Can someone explain this insanity to me??

[AchtungBono]

From Yahoo.com:

++

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush.


-------

Geneva convention??...why???....they're not POWs they're terror suspects.....

If that's the logic, why not give EVERY prisoner in the United States protection under Geneva?

This is totally insane in my opinion. They should be glad to have a place to sleep and food to eat.

What will they want next? Cable?? Video games???

 

[BVS]

Geneva convention??...why???....they're not POWs they're terror suspects.....

Wait, I thought this was the "War on Terror"? You can't start changing your definitions when they suit you.

This is totally insane in my opinion. They should be glad to have a place to sleep and food to eat.

So guilty until proven innocent, who cares if they die in the process. You seriously disturb me. You can't possibly think everyone we picked up is guilty, and that that's just a given.

What will they want next? Cable?? Video games???

Please, listen to yourself. Spend one day there and I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune.

 

[AchtungBono]

I stand corrected BVS.

I looked up the articles of the Geneva Convention and I noticed that there were SEVERAL parts to it.

The third Geneva convention relates to POWs while the fourth Geneva convention refers to the treatment of civillians during wartime.

I am very happy to have learned something new because of you. It's always a pleasure to have these verbal skirmishes with you (I'm serious...I'm not being sarcastic).

Thanks.

 

[digsy]

This is totally insane in my opinion. They should be glad to have a place to sleep and food to eat.

What will they want next? Cable?? Video games???

no really, you have got to be kidding right?
seriously that has got to be the most ridiculous and stupid thing i have ever heard

 

[yolland]

That's enough. Labeling another poster "stupid" is a personal attack and furthermore it sounds like AB already considered her question answered.

 

[Popmartijn]

That's enough. Labeling another poster "stupid" is a personal attack and furthermore it sounds like AB already considered her question answered.

A small correction here. The person replying did nowhere in her reply label the original poster stupid. She said the post itself (i.e. the content) was stupid, not the person.

 

[Salome]

I do get the feeling that remarks re. posts are relatively easy labelled as personal attacks nowadays


besides that I do think the original posts contains (as has been pointed out) quite a load of bollocks

 

[yolland]

A small correction here. The person replying did nowhere in her reply label the original poster stupid. She said the post itself (i.e. the content) was stupid, not the person.

Yes, that's obvious, but the distinction is unimportant. By that logic, saying "What a worthless, submoronic piece of crap argument!" is OK because it's the argument, not the poster, being ridiculed. The bottom line is: treating other posters with repect entails disagreeing with their arguments in a respectful manner. I appreciate that no two people are going to have precisely the same views on what this might look like, but I am a mod and in my book "stupid" falls afoul of that. This would not be the first time I've asked people to refrain from using it in this context.

 

[Popmartijn]

Yes, that's obvious, but the distinction is unimportant. By that logic, saying "What a worthless, submoronic piece of crap argument!" is OK because it's the argument, not the poster, being ridiculed.

Indeed.
Especially when you elaborate when the argument is worthless crap.
Of course you can disagree 'respectfully' with another one's viewpoint, but some arguments are so out there, so over the top, so worthless, so out of line that it may be called on it. And it's not immediately riduling the argument. It is a strong reaction to an argument you think is going way too far.

 

[yolland]

The post in question wasn't at all elaborated, however, I do appreciate your point. Nonethleless, it's perfectly possible to respond both constructively and respectfully to arguments you find reprehensible, and plenty of folks in here manage the feat all the time. As I said, I understand no two people are going to gauge this quite the same; sometimes I might call someone on a word or phrase you thought was fine, other times I might let something slide you found objectionable. My goal is simply to keep things civil and head off unnecessary hostilities, but ultimately this does come down to a judgment call.

Whenever anyone has such disagreements though, the best thing to do is PM or email me about them. I'm always willing to hear you out.

~ Peace