|
Mercrom posted:I have also been in the situation he's in to a lesser extent. Trying to argue with every point leads to no focus and ultimately no argument. Like this: Mercrom posted:]b\I don't feel like fully reading all his posts so you might be right.[/b] But he brings up points that look good at face value, and since they aren't answered, they look even better. But then again I don't even know what the discussion is about. It seems to revolve around Assange's decision making, the explanation to which I think seems simple. He doesn't know if he'll be okay if he steps outside the embassy. The next natural question is if you are not even fully reading a conversation that you admit you know almost nothing about, why are you trying to participate in it? Mercrom posted:To function people need to recognize uncertainties as much as patterns. I don't know which side is worse at this, but the only thing I've seen from Dog Jones that indicates he's a True Believer is the rate of his posting. And yet you admit that you haven't actually read what Dog Jones is posting nor do you understand enough about the situation to appreciate the context of the responses addressed to him. What more is there really to say in addressing your posts in this discussion? (Not trying to be an rear end here) You started off by declaring that everyone debating Dog Jones was doing so in bad faith and then a few posts later conceded you have neither fully read the conversation nor have any understanding of the topic under discussion. You readily admit have no grounds for your blanket judgment of everyone debating with Dog Jones but went ahead and posted it anyways. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Nov 30, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
I was following the discussion up to the point where I posted about it being a bad discussion. I even read some afterwards.  So you are saying Assange is being too paranoid in his fear of the US government, because he's underestimating the power they have to kill or kidnap him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I don't feel like fully reading all his posts so you might be right. But he brings up points that look good at face value, and since they aren't answered, they look even better. they are answered. fishmech specifically addressed the core of dog jones argument directly. specifically, pointing out that assange's actions are not consistent with a person who rationally believes they are facing charges in the us, instead being consistent with someone trying to avoid rape charges and/or someone who irrationally believes they are facing charges in the us. conspiracy thinking (what pj calls narrativism) has a set of defense mechanisms you can see dog jones using -if you can't address a point and you're arguing against a good faith opponent, obfuscate (repeat your argument using even more words, bogging everything down in technicalities and semantics your opponent will be exhausted trying to refute, and skip to a new argument before the last one is concluded) -if you can't address a point and you're arguing against a bad faith opponent, dismiss (oh well you just didn't read my post / you must think you're so much smarter than me  )-if neither of those work, ignore the point entirely and hope it gets missed in a word cloud
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
So the "defense mechanisms" defined by your SA-based school of psychology is to do the same thing you are doing except with more words?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:So you are saying Assange is being too paranoid in his fear of the US government, because he's underestimating the power they have to kill or kidnap him? More that I think he seems to be thinking in terms of a rather strange narrative where he hides in in a bathroom from the most powerful nation on the planet while tweeting them to death. And I don't think that really holds up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Assange was wanted in Sweden for an investigation that he refused to cooperate with. He could have simply faced the charges. I don't understand. It seemed like we had a common understanding that Sweden has not charged Assange with a crime. But then in your second sentence you once again refer to the nonexistant charges against him. Apologies for the semantic quibbling, especially if you were just being loose with the terminology. I don't actually care if we refer to Assange's beef with Sweden as 'charges' or 'allegations' or 'blood feud', I just want to make sure you actually understand the nature of Assange and Sweden's legal relationship. Prester Jane posted:He chose not to and he made that choice freely. I already explained to you why it is disingenuous to say that he made that choice freely when a great many observers of this controversy do not agree at all that he made the choice freely. I imagine Assange himself would not say that he made the choice freely. I don't know why you think it is productive to re-state this and still ignore all of the points I brought up which contradict the idea that he made that choice freely. Prester Jane posted:It is at this point that the entire premise of your response falls completely apart. How could the statement of a fact have such a destructive effect on everything else I said? Many points I raised didn't even have anything to do with the exact character of Assange's legal troubles with Sweden, so how could the statement of a fact about his legal troubles cause those arguments to 'fall apart'. Prester Jane posted:It isn't worth addressing the rest of your post because it all suffers from the same failing. That sounds like a pretty profound criticism you have in mind there. Don't you think it might be important to actually state what that failing is? I mean if you are going to completely throw out all the diverse and varied arguments I made because of one single failing they all share I would really appreciate knowing what that failing is. And without demonstrating what the failing is you just sound like you're full of poo poo (FYI I don't actually think you have something that addresses every single thing I said. I mean that lie is like something a middle schooler who wears a bow tie would say, no offense, we both know why you don't want to try and address my points. If you actually have something in mind that you feel addresses every single point I raised go ahead and blow my mind but you don't need to make up some weak poo poo that will waste both our time if not) Prester Jane posted:Now even though you typed a bunch of words in response to me they are ultimately worthless because you refused to address the point I actually made. What do you think the word 'refused' means? I don't really appreciate that because I definitely tried in good faith to address all the problems I saw in the point you made. I understand that YOU refuse to address my response in a detailed way but you could at least read it and see that I talk about every component of the point you presented, and shared my thoughts which were directly related to the content of each component. Nearly everything I wrote is directly related to something you stated in your point. How could this possibly constitute a 'refusal' to address your point? By imagining that I have simply refused to confront your point, you completely closed your mind off to the possibility of saying something useful: how exactly my post failed to address your point. I wrote those words in response to your point in good faith, and according to my best understanding, they address the point you made. Prester Jane posted:So I will repost my original post here again and ask you to respond to that post please. Thank you, but I'm sorry to say that this isn't helpful. According to my current understanding of your point, what I wrote before adequately addresses your point. I need you to explain to me why my post fails to address your point. Prester Jane posted:When you respond this time do not simply handwave away Assange's agency in his own decision making. I did not hand wave away Assange's 'agency in his own decision making'. I accepted that as a fact, and said as much in my post. In fact, I went further, and said that not only did Assange possess 'agency in his own decision making', but that he is responsible (morally culpable) for his actions. Much of what I wrote is a description of the actions Assange elected to take. The concept of 'Assange electing to take an action' necessarily presupposes that Assange has agency and is capable of making decisions. Your statement that I handwave away assange's agency in his own decision making could not be more excessive in its misrepresentation of my words, and it is completely false. What an absurd idea that anyone could seriously propose that Assange does not possess agency. Prester Jane posted:Assange was wanted for questioning and could simply have remained in Sweden to face the investigation. Instead he fled to great Britain where he was arrested with an aim towards deporting him to Sweden so that he could face the charges against him. He chose not to do so, and instead literally jumped bail in order to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy. This seems like you re-arranged the words in your original point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Excuse me, he could have faced the allegations but he chose not too. I used the wrong term but the overall meaning of my point is completely unchanged. Yes, this is fine, I don't actually care about correct word usage. I pointed out the fact that Assange has not been accused of any crime in Sweden a few times just to make sure that the reality of the legal situation was well understood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:More that I think he seems to be thinking in terms of a rather strange narrative where he hides in in a bathroom from the most powerful nation on the planet while tweeting them to death. And I don't think that really holds up? Something is making him stay there. It could be because he's insane. It could be because he thinks it lends credency to some sort of ideological crusade and he's selfless enough to imprison himself for it. Or you know, fear born out of uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:To function people need to recognize uncertainties as much as patterns. I don't know which side is worse at this, but the only thing I've seen from Dog Jones that indicates he's a True Believer is the rate of his posting. I'm hella sick and couped up at home so I've just got my tin foil hat on and I'm chilling, going to town on this posting text box
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Or he's just afraid? People are afraid of tiny little spiders. Yes, people do things for reasons, their reasons are not always valid, however, and do not necessarily merit validation by others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:more meaningless Assange was facing rape allegations in Sweden. When he learned of this he fled Sweden for the UK. While in the UK he was arrested because of the allegations he was facing in Sweden. Assange begged his supporters for bail, and as soon as the money was raised he skipped bail and went into hiding in the Ecudorian embassy. Just because you want to pretend that his choices were made "under duress" does not remove his agency nor excuse his actions. Assange chose to run from rape allegations and you are choosing to defend that decision. Using your logic every single person charged with something could justifiably go into exile because they are "under duress". (That duress being the fact that there are allegations against them.) Just because you and "many observers" all want to circle jerk each other and pretend that Assange's hand was forced does not make it a reasonable position to hold, it just makes you all collectively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:No, he is refusing to address the actual points raised and every post of his is an effort to string together a bunch of vague inferences in order to re-contextualize the discussion in such a way that he fells makes him right. His efforts to re-contextualize the issue though always ignore important facts while including demonstrably fallacious base assumptions. This is the only way to debate that Dog Jones has shown he is willing to engage in at the moment. He is not arguing "against certainty", his posts are not anywhere near focused enough to achieve that goal. Far from refusing to address actual points, I have gone out of my way to confront people's points, sometimes over and over again, in an extremely direct way. It is ironic that you think of me as 'refusing' to address actual points, while several other people in this thread have stated outright that they will not read what I am writing but still think of themselves as qualified to analyze and criticize my tone or thesis, or even expect me to address all of their claims. I'm the least vague writer in this thread by far. I am the only person in this discussion who is expected to provide evidence which supports my claims, while every other poster is unquestionably allowed to state and re-state highly controversial claims with no evidence, and ignore my requests for evidence at will by simply changing the subject. My posts are actually more focused than anyone else who has engaged me, since I am the only person who uses precise language to refer to and describe specific chains of events and facts about the subject. I have been criticized for writing too many words, but I have to be exacting since one of the only ways people try to confront me is by attempting to misrepresent what I say. You already said this once, and I asked you before but you ignored it. Please demonstrate the fallaciousness of one of my the base assumptions you imagine I have. If you refuse to do this, please stop repeating this baseless criticism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
If I took the time to disprove one of your base assumptions you would simply claim that was never actually one of your assumptions. It would be a waste of my time, let me show you why. (I could actually do this all day because you constantly contradict your own underlying assumptions about things and even misrepresent your own words when the mood suits you, but let me whip out a couple quick examples.) Take a look at these quotes where you contradict yourself both on the whether or not the rape allegations are false AND whether or not Assange has agency in his actions.Dog Jones posted:Thanks, though that article was worthless I did find some other interesting describing what an rear end in a top hat Assange is. 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. Dog Jones posted:Why do you say Assange's motivating factor is his certainty that he will be convicted? I think you just made that up. Like I said I'm pretty sure the idea that Assange and his supporters put forth is that the rape charges are baseless and the real concern is extradition to the US Dog Jones posted:Assange's exile is not the result of the mechanisms of any individual society, it is the result of geopolitical factors. You're right that it is not Assange's personal conviction which is allowing him to avoid detention by the Swede's, instead it is the result of the geopolitical situation he is immersed in. 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. 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. Dog Jones posted:
Engaging in a deep discussion with you is inherently worthless because your goal is not interlocution, your goal is to exhaust your opponent with nonsense and endless contradictions. You seek to win some sort of victory here by sandbagging everyone who responds to you rather than engage in a fruitful discussion. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I really liked how as soon as Trump was elected, a lot of the conspiracy crew turned on Assange because even people afraid of clouds and think Smallpox isn't a big deal are aware enough to realize Trump is very very bad news. It makes you wonder what they thought they were going to get. Hillary and Trump just giving up and Alex Jones being elected president? Dog Jones posted:Precisely, it would seem that you have 4 questions pertaining to the existence of the US criminal investigation of Assange: Dude, he didn't commit any extraditable crimes in US jurisdiction , which is why he's not liable to be extradited. Him not being a citizen or not having been there are a big reason why he's not eligible. If I, an American citizen, went and murdered someone from France while on vacation in Spain, the UK couldn't have me extradited to them to stand trial. I'd have to be prosecuted by the US, Spain, or possibly France. And it doesn't matter that a criminal investigation into other wikileaks people who are actually at risk of being extradited might touch on him in the course of things - that doesn't make him liable to be extradited and it certainly doesn't put him up for the death penalty here. I guess it's true that if he really fucks up his time in the UK he might also suddenly be subject to long term imprisonment in the UK, but no dude, his only realistic shot of long-term imprisonment is in Sweden for his Swedish crimes. Once again, the US has nothing on him, and both Sweden and then the UK have priority on imprisoning him for crimes he did or is accused of. "Convicting him under the espionage act" wouldn't subject him to the death penalty. Plus the whole fact he's not going to be extradited to the US precludes him receiving the the death penalty. Tons of people who have committed way more actual crimes in the US in this realm haven't gotten the death penalty - literally every single federal death row inmate since the late 70s has committed a murder. Or are you suggesting that Assange secretly murdered someone in the US in a situation that triggers federal murder charges, like a federal employee, or as part of a massive other federal crime? It's damning that you can't even make up any crimes for him to be charged with, because he has to be charged with crimes to have any shot of being extradited, and many crime he could be charged with are not serious enough for Sweden to allow extradition over it. And once again, you need to actually have a connection to the country seeking extradition of some sort to get extradited - when you commit crimes with no connection, there is no jurisdiction. The only worthless speculation is you claiming it made sense for Assange to flee Sweden to the UK to avoid extradition to the US for nonexistent crimes. You haven't yet made an argument that he's at risk of the death penalty that actually has any evidence. He's not even wanted by the US, and no man or woman has been subject to the federal death penalty without also committing murder alongside their other crimes in 40+ years. He can be kicked out at any time because "indefinite asylum" doesn't mean "eternal asylum". They can revoke it any time, there's not any sort of guaranteed contract or law granting him the right to stay forever. We know he was fleeing rape charges, because that's literally what he did. That is a fact. Ecuador isn't protecting him from the US government, because the US government doesn't want him. What they're protecting him from is imprisonment for crimes he committed in the UK, and prosecution for potential crimes in Sweden. There has never been any evidence that the US wants him, besides bullshit he made up after he tried to flee rape charges. The CIA thing is supposed to be implausible, dude. Also, charges for extradition from Sweden or the UK can't be "sealed", they have to be publicly announced or extradition can't happen. Also the reason you don't see denied extradition requests is because countries generally don't bother to file frivolous requests. Also, a case against wikileaks is very different from a case against Assange personally. The Ecuadorian embassy is only the "safest place" if you believe he actually committed the rapes he's accused of, because that's the only risk he actually stands for long term imprisonment. Though once again: he'd have more freedom as a swedish inmate than locked into two rooms in the embassy building. Also there's no reason that Sweden should ever drop investigation against him just because he really doesn't want to face him. Mercrom posted:So you are saying Assange is being too paranoid in his fear of the US government, because he's underestimating the power they have to kill or kidnap him? Well yeah if the US government really wanted him, they could seize him rather easily if he ever left the embassy, regardless of if the UK and Sweden dropped all charges forever. US forces do abduct people to black sites several times a year. His idea supposedly seems to be that the big bad US really wants him, but can only get him if he goes from the UK to Sweden because ??? and that the only thing that would keep him safe would be the UK and Sweden vowing not to extradite him or charge him with anything. But the countries don't really have the ability to grant him blanket amnesty or just declare his actual crimes don't matter. They can refuse to agree to specific extradition requests, once they're made, but can't do anything proactive about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:53
|
|
people have zero constancy, but it is amazing how fast some can turn on their saints. If only they'd turn on Alex Jones and tear him apart.
|
Mercrom posted:So the "defense mechanisms" defined by your SA-based school of psychology is to do the same thing you are doing except with more words? i've talked to plenty of conspiracy theorists irl. they will go on as long as you will let them about whatever. this is why short, direct posts are more honest than ponderous text blobs. obfuscation doesn't work as a strategy if you keep it to short posts in terms of dismissing, yes, we dismiss each other as being bad faith actors. that's a thing that happens on the forums, people insult each other. but it is worth highlighting dog jones desire to insult without actually resorting to insult, instead getting frustrated and just insinuating whoever they're talking to has mental problems, because this tactic highlights the core of dog jones communication style in this argument, which is infinitely evasive and indirect. it's indicative of someone who's trying most of all not to be pinned down on any specific issue and be proven wrong. if you manage to evade being proven wrong on any single point ("what if the rape allegations are false / some people think the allegations are fase" "why would you say that they are false" "i didn't say that, i said some people said that...") then you can try to win the argument through sheer exhaustion as people get tired of arguing with you and you remain the last person standing having never been technically proven wrong. this is exactly how an cousin of mine argues about the us faking the moon landing boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Assange was facing rape allegations in Sweden. When he learned of this he fled Sweden for the UK. While in the UK he was arrested because of the allegations he was facing in Sweden. Assange begged his supporters for bail, and as soon as the money was raised he skipped bail and went into hiding in the Ecudorian embassy. Just because you want to pretend that his choices were made "under duress" does not remove his agency nor excuse his actions. Assange chose to run from rape allegations and you are choosing to defend that decision. An emoticon is not a sufficient criticism of the arguments I presented to you. I'm sorry to tell you that you can't expect to be taken seriously if you're only way of addressing opposing viewpoints is to say 'your words are meaningless', 'everything you said doesn't count because of a reason which I will keep secret', and 'nah that doesn't address what I was saying for a reason which I will keep secret try again'. These are really laughable sophisms, and I imagine you are in a panicked furor trying to justify to yourself that you have anything worthwhile to offer in the discussion. Everything in your first post I have addressed directly in my prior posts which you are pretending don't count. There is nothing more to say about them until you read and respond to what I presented earlier. One novel thing thing is the reappearance of your fantasy that the bail-money campaign was a scam. Earlier, when you stupidly called it a scam outright without any actual evidence that the campaign was launched in bad faith or with the aim of fleecing people, I directly asked you for evidence that the campaign was a scam. Even though my post didn't count or whatever, I think you learned all the wrong lessons from being exposed as an obvious liar. Instead of backing off the charge that it was a scam, you try again to make it sound like a scam without actually referring to it as such. You do this by saying Assange was theatrical and manipulative of pathos in his attempts to elicit money, 'begging' supporters for money. You go on to say that he skipped bail 'as soon as the money was raised', hoping to evoke in the readers mind a sense that Assange skipped bail BECAUSE the money had been raised. Do you feel self satisfied when you are done writing a fabrication like this? You are only fooling yourself when your primary challenge as a writer is to obfuscate weak and baseless ideas. Prester Jane posted:Using your logic every single person charged with something could justifiably go into exile because they are "under duress". (That duress being the fact that there are allegations against them.) Really? That doesn't sound like my logic. It sounds more like some obviously absurd bullshit. I think I see the problem though. You don't understand the Right of Asylum (the internationally recognized human right which is at the center of the argument you are trying to make). You are mixed up because you take an additional moment to contemplate the difference between a criminal who is in jail due to being successfully prosecuted in a fair trial, and someone like a political prisoner or a refugee. If you take a moment and really think about it, you will see that these two types of people are subject to very different circumstances. If you look at the definition of the right of asylum (the thing which you're entire argument focuses on) in the universal declaration of human rights, you will see that it reads: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." and not: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from anything that they don't want to deal with." So as to avoid any further confusion, let's look at the definition of persecution: "hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs." Do you understand now that the logic of the Right of Asylum doesn't say criminals have the right to escape justice? The insane conclusion you arrived at there wasn't a result of 'my' logic (its not my logic actually, its the logic of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), it was a result of your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. Prester Jane posted:Just because you and "many observers" all want to circle jerk each other and pretend that Assange's hand was forced does not make it a reasonable position to hold, it just makes you all collectively wrong. It's tough for me to respond to your charge that all the people who disagree with your view are gay homos, who jerk each others cocks off for the fun of it in a big goofy gay circle. I guess I just have to concede that all my ideas are the ideas of a homo sex moron who loves to jerk off every dude who agrees with me about Assange. I want to say your claim that I am just pretending that there are circumstances which rightly made Assange concerned for his will being and likely were the chief motivators of his actions despite his best intentions does not actually address the evidence and nuanced exploration I previously wrote for you. But in light of the fact that those were all the pretend games of a cock jerking idiot fag, I guess I have to admit you are right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I want to say your claim that I am just pretending that there are circumstances which rightly made Assange concerned for his will being and likely were the chief motivators of his actions despite his best intentions does not actually address the evidence and nuanced exploration I previously wrote for you. here's another example of being evasive - "there are circumstances which rightly made assange concerned for his well being" meaning, i'm not making these claims directly, i'm just putting some theoretical credence into the decision making process of this guy. despite the multiple ways in which it has been pointed out that assange's behavior is irrational and more congruent with someone trying to avoid sexual misconduct charges than someone who has a sincere, rational belief that the government will kill them (i maintain he has a sincere, irrational belief). but you can have your cake and eat it too if you dismiss anything that indicates he's not irrational without ever explicitly saying he is rational i'd also like to note one of those circumstaces is assange being highly suspicious of the timing of sexual misconduct allegations by women who he admitted he had sex with. either there's a global conspiracy to honeypot this guy as the US/swedish government are spying on him and set up a trap by somehow coercing two of his sexual partners into making false allegations, or... he's a sex weirdo. hmm which is the simpler explanation boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
As soon as Assange was out on bail he fled to the embassy. That makes his begging for bail money a scam. You see the idea of bail is that you give the courts a sum of money that they will return to you once you have stood trial so that you do not have to incarcerated while awaiting trial. If you skip on bail that is a crime. If you beg people for bail money and then skip bail then you scammed the people who paid your bail. Now lets see you address my previous post where I illustrate how readily you contradict yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:skipped bail BECAUSE the money had been raised yeah, that's how bail works. you can't skip bail if you don't make bail. if you dont make bail you remain in custody also don't start saying other people obfuscate just because i started saying that's what you are doing. people who write less words than you and make more direct posts are not obfuscating. that's not how it works Prester Jane posted:If you beg people for bail money and then skip bail then you scammed the people who paid your bail. technically, it's not a scam, because if a perception existed amongst his followers that his life was in danger than this could be construed as a legitimate action against a corrupt government to save his life furthermore... 
boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Good stuff. I just wanted to say fishmech that over the past few months your posting has dramatically improved. Posts like the one above are a really great example of your strengths as a writer and a thinker. I just wanted to voice a bit of public appreciation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i've talked to plenty of conspiracy theorists irl. they will go on as long as you will let them about whatever. this is why short, direct posts are more honest than ponderous text blobs. obfuscation doesn't work as a strategy if you keep it to short posts awwww poo poo its my dude boner confessor on some cool new truths. my mans penetrating intellect has discerned a new means to come to know truth with ease. it turns out, the honesty of a text is directly tied to how long the text is. this is the perfect way to deal with the lying stupid conspiracy theorists -- using super brain power, boner confessor knows that short messages which dont take too long to read or write are more honest, so its a good way of being more right with less effort. best of all though.... you dont have to read any text that would be too long and boring too read, because you know its dishonest, on account of its longness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:awwww poo poo its my dude boner confessor on some cool new truths. my mans penetrating intellect has discerned a new means to come to know truth with ease. it turns out, the honesty of a text is directly tied to how long the text is. this is the perfect way to deal with the lying stupid conspiracy theorists -- using super brain power, boner confessor knows that short messages which dont take too long to read or write are more honest, so its a good way of being more right with less effort. best of all though.... you dont have to read any text that would be too long and boring too read, because you know its dishonest, on account of its longness. boner confessor posted:conspiracy thinking (what pj calls narrativism) has a set of defense mechanisms you can see dog jones using dog jones is going to keep making variations on this same post over and over beacuse... boner confessor posted:you're unwilling to admit you may be wrong and you're also incapable of dropping the argument haha. you're just stuck in an argument you can neither win nor back down from because of nerd pride and it's fun to watch
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah, that's how bail works. you can't skip bail if you don't make bail. if you dont make bail you remain in custody nononon boner confessor! remember that in the context of that quotation i'm pointing out a (perceived) mistruth being communicated by Prester Jane! There is no reason I would point out a commonly understood fact about what bail skipping and present it as a lie! I'm actually saying that Prester Jane is suggesting that Assange planned to swindle them out of their money all along! But you can't prove that with just a clumsy turn of phrase, you have to actually provide evidence (there is some, but providing evidence and making deductions from that evidence is not Prester Jane).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
What the gently caress is going on
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I'm actually saying that Prester Jane is suggesting that Assange planned to swindle them out of their money all along! so he just... accidentally swindled them out of their money? that's better? by refusing to return to court, assange's backers lost their bail guarantee. that is a thing that happened. nobody needs to provide evidence that this happened The Chairman posted:What the gently caress is going on conspiracy theory thread reeled in a live one
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:=== fishmech I am going to respond to your post later I can't face the possibility that I will write another long rear end post right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:so he just... accidentally swindled them out of their money? that's better? I can see the gears turning! Your close here.. think about that phrase you used, "accidentally swindled" or alternatively "accidentally scammed". It doesn't sound quite right does it? Because a scam or swindle is commonly thought of as a deception employed to exploit people. Its hard to imagine someone accidentally deceiving someone so as to exploit them, since stated goal of the scheme is to exploit. How could someone accidentally plan to exploit someone? It doesn't make sense. So what do you think? An 'accidental swindle' or an 'accidental scam' is more just like an unfortunate accident where someone has accidentally wronged someone else and benefited from it, but had no ill intent. So I think that would be better than willfully deceiving people so as to exploit them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:What the gently caress is going on His Inner Narrative is starting to leak out because his Outer Narrative has been thoroughly shattered. Its basically the forums equivalent of what you see happening in these two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upteyG0ZykM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60nC_3RQZqo Fake Edit: boner confessor posted:
Basically this, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:As soon as Assange was out on bail he fled to the embassy. That makes his begging for bail money a scam. You see the idea of bail is that you give the courts a sum of money that they will return to you once you have stood trial so that you do not have to incarcerated while awaiting trial. If you skip on bail that is a crime. If you beg people for bail money and then skip bail then you scammed the people who paid your bail. You are wrong Prester Jane, your lack of imagination has led you to neglect a universe of possibilties which would necessarily mean that the bail-campaign was not a scam even in light of the argument you provided. Your argument is worthless, due to this obvious logical oversight: 1) As soon as Assange was out on bail he fled to the embassy. That makes his begging for bail money a scam. 2) If you beg people for bail money and then skip bail then you scammed the people who paid your bail. These statements would both be false if the donators KNEW they would be losing the money and that Assange planned to skip bail. All we can conclude from your argument is that the bail-campaign MIGHT have been a scam. This is exactly what we already knew. I have looked into the issue already but I will not waste my time describing the facts of the matter to you, since you will not read them anyway. I'm sorry to say but if you really want to prove that the bail-money campaign was a scam, you will have to actually read about the subject matter and collect evidence. In the unlikely event that you try to do this, i'll give you hint: the donators did NOT know they would be losing the money 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I can see the gears turning! Your close here.. think about that phrase you used, "accidentally swindled" or alternatively "accidentally scammed". It doesn't sound quite right does it? Because a scam or swindle is commonly thought of as a deception employed to exploit people. Its hard to imagine someone accidentally deceiving someone so as to exploit them, since stated goal of the scheme is to exploit. How could someone accidentally plan to exploit someone? It doesn't make sense. So what do you think? An 'accidental swindle' or an 'accidental scam' is more just like an unfortunate accident where someone has accidentally wronged someone else and benefited from it, but had no ill intent. So I think that would be better than willfully deceiving people so as to exploit them! you're saying that he panicked and skipped bail on the rape charges, and this is actually a point in his favor because... keep in mind folks this person is perfectly willing to speculate on how those rape charges could be fradulent Dog Jones posted:You are wrong Prester Jane, your lack of imagination has led you to neglect a universe of possibilties which would necessarily mean that the bail-campaign was not a scam even in light of the argument you provided. Your argument is worthless, due to this obvious logical oversight: boner confessor posted:-if you can't address a point and you're arguing against a good faith opponent, obfuscate (repeat your argument using even more words, bogging everything down in technicalities and semantics your opponent will be exhausted trying to refute, and skip to a new argument before the last one is concluded)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:You are wrong Prester Jane, your lack of imagination has led you to neglect a universe of possibilties which would necessarily mean that the bail-campaign was not a scam even in light of the argument you provided. Your argument is worthless, due to this obvious logical oversight: Actually his actions are all the evidence I need to prove that the bail begging was a scam. He skipped bail the first moment he could, that is all the evidence I need. I don't need a crystal ball to know that he intended to skip bail the moment he could or that his donors were flabbergasted and angered by his choice. Let me put it this way, if I shoot someone in cold blood and they die then I have committed a violent crime. Whether I intended for them to die from the bullets I was shooting at them is actually irrelevant. Intentions mean jack poo poo, actions and decisions are what I study. And the actions of Assange are very clear and not really open to interpretation, as soon as he made bail he fled. Therefor he scammed the people who paid his bail. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Intentions mean jack poo poo, actions and decisions are what I study. And the actions of Assange are very clear and not really open to interpretation, as soon as he made bail he fled. Therefor he scammed the people who paid his bail. no it's actually really important to endlessly debate why julian assange ran away from his legal obligations to take responsibility for his alleged crimes to go hide in a closet for years on end
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:If I took the time to disprove one of your base assumptions you would simply claim that was never actually one of your assumptions. Uh? Thats why you have to prove it is a base assumption in the first place. I can't claim that something isn't a base assumption of mine if you actually demonstrate it IS a base assumption of mine. It seems like you are saying you can't actually demonstrate any problems with the assumptions I may have made? Even though you claimed that ?? Prester Jane posted:It would be a waste of my time, let me show you why. (I could actually do this all day because you constantly contradict your own underlying assumptions about things and even misrepresent your own words when the mood suits you, but let me whip out a couple quick examples.) Take a look at these quotes where you contradict yourself both on the whether or not the rape allegations are false AND whether or not Assange has agency in his actions. Prester Jane you're not gonna like this and I hate to say it but: quoting a bunch of statements I made with no commentary is not a viable way of demonstrating my own contradictions to me, because I have already seen those posts (and I even wrote them) and as far as I know right now they do not contain contradictions. I'm sure you perceive glaring contradictions among those statements and think I am lying through my teeth right now, and probably other readers can see contradictions too. But from my perspective, as the writer of those statements, and since I know what I was thinking when I wrote them and what I believe, I can not see the alleged contradictions. At first I was about to speculate about the possible contradictions you see and try to respond to all possibilities, but then I realized that would be stupid when you could just tell me. When you point out the contradictions, I will be happy to address them. They are almost certainly a misunderstanding / miscommunication.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
The contradictions are that you argued that the rape allegations might be false, then you backpeddled and claimed you had never argued that. You also argued that Assange had been forced into exile by geopolitical circumstances beyond his control and was mostly a powerless victim in his situation, and then you later argued that you had never tried to downplay the agency Assange had in this situation. You change your argument and your base assumptions the moment someone tries to pin you to specifics. You make constant inferences but almost never directly take a real stance so that you can keep playing your Glenn Beck-esque game of "just asking questions". (And even when you do take a direct stance on something you will pretend that never happened the moment it is convenient for you to do so.) That is why engaging you with anything more than short post pointing out the most obvious contradictions in your arguments is worthless. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
refusing to make direct claims which can be refuted is a hallmark of people who are more interested in winning an argument than advancing a viewpoint here is a direct claim: all of assange's actions since leaving sweden are consistent with a delusional person who is trying to evade responsibility for his crimes by cooking up tales of global persecution. saying you fear being imprisoned by the united states for thought crime is an extremely attractive narrative for people who view themselves as information vigilantes or otherwise woke persons, and helps to distract from the fact that assange does not want to go to sweden to answer for sex crimes despite sweden being the better place to hide from the united states government boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I just wanted to say fishmech that over the past few months your posting has dramatically improved. Posts like the one above are a really great example of your strengths as a writer and a thinker. I just wanted to voice a bit of public appreciation. No problem. Dog Jones posted:fishmech I am going to respond to your post later I can't face the possibility that I will write another long rear end post right now. Yes I am sure it's difficult to come up with more ways to say "but I really want to believe Assange might get executed therefore what he did was justified and not blatantly an attempt to try to dodge rape charges which ended up with him also committing additional crime on the way". He's decided to self-imprison in solitary confinement conditions for years on end, and will have to continue doing so for as much as another 9 years or more to finally dodge any charges, and that's because of his own mistakes. He's been in there by his own choosing for nearly 4 and a half years now. If we add that stuff up, well, he's looking at potentially 13 years in his own imprisonment. For context, the maximum term a rapist is sentence to in Sweden, just for rape, is 10 years, and the minimum term is around 18 months (but since there's no statutory minimums you can be sentenced to less). Convictions in Sweden for rape generally last 2 to 4 years, so if he'd gone to questioning, went to trial, and got sent to actual jail back then, he'd likely be free again now. Note that reaching higher terms like 8 or 10 years for a rape conviction usually requires that extreme force and brutal assault was committed in the rape. I again invite you to take a look at what every actual federal execution sentence has been for in 40 years, there's always a murder on the charges. People who don't commit federal murder simply don't go to federal death row. boner confessor posted:here is a direct claim: all of assange's actions since leaving sweden are consistent with a delusional person who is trying to evade responsibility for his crimes by cooking up tales of global persecution. To be honest it's even more consistent with a rational person trying to evade responsibility, who simply knows there's a lot of people who will buy a story of global persecution about him. He might well have been driven delusional by 4+ years of continuous confinement though, it happens to people in actual prison rather often.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:To be honest it's even more consistent with a rational person trying to evade responsibility, who simply knows there's a lot of people who will buy a story of global persecution about him. He might well have been driven delusional by 4+ years of continuous confinement though, it happens to people in actual prison rather often. imo i dont think assange is that much of a snake, i believe he sincerely believes he might end up in guantanamo or whatever because one probable motivation for getting involved in wikileaks in the first place is a desire to piss on government, meaning someone could lose their nerve if they think government might piss back this is what is admirable about chelsea manning, knowing the consequences and doing the noble crime anyway. as previously established, assange is much less likely to even see charges by the us government and yet is behaving like he believes he's some dangerous master global criminal boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:What the gently caress is going on The best Wednesday reading I've had at work in months Thanks, crazy dog guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Actually his actions are all the evidence I need to prove that the bail begging was a scam. He skipped bail the first moment he could, that is all the evidence I need. I don't need a crystal ball to know that he intended to skip bail the moment he could or that his donors were flabbergasted and angered by his choice. What you mean to say is that his actions are the only evidence you HAVE to prove that the bail begging was scam. You still NEED other evidence besides the fact of his actions to fully understand the situation. The standards for proof and understanding do not change according to your whimsy. You're right that you don't need a crystal ball to know those two facts. But that doesn't mean you don't need ANYTHING to know those two facts. It would be good to have some evidence! Without evidence, they are just unjustified beliefs, not knowledge. Case in point: your second claim is wrong. Why did you think you 'knew' this? You just decided it was true and boasted about how you didn't even need a crystal ball lmfao Prester Jane posted:Let me put it this way, if I shoot someone in cold blood and they die then I have committed a violent crime. Whether I intended for them to die from the bullets I was shooting at them is actually irrelevant. First of all your example is stupid because your usage of the 'in cold blood' cliche provides information about the shooters intent a priori to your observers, subverting your claim that no knowledge of intent is needed to have a complete understanding of what transpired. Its only obvious to you why intent is irrelevant in this example. To me whether or not someone intended for the person to die is pretty important to my understanding of what transpired. Like if the person had only intended to shoot a blank round, which would not harm them physically but would still be scary, thats pretty much a lot different than if the person shot them with the deadliest bullets available because they intended to kill as hard as possible. Ignoring that part of the story for no reason is a pretty bad idea especially if we are trying to figure out how to treat the shooter after the fact. Prester Jane posted:Intentions mean jack poo poo, actions and decisions are what I study. And the actions of Assange are very clear and not really open to interpretation, as soon as he made bail he fled. Therefor he scammed the people who paid his bail. I donno Prester Jane intentions seem like they mean a whole heck of a lot if we're trying to understand people and why things happen the way they way the happen. And just in general if we're trying to understand anything. I think you are just saying intentions don't matter because its hard to prove things about intentions and that is inconvenient for you regarding your scam ideas
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Dog Jones posted:What you mean to say is that his actions are the only evidence you HAVE to prove that the bail begging was scam. You still NEED other evidence besides the fact of his actions to fully understand the situation. The standards for proof and understanding do not change according to your whimsy. You're right that you don't need a crystal ball to know those two facts. But that doesn't mean you don't need ANYTHING to know those two facts. It would be good to have some evidence! Without evidence, they are just unjustified beliefs, not knowledge. Case in point: your second claim is wrong. Why did you think you 'knew' this? You just decided it was true and boasted about how you didn't even need a crystal ball lmfao going back to obfuscation - prester jane was pointing out how assange committed a crime (skipping bail) in order to avoid either the real sex crimes charges or the theoretical imaginary something charges by the us government. dog jones preferred tactic to deal with this is to get mired in the technicalities of whether or not assange premediated his bail skipping by focusing on jane's use of the word "scam", using this as an excuse to lecture prester jane on the standards of proof in an argument. so we went from "assange ran away from the police" to "you don't understand how burden of proof" works. obfuscation is an effective tactic to avoid the point if you don't want to discuss the reasons why assange may have run from the police. notice how this same tactic is employed many times across many posts itt, it's pretty common when people are trying to avoid answering a question without looking like they're dodging the question
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:09
|
|