US sends wrongfully accused suspects to Syria to be Tortured.

The article discusses only one case, which happened in the past. Your title suggests multiple cases happening now. You title may be, and probably is an accurate representation of the reality of US policy, but it is not an accurate representation of the content of your post. That is all Hayes was trying to point out.

I would imagine it is because they prefer him to the alternative. This is one of the drawbacks of representative democracy, there is very little chance that you have a candidate to vote for the perfectly represents your beliefs, you can only choose who best represents you on the issues you give the most weight to and take the good with the bad.

 

Wow. Is this how you relate to everyone?

Of course not.

lol. Oops, I mean haha.

Point taken. But I'm still at a loss for why the heck this matters to you.

Thank you Hayes, you are obviously the King of Maturity.

Hardly. I really wanted to know why this matters to you.

I'll give you that. I should not let your arrogance piss me off so much.

Which of course avoids altogether the many other sources that would argue this is more common than we'd like to admit. In making this alteration then, one would be giving the false notion that this is a singular, isolated event. That is my point.

Well, I am crrrraaaaazy rhad, obviously just here to rile you up for no reason at all.

EDIT: I think it's a question of absolute truth and the context it is given in. For whatever reason, you are loking solely at title vs. the particular content of the article in question.

I choose to look at the title vs reality.

 

Well, I guess you wouldn't want to think that logical reasoning has anything to do with legitimate argument.

It is an incorrect claim based on your warrant. 1 does not mean more than 1. 'Sent' is not the same as 'sends.' Taking the LSAT is not a necessary condition to recognize those differences (although it may be sufficient).

There are plenty of things to be critical about where this administration is concerned. There is no need to generalize or stretch the facts.

Look at the example I gave earlier: Basso is criticized for writing titles that don't match articles he posts. Why? Well, because when your claim and warrant don't match your credibility is lessened. Your 'proof' does not back up your claim and then that claim is in doubt, even if you then come back and offer further 'proof' of the claim.

The title could have read 'The US sent wrongfully accused suspect to Syria to be Tortured.' It didn't. This is the 'debate and discussion' forum. The claims that we make are open to scrutiny. The more precise we are the more time we can spend on substantive discussion. There is no downside to being precise. To just assume that we can make the leap from one to many is terrible argumentation. It is a flawed process that ultimately cannot stand up to examination. Conclusions based on such premises provide a flawed view of 'reality.'

For example:

My claim: 'All rhad ever does is say you make me sick. He only engages in personal attacks.'

My warrant:

Does that provide a picture of 'reality?' No, of course not. So I brought it up because if we present a claim and a warrant that match we are more likely to get a more legitimate picture of 'reality.'

 

I think you ignored the real substance of my last post.