4 ms·

> "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity." >Having them state their full names on a YouTube vid

by rosndo 5y ago

> "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity." >Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two? No mental gymnastics required. The writers of this weren’t thinking of youtube or even newspapers, this is about parading your prisoners through the streets and exposing them to hostile crowds. And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.

chmod775 5y ago
> And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected. You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it? As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.
- rosndo 5y ago
  > I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? This is not something the Geneva convention is supposed to protect soldiers from. > In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. Their families are also not protected by the Geneva convention. I think it’s a bit hilarious to expect protections beyond the Geneva convention while fighting a war of aggression.

by rosndo 5y ago

chmod775 5y ago

> And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected. You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it? As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.

rosndo 5y ago
> I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? This is not something the Geneva convention is supposed to protect soldiers from. > In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. Their families are also not protected by the Geneva convention. I think it’s a bit hilarious to expect protections beyond the Geneva convention while fighting a war of aggression.