps.

Okay, not that's that is off the table.

Take it one step further. Retract your accusations that I'm arguing in bad faith. Can you do that? I bet you can't.

Multiple, independent sources have described the conditions in these camps in negative light, referring to them in terms ranging from "unsatisfactory" to full on "human rights crisis."

Do you agree this is a problem?

Yes, it's a problem. I never suggested otherwise.

Option 2: I'll get an answer. Why didn't you answer this the first time someone asked you?

This might blow your mind, but if you had paid close attention, you would have noticed that, in fact, THIS is the first time anyone asked me that, instead of just accusing me of not caring. So I did actually answer the first time it was asked. If this was your actual concern, why didn't you ask this the first time you responded to me? And what made you think it had been asked before when in fact it hadn't been?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

All I know is I watched a group of brave women go into those places yesterday surrounded by people with a 50% statistical likelihood of having recently joked around about their deaths. Then they stood up and, shouting over a steady din of abuse and slander, bore witness to the conditions of another human being that we can't hear from directly.

Today I have a little more hope than yesterday.

That's how you fight back.

 

[uke2se]

All I know is I watched a group of brave women go into those places yesterday surrounded by people with a 50% statistical likelihood of having recently joked around about their deaths. Then they stood up and, shouting over a steady din of abuse and slander, bore witness to the conditions of another human being that we can't hear from directly.

Today I have a little more hope than yesterday.

That's how you fight back.

This.

Good on AOC and her collegues.

 

[Belz...]

Errrr... sorta. It's complicated. Give me a little bit to figure out how to word it.

Simple version: (Pending context and deeper clarification) is no, not being in a position to affect the situation is no excuse to be a showy heartless bastard about it.

But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you said we should get those children out of there before we waste time arguing semantics. Since none of you will do diddly squat to get those children out of those camps, that is silly.

Also, what does it matter if some poster cares about the issue or not as much as you? This isn't a game of who's more woke or virtuous, here. It's a discussion forum. We're here to discuss, and that means discussing with people we strongly disagree with.

I understand your beef with the jabba-esque argumentation, but that isn't what I was addressing.

 

[applecorped]

aoc is a gift.