Only on La La Land

[BmorePat87]

(11-12-2019, 01:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The only reason the "chain addressed it" was because you and AU introduced an argument not made (aka a red herring). Most likely because you couldn't argue the point made in the OP.

No bother on my part responding and I'm unsure how my taking the time to respond wasted your time. 

If you want to discuss the merits of the OP fine, if you want to make up a point and then dispute the point you made up, fine. Either way I'm enjoying the absurdity and it's definitely not a waste of my time. 

The court ruling your OP was lambasting would include those legal asylum seekers who had been subjected to the separation, so it was quite relevant and not a red herring. 

As to the claim that I "couldn't argue the point made in the OP" I will direct you to the first posts made by myself and AU, posts that you responded to.

I said

Quote:But even those attempting to cross illegally, such a pathetically, inhumane treatment cannot be excused. So many children who may never find their parents again because the administration, in addition to subjecting them to subhuman treatment, failed to even keep track of families they separated.

AU said

Quote:I'm not sure why this is a shock though, criminals still have rights. The idea that someone did something illegal so we don't have to treat them humanely is an archaic view and one that adds to the recidivism rate we see in this country.

The merits of your OP were debated. We also included the reality that legal asylum seekers were also subjected to the treatment in question as it was relevant to the ruling and provided further context to who was impacted. 

Move on. I'm done with this thread.