|
boner confessor posted:he has willingly put himself into exile. he is choosing to hide in an embassy rather than face charges, and as of yet the only tangible charges against him are related to sexual assault Assange and his supporters view exile as the only alternative to facing extradition and imprisonment at the hands of fabricated rape charges and possible extradition to the US to face even more damning criminal charges which could result in life in prison or even execution. If they are correct, this hardly constitutes "willing exile". It is instead "putting oneself in exile while under duress" or as the UN might describe it, "arbitrary detention". You can keep stating that he is there willingly over and over again but it would be a total waste of time. It does not address the real controversy. boner confessor posted:yeah that and while you're hiding in someone's basement it's super rude to use their free internet to do criminal acts or even things that just cause trouble for your host. No. The Ecuadorian government made no such statement. In reality, they stated explicitly that it was because he was interfering in a foreign election. Oh wait, you weren't making an actual argument, you were telling another hilarious joke. boner confessor posted:the ecuadorean government is under no legal or ethical obligation to subsidize wikileaks operations while he's squatting in their supply closet. he can get his own internet connection if he wants to do dumb things with it No one has claimed that the Ecuadorian is under a legal or ethical obligation to subsidize wikileaks operations. Actually, he cannot get his own internet connection. boner confessor posted:lmao you are gullible as hell No way, I'm really perceptive and smart!
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Many things would be rational if the beliefs of the irrational were actually correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:assange's exile is the result of him being a delusional idiot who would rather play internet outlaw than live an adult life, like edward snowden does Thanks for your contribution re: Assange being dumb as hell compared to you Seriously though, are Snowden's living conditions better than Assange's ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Assange and his supporters view exile as the only alternative to facing extradition and imprisonment at the hands of fabricated rape charges and possible extradition to the US to face even more damning criminal charges which could result in life in prison or even execution. If they are correct, this hardly constitutes "willing exile". It is instead "putting oneself in exile while under duress" or as the UN might describe it, "arbitrary detention". how are the rape charges fabricated? he admitted having sex with the person who is accusing him. is this vast global conspiracy capable of setting up a swedish honeypot? if so, why hasn't he faced formal charges from the us government? Dog Jones posted:You can keep stating that he is there willingly over and over again but it would be a total waste of time. It does not address the real controversy. the real controversy is that he is suffering from mental illness yet his claims of black helicopters and us government persecution are somehow being indulged by otherwise skeptical individuals because he struck on the correct narrative to subvert their otherwise rational skepticism Dog Jones posted:No. The Ecuadorian government made no such statement. In reality, they stated explicitly that it was because he was interfering in a foreign election. Oh wait, you weren't making an actual argument, you were telling another hilarious joke. so then it's odd that "maybe he's on to something!" is the reason for why assange's internet was cut off, despite his repeated failure to release any useful information, versus just trying to influence the election is a pretty big no-no according to most business internet use policies (he was also exchanging nude pics, something anyone else at the embassy probably wouldn't be allowed to do over office internet) Dog Jones posted:No way, I'm really perceptive and smart! based on your recent posts itt i highly doubt this Dog Jones posted:Thanks for your contribution re: Assange being dumb as hell compared to you well given that i've somehow not painted myself into a corner re: squatting in a broom closet for multiple years as i avoid my own anxieties... yeah? i mean there are goons who live in unfinished crawlspaces like trolls so i'd say they're about as dumb as assange Dog Jones posted:Seriously though, are Snowden's living conditions better than Assange's ? yes, he has residency in russia and can freely travel the country collecting speaking fees and living a somewhat normal life because he somehow avoided committing a string of petty crimes and sexual offenses on his journey towards asylum boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:58
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
Snowden lives in a big house in Russia. Assange literally lives in the womens bathroom of an embassy with only one other room he's allowed to go into.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Snowden lives in a big house in Russia. Assange literally lives in the womens bathroom of an embassy with only one other room he's allowed to go into. julian van houten: "i sleep in a supply closet. do you?" edward simpson: "i sleep in a big house with my residency visa" except that assange is not allowed to have alcohol
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Then that means Julian Assange is a loving idiot who doesn't know the first thing about Sweden's laws or treaties on extradition. Or indeed, the UK's, because he fled from Sweden to the UK and it's WAY easier to extradite from UK to USA than Sweden to USA. I think Assange probably thinks about his political position way more than you do and since you know the first thing about Sweden's laws and treaties on extradition I'd be willing to bet he too has at least learned that first thing. Assange also has a legal team of dedicated professionals who are lending their expertise when he considers his options. So to start with I'll give him and his legal team the benefit of the doubt that they have been making reasonable moves. However, I am interested to hear why you think his moves have been so dumb. Why would extradition from Sweden be such an implausible event? I don't think that fleeing from Sweden to the UK was the moronic disaster you are claiming it was, mostly because it wasn't, and he now has indefinite asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. But also because you yourself have pointed out that there are no criminal charges against Assange in the US, so why would extradition from the UK have been a concern at the time (given that Assange clearly was not planning to stay in the UK for only a short amount of time)? Can extradition from the UK be carried out without criminal charges?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I think Assange probably thinks about his political position way more than you do and since you know the first thing about Sweden's laws and treaties on extradition I'd be willing to bet he too has at least learned that first thing. Assange also has a legal team of dedicated professionals who are lending their expertise when he considers his options. So to start with I'll give him and his legal team the benefit of the doubt that they have been making reasonable moves. However, I am interested to hear why you think his moves have been so dumb. Why would extradition from Sweden be such an implausible event? i too give the man who would rather squat in a closet for years on end the benefit of the doubt in regards to a rational plan for the future. this proves that i am not gullible nor willing to buy into flimsy narratives which reinforce my cognitive biases assange is certainly going to be booted out when the ecuadorian government changes hands but lmao that you cite his theoretical ability to barricade himself in a closet indefinitely as a point in his favor
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well I suppose "he's terrified that the US will black helicopter him away suddenly because he's too much of a rebel" is less flattering so I was going with the perhaps more rational and self interested option? What kind of logic has led you to deduce that those are the only two possible ways to reason about the situation? Assange has said himself that he is concerned about extradition to the US, first and foremost. This isn't a fear of 'kidnapping' or 'black helicopters'. Additionally, your description of his concerns as 'random terror' is a paltry attempt to mislead, and reflects an unwillingness to understand. Did you really entertain the idea that Assange is motivated by 'randomness' of any kind? Thats absolutely absurd, especially when you could easily look up what he has said about what motivates his concern regarding extradition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Assange could have chosen to face the charges against him. Instead of doing that he scammed his supporters for bail money and then skipped bail to go hide in an embassy. These are actions he alone undertook, and for which he alone has agency. He went into exile willingly, he had other options and he voluntarily elected not to pursue those options. But again, that hook is deep in your mind and from the perspective of cognitive load it is much less work to reflexively defend your faith in a man than it is to engage in introspection and critical examination. Confidence men rely on this quirk of human behavior and know how to exploit it well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Jullian Assange was convinced that Pamela Anderson tried to murder him via vegan food. I'm not convinced that at this point you can pretend he on that good of terms with reality. I mean this is understandable as he's been living in a womens bathroom for years now with limited human contact but still.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:What kind of logic has led you to deduce that those are the only two possible ways to reason about the situation? Assange has said himself that he is concerned about extradition to the US, first and foremost. This isn't a fear of 'kidnapping' or 'black helicopters'. "i'm not gullible, i am actually a smart person. anyway, if we apply little things called logic and reason to the case of the troll-king, we can see that his decision to remove himself from society to avoid incarceration is actually internally consistent. point the first..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
chelsea manning is confined to a single room in a government facility, subject to social isolation and mental torture, but at least she gets healthcare
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:What kind of logic has led you to deduce that those are the only two possible ways to reason about the situation? Assange has said himself that he is concerned about extradition to the US, first and foremost. This isn't a fear of 'kidnapping' or 'black helicopters'. Because, fundamentally, just because he thinks he's rational and clever doesn't mean I think he is. I'm dismissive of him because I think he's a pillock, and however sincerely he believes his ideas doesn't make me think they're any more sensible or well thought out. His starting premise is that the US is out to get him, and everything else is geared around that. If I reject that premise then the rest of what he thinks falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
wikileaks is larger than julian assange, there are many people involved. all of these people are also involved in the pending us government investigation, and they potentially face charges as well. why is assange the only one hiding in a closet? are the other members of wikileaks less rational?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:There is an ongoing criminal investigation against him in the US which I suppose in his mind constitutes a credible threat of resulting in a case, extradition and prosecution. I don't understand your point about how lengthy the proceedings would be if they were kicked off, they seem to me to be undesirable outcomes for Assange regardless of how long the matter takes to be resolved. Source? Because so far no one else has shown an actual criminal investigation against him, instead of the people who were actually in US jurisdiction or at least US citizens. The point of mentioning how lengthy the proceedings are from Sweden is to illustrate how "he fled to UK from Sweden to avoid extradition" is bogus: UK extradition law takes a lot shorter time, and is way easier to extradite from UK to USA rather than Sweden to USA. He is there willingly. He intended that going there would get him somewhere else within a relatively short time, but he went to the Ecuador embassy on purpose when he jumped bail. He's free to accept the penalty for his crime of bail jumping in the UK at any time, he simply refuses to do so. Not UK or Sweden's fault he tried to do that. He was a legitimately wanted man in one country and then went and made himself a legit wanted man on a crime with no statute of limitation when he jumped bail in the UK so a second country wants him. He has absolutely no right to be free, as he violated his own bail rights by jumping bail. Skinty McEdger posted:Snowden lives in a big house in Russia. Assange literally lives in the womens bathroom of an embassy with only one other room he's allowed to go into. Yeah and if Assange had been smart he'd have fled Sweden to Russia, frankly. Dog Jones posted:I think Assange probably thinks about his political position way more than you do and since you know the first thing about Sweden's laws and treaties on extradition I'd be willing to bet he too has at least learned that first thing. Assange also has a legal team of dedicated professionals who are lending their expertise when he considers his options. So to start with I'll give him and his legal team the benefit of the doubt that they have been making reasonable moves. However, I am interested to hear why you think his moves have been so dumb. Why would extradition from Sweden be such an implausible event? No, he clearly didn't understand the problem at hand. When you are in the UK you are way more vulnerable to extradition to the US than almost any other country besides Canada. Sweden's extradition laws are rather stringent, with minor concessions made that say extradition to Denmark or Norway is easier than to other countries, Does this not already explain to you why going to the UK from Sweden to avoid extradition to the US is dumb? He has indefinite confinement in a suite of two rooms and hasn't been able to actually go outside in years. That's not a good outcome for him at all. And yes of course he was never actually at risk of US extradition, but his idiot supporters claim he was, which is why doing what he did would be a terrible way to prevent extradition. Instead it's blatantly obvious he just wants to dodge rape charges. Prester Jane posted:Assange could have chosen to face the charges against him. Instead of doing that he scammed his supporters for bail money and then skipped bail to go hide in an embassy. These are actions he alone undertook, and for which he alone has agency. He went into exile willingly, he had other options and he voluntarily elected not to pursue those options. It's worth remembering that he could have just lived in a normal house in the UK while out on bail and simply dragged out deportation to Sweden to face charges for quite a while. He really chose quite poorly on the belief that the Ecuadorians would be willing to fly him out of the country for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Instead it's blatantly obvious he just wants to dodge rape charges. um if you apply logic, reason, and facts we can conclude the rape charges are fabricated (source: assange would not do this)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:how are the rape charges fabricated? he admitted having sex with the person who is accusing him. is this vast global conspiracy capable of setting up a swedish honeypot? if so, why hasn't he faced formal charges from the us government? First of all I'd like to point out the disturbing fact that you seem to think that rape and consensual sex are equivalent. Second, I was not claiming that the rape charges are fabricated. I was illustrating to you that from the point of view of Assange and his supporters, he is not in willing exile. From their perspective, Assange has been forced into exile by arbitrary attempts by authority figures operating in bad faith to imprison and kill him. boner confessor posted:the real controversy is that he is suffering from mental illness yet his claims of black helicopters and us government persecution are somehow being indulged by otherwise skeptical individuals because he struck on the correct narrative to subvert their otherwise rational skepticism Assange has made claims of black helicopters? What does that mean? It is not merely Assange's word which comprises the evidence that he faces US government persecution. You should read about the subject which you are speaking passionately and authoritatively about at some point. boner confessor posted:so then it's odd that "maybe he's on to something!" is the reason for why assange's internet was cut off, despite his repeated failure to release any useful information, versus just trying to influence the election is a pretty big no-no according to most business internet use policies (he was also exchanging nude pics, something anyone else at the embassy probably wouldn't be allowed to do over office internet) "maybe he's on to something!" is not the reason for why Assange's internet was cut, and no one has made such a claim. I think I already told you that the Ecuadorian government STATED OUTRIGHT that it was because he was interfering with a foreign election. So you began by talking about Assange's internet without ever having read anything about it, and then when I go out of my way to educate you you simply ignore it. boner confessor posted:based on your recent posts itt i highly doubt this boner confessor posted:well given that i've somehow not painted myself into a corner re: squatting in a broom closet for multiple years as i avoid my own anxieties... yeah? i mean there are goons who live in unfinished crawlspaces like trolls so i'd say they're about as dumb as assange I'm glad you're doing well for yourself and have such high self esteem. I respect you because you are way smarter than Julian Assange because you don't live in a broom closet, and because you don't live in an unfinished crawlspace like some other dumb goons who are as dumb as the retard of the year Julian Assange give or take a little boner confessor posted:yes, he has residency in russia and can freely travel the country collecting speaking fees and living a somewhat normal life because he somehow avoided committing a string of petty crimes and sexual offenses on his journey towards asylum This is a false dichotomy. The locus of your attempted lie is the supposed comparability of Assange and Snowden's "journey toward asylum". But neither their path to the destination is obviously comparable, nor where they ultimately arrived. As you have claimed in your own post, Snowden has better living conditions than Assange, but his asylum has a time limit on it (~2 years). Assange's living conditions are supposedly worse but he has been granted indefinite asylum. We also cannot ignore the massive differences between the countries which granted the two asylum, and their position on the geopolitical landscape. Assange and Snowden began their 'journeys toward asylum' due to different motivating factors stemming from their alleged and also differing criminal activities. They both faced different criminal charges from different agents. They had different resources available, different legal statuses, and began their journeys at different times, and faced vastly different opposition. As such, there is no point in comparing the two. Furthermore, your argument is a waste of time because people who support Assange likely view his petty / sexual crimes as either justified or fabricated. Also, I have to say that your lack of self awareness is quite remarkable. Your attempts at leveraging 'conspiratorial' imagery in order to paint the position you are arguing against as absurd are transparent. You make irreverent references to 'vast global conspiracies' and 'black helicopters' in the course of your hack job due to your misconception that using cliches is a form of wit. You make yourself look foolish when you try to dismiss your opponent's case as a 'conspiracy theory' while constantly betraying the fact that you are determined not to educate yourself on the facts pertaining to the subject, have serious shortcomings in your ability to reason deductively, and are prone to jumping to wild conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:First of all I'd like to point out the disturbing fact that you seem to think that rape and consensual sex are equivalent. lol i did not read the rest of the post after a leading sentence like that. just scrolled past it, was like "yeah this guy's nuts" and i'm going to leave it there. you seem to be getting extremely defensive about some opposing views which demonstrates pretty much what prester jane said, you're firmly on the hook and you're going to do everything you can to convince yourself the cognitive dissonance you're feeling isn't actually because your idea is dumb. thank you for visiting the conspiracy theory thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:"i'm not gullible, i am actually a smart person. anyway, if we apply little things called logic and reason to the case of the troll-king, we can see that his decision to remove himself from society to avoid incarceration is actually internally consistent. point the first..." Whoa, I can't believe a smarty pants like me said something that foolish!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
"look, all i'm saying is that from certain perspectives, the woman assange admitting having sex with could actually be a cia undercover agent or paid off by the swedish government to make false rape allegations, furthermore, if you look at the situation objectively and rationally, it becomes clear that"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because, fundamentally, just because he thinks he's rational and clever doesn't mean I think he is. Its pretty honest of you to admit that you are dismissive of Assange because you think he's a pillock, so I don't really object to that hehehe However, your statement that "his starting premise is that the US is out to get him, and everything else is geared around that." is a misrepresentation of his and his supporter's position in my opinion. I guess I don't fully understand what you mean by that though actually. I can say for sure that there is no reason to reject the idea that the US is out to get Assange out of hand given the substantial evidence that the US is out to get him. The evidence should be considered before we dismiss that claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
yeah, evidence such as the lack of charges they've filed or zero effort put into silencing or extraditing him. damning stuff i'd like to ask again why any of the other people involved in wikileaks who face the same consequences assange faces aren't exploiting diplomatic immunity to hide from the law. are they less rational than the living genius assange?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
If the US wants someone disappeared, they disappear. I really don't see what the US would want with Russia Today correspondant Julian Assange, and they don't really seem very interested in him either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Source? Because so far no one else has shown an actual criminal investigation against him, instead of the people who were actually in US jurisdiction or at least US citizens. The point of mentioning how lengthy the proceedings are from Sweden is to illustrate how "he fled to UK from Sweden to avoid extradition" is bogus: UK extradition law takes a lot shorter time, and is way easier to extradite from UK to USA rather than Sweden to USA. Are you asking for source that the UN issued a statement saying Assange's condition is arbitrary detention? If so here is some: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/wikileaks-julian-assange-arbitrarily-detained-uk-sweden-160205082509865.html Oh I see. Well there is a lot to consider on the quality of the decision making here. Perhaps I actually agree with you on this matter, because I would imagine Assange fled Sweden most directly to the threat of being held by the police. Indirectly, this would increase the danger of extradiction to the US since his freedom of movement would be restricted. Like I said before I can't imagine Assange went to the UK with a mind to stay there for very long, I would imagine he was simply trying to stay out of Swedish jail in the immediate term. Of course, everything we're saying about Assange and his lawyer's mindset during that time is all wildly speculative. fishmech posted:He is there willingly. He intended that going there would get him somewhere else within a relatively short time, but he went to the Ecuador embassy on purpose when he jumped bail. Again, the reason why I imagine Assange and his supporters would argue he is not there willingly, is because Assange would not confine himself to house arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy if he weren't being subjected to fabricated (in their mind) criminal charges, and the extreme danger that criminal charges by the US and subsequent extradition poses. So its true that he willfully chose confinement in the embassy as opposed to the perceived alternative-- possible indefinite imprisonment or execution-- but that is a trivial idea. fishmech posted:He's free to accept the penalty for his crime of bail jumping in the UK at any time, he simply refuses to do so. Not UK or Sweden's fault he tried to do that. He was a legitimately wanted man in one country and then went and made himself a legit wanted man on a crime with no statute of limitation when he jumped bail in the UK so a second country wants him. He has absolutely no right to be free, as he violated his own bail rights by jumping bail. We can say that he is 'free' to face the penalty for his crime in the UK, but remember that for Assange that option poses a significant risk of long term imprisonment, and possibly far worse consequences if the US leverages criminal charges against him. So Assange and his supporters would not say he is free to do that because it would be self destructive and pointless. fishmech posted:Yeah and if Assange had been smart he'd have fled Sweden to Russia, frankly. How come? fishmech posted:No, he clearly didn't understand the problem at hand. When you are in the UK you are way more vulnerable to extradition to the US than almost any other country besides Canada. Sweden's extradition laws are rather stringent, with minor concessions made that say extradition to Denmark or Norway is easier than to other countries, Does this not already explain to you why going to the UK from Sweden to avoid extradition to the US is dumb? I think I addressed this above. To repeat, I think you're right that the more plausible scenario is that he fled to the UK from Sweden in order to avoid detention in Sweden given that being trapped by the Swedish police increases his risk of facing criminal charges by and extradition to the US. fishmech posted:He has indefinite confinement in a suite of two rooms and hasn't been able to actually go outside in years. That's not a good outcome for him at all. And yes of course he was never actually at risk of US extradition, but his idiot supporters claim he was, which is why doing what he did would be a terrible way to prevent extradition. Instead it's blatantly obvious he just wants to dodge rape charges. It is a better outcome for him than what the imagined alternative was. I think there is an important distinction to be made here regarding Assange's 'risk' of extradition. It's true that he was always at risk of extradition, because there were plausible channels which would lead to US extradition. The risk is mitigated by the amount of time Assange would spend in countries that are willing to extradite him to the US. Since the US is actively pursuing a criminal investigation of Assange, there is a risk criminal charges will be leveraged against him. Then there is a risk that the US will successfully navigate whatever channels his current host country has pertaining to extradition. In Sweden, he faces detention and imprisonment for sex crimes, meaning his freedom of movement could be restricted for years. In England, Assange does not face the possibility of long term imprisonment by the host countries government for sex crimes (and he hasnt committed his UK crimes yet). How is it so unreasonable to see England as having a lower risk of extradition in light of these facts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
way too much of your argument hinges on the imagined consequences and assumed outcomes of a man who admits his belief that the united states government is trying to persecute him, and in reaction to that has spent five years hiding in a closet
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lol Lmfao come on man you have to admit that is exactly what you said. Your argument was that the rape charges could not be fabrications if the two had consensual sex. The only way that makes sense is if you think rape and consensual sex are the same thing, or perhaps that consensual sex always leads to rape. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings I don't actually think you are an Assange-tier rapist maniac. I'm just point out how insane what you said is (insane in terms of logic, as opposed to insane in terms of an insane compulsion to rape) boner confessor posted:just scrolled past it, was like "yeah this guy's nuts" and i'm going to leave it there. you seem to be getting extremely defensive about some opposing views which demonstrates pretty much what prester jane said, you're firmly on the hook and you're going to do everything you can to convince yourself the cognitive dissonance you're feeling isn't actually because your idea is dumb. thank you for visiting the conspiracy theory thread What do you imagine my dumb idea is? You have never demonstrated comprehension of any of my arguments, or any of the facts pertaining to the subject we are discussing, so I'm surprised you were able to arrive at such a bold conclusion all of a sudden. You are still trying to position yourself as a level-headed skeptic despite your willingness to dismiss me as an insane person, while also boasting of your refusal to read what I am saying to you. This hypocrisy is still lost on you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Lmfao come on man you have to admit that is exactly what you said. Your argument was that the rape charges could not be fabrications if the two had consensual sex. no, i asked you what part of the charges could be fabricated if assange admits he had sex with the woman. at this point you are saying she could be a liar about the sex they both confirm happened. accusing others of false rape accusations based on zero evidence do not make you look like a reasonable person Dog Jones posted:The only way that makes sense is if you think rape and consensual sex are the same thing, or perhaps that consensual sex always leads to rape. at this point it should be super obvious for anyone reading this thread that you are not a credible judge as to what makes sense Dog Jones posted:What do you imagine my dumb idea is? you are a willfully blind conspiracy nut
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the US wants someone disappeared, they disappear. Your first idea, while false, is ironic given that it coexists happily with the conspiracy theory notion that Assange is dead / missing / whatever. The reason why you don't see what the US would want with Julian Assange (who is not a RT correspondent) is because you haven't researched the subject we are discussing. If you are interested in understanding why the US is interested in Assange, you could read the arguments put forth by US officials and politicians who call for his execution or imprisonment, or research the motivating factors behind the the ongoing criminal investigation into Assange and WikiLeaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
haha an actual "do the research" post, magnificent. truly the problem is that everyone but you is ill-informed
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no, i asked you what part of the charges could be fabricated if assange admits he had sex with the woman. at this point you are saying she could be a liar about the sex they both confirm happened. accusing others of false rape accusations based on zero evidence do not make you look like a reasonable person For reference, here is exactly what you said: quote:how are the rape charges fabricated? he admitted having sex with the person who is accusing him. You now rephrase the question as "what part of the charges could be fabricated is assange admits he had sex with the woman?" which would be identical to your original question if not for your adjusting the subject from 'the rape charges' to 'a part of the rape charges'. I think this is the start of another clumsy attempt to mislead, but regardless the actual identical reformulation reads thusly: "how could the rape charges be fabricated is Assange admits he had sex with the woman?". The answer to this question is simple: since rape and consensual sex are two different things, admitting to having consensual sex is not the same thing as admitting to rape. Admitting to having consensual sex with someone does not necessarily mean you also raped that person. I think this is obvious to anyone who understands that rape and consensual sex are different things. What was the source of your confusion? boner confessor posted:at this point it should be super obvious for anyone reading this thread that you are not a credible judge as to what makes sense I disagree I think you are doing a bad job of arguing that Assange is a rapist idiot and wikileaks sucks, and no one cares about him anyway, so the idiots who think he might be in danger couldn't be more dumb. boner confessor posted:you are a willfully blind conspiracy nut A bit ago you boasted about your refusal to read the things I am writing to you. And now you are calling me willfully blind. This isn't making you scratch your head at all? You don't feel a tiny bit of doubt about anything ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:haha an actual "do the research" post, magnificent. truly the problem is that everyone but you is ill-informed == WARNING PARANOID DELUSIONS OF A MAD MAN == == DANGER DO NOT READ ==  : You should have a rudimentary understanding of a topic before you draw conclusions and then argue about them in absolute terms: If you are going to present something as a fact in a discussion you should check to see if it is a fact first
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Are you asking for source that the UN issued a statement saying Assange's condition is arbitrary detention? If so here is some: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/wikileaks-julian-assange-arbitrarily-detained-uk-sweden-160205082509865.html I'm asking for evidence that he's actually under investigation by the US with any sort of view towards crimes that could invoke the US-Sweden extradition treaties, since it's quite improbable with him not being a US citizen nor in the US in decades (I think he was here in the 90s last?) nor otherwise committing crimes on US soil. But "Arbitrary detention" is patently false, as he's wanted for a very specific and world-wide legit reason: he jumped bail, a crime that's been on the books/in common law for centuries. He once again bears no right to go free on a crime he blatantly committed just because. There wasn't going to be indefinite imprisonment, until he decided to lock himself into that by jumping bail and fleeing to the embassy. The UK was holding him to send back to Sweden on the warrant, and Sweden doesn't do life sentence things (and neither Sweden nor the UK currently have the death penalty, and certainly not for dodging bail and rape). Nor would any crime he could actually be charged with in the US lead to a life sentence or the death penalty. Manning leaked tons of stuff, and was tried under harsher military law, and is still only in for 35 years with parole opportunities starting at 12 years. Assange only faces long term imprisonment if he was actually guilty of charges against him in Sweden. And if he is guilty of them, well, he absolutely should be locked up for that crime. As mentioned by other people life in a Swedish prison would be substantially better and more free for him then his current situation in two crammed embassy rooms - for starters he'd get to go outside frequently. It would have been better for him to go to Russia, because not only would Russia almost certainly never extradite him to the US, they'd also not be likely to extradite him to Sweden on the rape charges. So for both his fake claimed reason and his actual reason, Russia would have been a far better choice. The thing is his "imagined alternative" of forever prison or execution simply had zero possibility of happening. Barring of course the US deciding to send some special ops CIA team to abduct him, but if the US wanted to do that to him then he isn't safe anywhere, not even if the UK and Sweden were to drop all charges and allow him to be a free man. And also it's unreasonable to see England as a lower risk of extradition due to the fact that the UK has almost the easiest extradition laws to the US that there are. Keep in mind that just because he wasn't in a jail cell doesn't mean it's harder to extradite him. If he was wanted for extradition than all the places to legally leave the country would be ordered to bar him the ability to leave to somewhere else and there'd be a national manhunt out for him. Like I said before, the only country where he could be at more risk of extradition is Canada.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:== WARNING PARANOID DELUSIONS OF A MAD MAN == the thing is though you're reflexively assuming people aren't as knowledgable as you on a topic beacause they disagree with you. remember what prester jane was saying earlier about otherwise intelligent people convincing themselves they couldn't be incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
i'd also like to point out that dog jones refuses to speculate as to why, of all the people facing this horrible theoretical fate of being condemned to death by the united states on charges of ________, julian assange seems to be the only individual at wikileaks who fears this fate sufficiently enough as to skip the whole trial thing and consign himself to DIY solitary confinement indefinently this is while being perfectly willing as to speculate how a swedish woman is making false rape allegations
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Once again you say blithely that he has put himself WILLINGLY into exile. Assange and his supporters do not see it that way, so it isn't a compelling argument. I don't think people are concerned about him ending up in a CIA blacksite, I think most of the concerns come from the fact that the US is aggressively pursing criminal charges against WikiLeaks and Assange itself. In over 3 years neither Wikileaks nor Assange have been charged with anything, so they must not be pursuing charges that aggressively The New York Times published a bunch of classified information and dick-all happened, yet when Wikileaks does it and Assange happens to also be facing rape charges suddenly everyone's worried about him being spirited away to the US to face charges that don't even exist. Assange could feasibly get hosed by the US government if he actively engaged in the stealing of secrets, but the SCOTUS have firmly established that simply publishing secrets that someone else gave to you doesn't count. Dog Jones posted:Assange and his supporters view exile as the only alternative to facing extradition and imprisonment at the hands of fabricated rape charges and possible extradition to the US to face even more damning criminal charges which could result in life in prison or even execution. If they are correct, this hardly constitutes "willing exile". It is instead "putting oneself in exile while under duress" or as the UN might describe it, "arbitrary detention". You accused everyone else of being conspiracy theorists for posting publicly available information, do you not see the irony in then turning around and suggesting that the rape charges are fabricated? Are the bail-jumping charges fabricated, too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:== WARNING PARANOID DELUSIONS OF A MAD MAN == Good, go research this topic before making any more posts about it because you are uninformed as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Does the US government in its official capacity generally call for people to be executed without trial out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You accused everyone else of being conspiracy theorists for posting publicly available information, do you not see the irony in then turning around and suggesting that the rape charges are fabricated? he's not saying that, he's just saying that other people could possibly believe that, which means it is a credible perspective that is worth consideration and, when you think about it, is far more sensible than what other people are proposing. but he's not saying that, no, that would be crazy, heh heh *tugs collar*
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
gently caress Assange, he spent the last year helping to get Trump elected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:22
|
|