|
pop fly to McGillicutty posted:The best Wednesday reading I've had at work in months Lmfao I get done explaining to someone that we shouldn't just dismiss all information about a certain dimension of human behavior and history for no reason and the next thing I see is this moron calling me insane
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Well it's also hard to reconcile Assange as noble champion of free speech, when he's also Assange noble champion of making all of his co-workers sign legally binding non disclosure agreements about both him and the organisation and ex-communicating while smearing anyone who doesn't as an MI5 agent. Which was the one thing he made sure to do while at the same time he was skipping bail.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Lmfao I get done explaining to someone that we shouldn't just dismiss all information about a certain dimension of human behavior and history for no reason and the next thing I see is this moron calling me insane why did you feel it necessary to respond to this person when they didn't even quote you? further, why did you think it was necessary to involve your noble defense of dimensions of human behavior and history in your defense? could this be part of your need to assert your intelligence, as a reason for why you could not be wrong about julian assange? as others have noted, conspiracy theories thrive among the intelligent because once the core idea is accepted it acts like a parasite and the intellect of the believer is used to come up with endless defenses as to why the idea couldn't possibly be wrong... people say "you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into", but what if you can convince someone they did reason themselves into an unreasonable idea? what would that look like in conversation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Lmfao I get done explaining to someone that we shouldn't just dismiss all information about a certain dimension of human behavior and history for no reason and the next thing I see is this moron calling me insane Hey don't dismiss my information about your insanity for no reason. Prove to me you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. This isn't surprising to me because I can't imagine Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy solely to avoid the rape charges. I also doubt that Assange or his lawyers think the swede's will even try to charge him for the rape, much less successfully prosecute the crime. Doesn't this surprise you though? I thought you said that Assange was in the embassy solely to dodge rape charges. But the point you just made makes that seem totally dumb. Like there's no reason why he would do that. fishmech posted: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. I'll just take your word for it, I have no doubt that it would be unlikely that prosecutors try for the death penalty if was ever charged and extradited. It seems like it would be almost impossible to get a jury to go for the death penalty. 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. boner confessor posted: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 I'm seriously starting to wonder about this mystical notion many of you seem to have that Assange is behind the claim that the US is trying to endict, extradite, and convict him.... I donno whats going on in your heads... Btw... epic direct claim. Way to advance your viewpoint by making a statement and providing no evidence for anything you propose. The viewpoint is more advanced than ever before boner confessor you're really doing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
pop fly to McGillicutty posted:Hey don't dismiss my information about your insanity for no reason. Prove to me you aren't. Is this supposed to be like a parody of something I've said or something? You just got here though and I've never said anything like this before.... I donno about you pal. We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
so now you're questioning whether or not assange himself is in fear of his life? who are these people who are advising assange to stay in the embassy? we're going down an ever deeper rabbit hole of backpedaling and "i didn't really say that" - eventually your argument will disappear into itself as you deny having ever posted in this thread boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
Because he is. He literally started the theory in a series of interviews including one with John Humphreys of the BBC when he fled the rape charges to the UK when he said "“I’m not saying it was a honey trap. I’m not saying it was not a honey trap.”" Since then his repeated talking point has been "this isn't a case about Rape, it's a case about free speech." All the way along he's been leading people to make their own inferences while stirring the pot enough to say that there is a whole sale conspiracy against him without directly coming out and saying it. He lets other people run with it but he's the one who introduced the ideas and muddies the waters as much as possible. Listen to or read any interview he gives where the rape allegations are brought up, he never denies any of the facts of the accusations but always pivots into talking about wikileaks instead of the charges against him personally.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:why did you feel it necessary to respond to this person when they didn't even quote you? further, why did you think it was necessary to involve your noble defense of dimensions of human behavior and history in your defense? could this be part of your need to assert your intelligence, as a reason for why you could not be wrong about julian assange? Because they thanked me directly. Unless he was referring to a different crazy dog guy? Why is it weird to you that I respond to a post of a person talking about me and to me? boner confessor posted:further, why did you think it was necessary to involve your noble defense of dimensions of human behavior and history in your defense? boner confessor your creeping me out chill. boner confessor posted:could this be part of your need to assert your intelligence, as a reason for why you could not be wrong about julian assange? I donno boner confessor I'm pretty sure I'm saying some non-controversial things about Julian Assange and everyone here just likes to state and restate their biting and in your face ideas about the subject over and again boner confessor posted:as others have noted, conspiracy theories thrive among the intelligent because once the core idea is accepted it acts like a parasite and the intellect of the believer is used to come up with endless defenses as to why the idea couldn't possibly be wrong... people say "you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into", but what if you can convince someone they did reason themselves into an unreasonable idea? what would that look like in conversation? *strokes chin* hmm yes. conspiracy theories thrive amount The Intelligent... profound and indeed, counter intuitive, and interesting. A definitely true fact which is highly meaningful. The others were wise to note this indeed....
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:*strokes chin* hmm yes. conspiracy theories thrive amount The Intelligent... profound and indeed, counter intuitive, and interesting. A definitely true fact which is highly meaningful. The others were wise to note this indeed.... i'm just saying, it's a pretty normal defense mechanism to tout your own intelligence when demonstrating how you couldn't be fooled by a guy spinning grand tales about free speech and shadowy government persecution as to why it is actually a good and ethical thing for him to not talk to the police about pending sex crime charges. you keep doing the same thing - you can't help but defend yourself from every percieved attack and if you can't blow a bunch of smoke about how people don't understand your real true meaning then you make a passive aggressive comment about someone's intelligence. it's compulsive and formulaic, and it also is pretty standard argumentation style of a conspiracy thinker on the defensive e: hey mcdowell you crazy rear end in a top hat instead of sending me endless pms i wont read you can just post in this thread if you're so upset about me bashing conspiracy theories boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i'm just saying, it's a pretty normal defense mechanism to tout your own intelligence when demonstrating how you couldn't be fooled by a guy spinning grand tales about free speech and shadowy government persecution as to why it is actually a good and ethical thing for him to not talk to the police about pending sex crime charges. you keep doing the same thing - you can't help but defend yourself from every percieved attack and if you can't blow a bunch of smoke about how people don't understand your real true meaning then you make a passive aggressive comment about someone's intelligence. it's compulsive and formulaic, and it also is pretty standard argumentation style of a conspiracy thinker on the defensive I donno boner confessor I don't think I ever said its a good and ethical thing for assange to not talk to the police about the sex crime allegations... I'm pretty sure even assange's people wanted the interview to happen so that sweden would drop the charges, stop trying to extradite assange, and assange could clear his name... I'm pretty sure you just made that up because it sounds like a bad and dumb thing to say!! ah hell but look, here i am claiming that you people don't understand my 'real true meaning'!! the condition of the conspiracy retard truly is pathetic... i am endlessly shamed as a dummy when people pretend that I said a stupid thing, and then I prove myself as the king of the retards when I say thats not what I said
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Because he is. He literally started the theory in a series of interviews including one with John Humphreys of the BBC when he fled the rape charges to the UK when he said "“I’m not saying it was a honey trap. I’m not saying it was not a honey trap.”" Nah my dude. If you type 'Julian Assange' into google and click on the very first link it will take you to Assange's wikipedia page. Put on your tin foil and and click on the section labelled US criminal investigation and prepare yourself for some deep web conspiracy data
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:ah hell but look, here i am claiming that you people don't understand my 'real true meaning'!! the condition of the conspiracy retard truly is pathetic... i am endlessly shamed as a dummy when people pretend that I said a stupid thing, and then I prove myself as the king of the retards when I say thats not what I said Dog Jones posted: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. if you can't bury people under mass argumentation, and if they're not getting upset when you say they're dumb, then... just say they didn't understand what you mean! it's foolproof because you can keep saying it, forever! I'd also like to point out here that dog jones isn't even directly calling people dumb, he's just facetiously taking the stance that he's the dumb one, truly. again demonstrating that if you never stop being evasive with your real meaning you never commit to something that can be debunked
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
I mean what you are saying would be pretty uncontroversial at godlikeproductions or Breitbart or maybe even Freep, but it seems like here on SA what you are saying is pretty controversial. Dog Jones posted:This isn't surprising to me because I can't imagine Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy solely to avoid the rape charges. And here you unintentionally reveal the faulty a priori assumption that all of your arguments have been based on: "I can't imagine that my hero would do something bad like hide from rape allegations, so therefor he could not possibly be in the wrong. QED." Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:This isn't surprising to me because I can't imagine Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy solely to avoid the rape charges. I also doubt that Assange or his lawyers think the swede's will even try to charge him for the rape, much less successfully prosecute the crime. Why wouldn't they think he'll be charged for rape? That's what the Swedish police suspect him of doing, and why they want him for questioning. The only way he wouldn't get charged is if he goes through questioning finally and it turns out there's no case to be made - at which point they're no longer interested in him. Also how's that supposed to be surprising? He made a dumb move in imprisoning himself for 4 years at this point, but he'd also made another dumb move in skipping British bail, and yet another dumb move going to the UK to avoid the questioning in the first place. He seems to have operated on the presumption that Ecuador would get him out of the embassy and didn't have any other plans once they officially said "well we'll let you stay here for the time being". What's mystical about the truth, exactly? He's the one who has made claims he needs political asylum, see also http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 "What concerns do Mr Assange and his supporters have over the extradition? The main concern expressed by Mr Assange and his supporters is that once extradited to Sweden, he would be in danger of being sent to the US, where he fears he could face the death penalty." And if he isn't claiming he needs to be in the embassy to be safe from US extradition... then why is he there? Besides the rape charges he's trying to dodge, that is. Note also that this BBC article covers further problems with actually getting him extradited from Sweden, were the US to ask: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11952817
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Why do you think the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that US prosecutors are 'aggressively' pursing charges. I have no idea if they are aggressively pursuing charges, and never claimed they were. The actual work the investigation is doing is secret, we can only speculate about thier strategy. It is possible that they are 'aggressively' pursuing charges, and it is possible they already have a sealed indictment against Assange and are simply waiting for an opportune time to begin extraditing him. This entire post is just you saying "nuh-uh" over and over. The quotes embedded in my post are of you doing and saying the things that I said you did and said. Your ability to immediately deny saying something that you just said in a previous post makes it impossible to talk to you. The worst part is that your denials are over completely trivial, inconsequential poo poo. Are you not aware of how easy it is to go through someone's post history? For gently caress's sake it took two seconds to pull this one up: Dog Jones posted:I think most of the concerns come from the fact that the US is aggressively pursing criminal charges against WikiLeaks and Assange itself. You said it's a fact that the US is aggressively pursuing criminal charges against WikiLeaks (whatever the gently caress that means) and Assange. At the head of the post I quoted above, you're now saying that you never said this. The rest of your post is full of easily disprovable counter-claims like this one. Do you actually suffer from short-term memory loss or something? And this is just over my nitpicky inconsequential poo poo. You're doing the exact same thing with the other posters who are making substantial arguments. As soon as someone nails you to the wall for having a stupid or factually wrong position you simply deny ever having held that position, despite how easily disproven that silly claim is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why wouldn't they think he'll be charged for rape? That's what the Swedish police suspect him of doing, and why they want him for questioning. The only way he wouldn't get charged is if he goes through questioning finally and it turns out there's no case to be made - at which point they're no longer interested in him. Because, as they have stated, they believe there is no merit to the case. I'm not so sure about your claim that the only way he won't be charged is if the Swedish prosecutor decides not to charge him. Thats a bit of a brain buster I'll have to get back to you on it. Also when you say "if he gets through questioning finally" that kind of weirds me out because it makes it seem like you aren't aware of the fact that he was finally questioned by swedish prosecutors over 2 weeks ago. Thats kind of crazy to me because that makes it seem like you haven't read anything about or kept up with the subject at all for like 2 weeks and you have been arguing about it with me for like over a day now. I donno fishmech I donno about you. fishmech posted:Also how's that supposed to be surprising? He made a dumb move in imprisoning himself for 4 years at this point, but he'd also made another dumb move in skipping British bail, and yet another dumb move going to the UK to avoid the questioning in the first place. He seems to have operated on the presumption that Ecuador would get him out of the embassy and didn't have any other plans once they officially said "well we'll let you stay here for the time being". Its only dumb if you look at it from the perspective that Assange is in the embassy entirely to avoid the rape charges. Which would mean you'd have to be disregard everything that Assange himself, his legal team, the united nations, and amnesty international has said on the matter. You'd also have to deny the existence of the US criminal investigation against Assange despite the overwhelming evidence I guess too. I guess you'd also have to try and not think about the fact that the swedes have made no effort to actually investigate the case, and only finally decided to question him in light of immense pressure. They still haven't charged him with anything after the interrogation... but I donno I guess maybe they will soon. Come to think of it, what reason is there to think that Assange is only trying to avoid rape charges again? fishmech posted:What's mystical about the truth, exactly? He's the one who has made claims he needs political asylum, see also http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 Did you read the article in your link? It outright says that the US is pursuing a criminal investigation against wikileaks and assange. Unless you think that the department of justice is an Assange puppet and that the attorney general takes his orders directly from Assange I don't know what you're talking about. fishmech posted:The main concern expressed by Mr Assange and his supporters is that once extradited to Sweden, he would be in danger of being sent to the US, where he fears he could face the death penalty." What? That is precisely what he is claiming. fishmech posted:Note also that this BBC article covers further problems with actually getting him extradited from Sweden, were the US to ask: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11952817 Yes I think we've talked about the barriers to extradition quite a bit. My thoughts on that are that the barriers aren't insurmountable, Sweden regularly extradites people to the US, and we know for a fact that the US prosecution has developed at least one case which is suspected to result in successful extradition. There is no reason to think that the barriers to extradition are particularly insurmountable or intractible
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
It is hypothetically possible that Julian Assange might be the most wanted man on earth. Therefore the rational response is to hide in a bathroom for the rest of his life and tweet about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Because, as they have stated, they believe there is no merit to the case. I'm not so sure about your claim that the only way he won't be charged is if the Swedish prosecutor decides not to charge him. Thats a bit of a brain buster I'll have to get back to you on it. Ok so if they don't believe he'll be charged what is he actually afraid of in Sweden? Does he just want to permanently be accused of rape and never get a chance to defend himself or what? OR do you think they'd magically decided to charge him with armed robbery or tax evasion or some other non-rape crime? They only did initial questioning. There's still a lot more to go. That's because he IS in the embassy entirely to avoid rape charges. That's why he went to the UK and then why he dodged into the embassy when he posted bail after being arrested in the UK. As we've already established, trying to evade US extradition doesn't add up at all with going to the UK. They're pursuing an investigation against wikileaks which happens to involve Assange. but that doesn't mean they're going to convict him of any crime or even charge him with any crimes that could invoke extradition. He is precisely claiming what, exactly, in your opinion? The barriers are very insurmountable for Assange, because he didn't do anything that invoked US jurisdiction and is a severe enough crime to meet Sweden's criteria for allowing extradition. What don't you get?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
not to mention the article dog jones accused fishmech of not reading closely enough quotes the swedish foreign minister saying sweden will not extradite anyone on charges where they could face the death penalty, so you can throw that whole "well theoretically he could be put to death" argument out the window. this just reinforces assange is more afraid of being held accountable for sexual misconduct than anything else
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Are you not aware of how easy it is to go through someone's post history? For gently caress's sake it took two seconds to pull this one up: Ah okay I have to clarify here: In my first statement what I was trying to say was that a case against wikileaks is being actively pursued by US prosecutors, that the investigation is being pursued with a mind to indict Assange, and with a mind to maximize the magnitude of the punishments which could possibly be handed down when he was sentenced. So by 'aggressive' here I meant to illustrate that the investigation is sophisticated, predatory, and was seeking to do great damage to wikileaks and pose a great danger to Assange. So admittedly a pretty wishy-washy description. My use of aggressive here didn't refer to specific legal strategies which the prosecution might use to indict or to extradite Assange, or the actual status of the case. It was merely intended to describe the character of the investigation overall. Next, when you confronted me demanding evidence of the aggressive legal proceedings against Assange, (you had similiar emphasis on aggressive) I focused on aggressive and thought you were asking specifically for evidence of the aggressiveness of the investigation. My previous usage of the word aggressive was an impression gleaned from the sum total of the evidence of the investigation that is known, was more wishy-washy and less important to me, so I did not associate it at all with what you were asking of me, and pretty much forgot about it. So, I thought you were talking about some kind of specific 'aggressive' strategy for which you wanted evidence, and I had no idea what the gently caress you were talking about. Hence my contradictory remarks. To be perfectly clear: - Describing the investigation as 'aggressive' was not very meaningful and quite confusing, a poor choice of words - I had no idea what the gently caress you were talking about when you asked for evidence of the investigation's aggressive character since I did not think of it as something concrete My stance on the matter at hand is that we cannot know for sure what specific strategies (legal or operational) the investigation might employ to endict, extradite, prosecute and sentence Assange, but there are a few morsels of evidence which point toward some of the charges the prosecutors my employ. QuarkJets posted:This entire post is just you saying "nuh-uh" over and over. nuh-uh
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Why has this thread been wikileaks stuff for like 100 pages anyway? I have lost track of what that even related to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:not to mention the article dog jones accused fishmech of not reading closely enough quotes the swedish foreign minister saying sweden will not extradite anyone on charges where they could face the death penalty, so you can throw that whole "well theoretically he could be put to death" argument out the window. this just reinforces assange is more afraid of being held accountable for sexual misconduct than anything else Nah don't throw it out yet because you don't actually know what you're talking about! Try to think of other possibilities boner confessor... put yourself in the shoes of a prosecutor who wants to charge a suspect with a myriad of crimes, some of which carry the possibility of a death sentence. But you also need to successfully extradite the suspect, and the country in question will not extradite on charges which potentially carry the death penalty... what would you do??? What if you extradited the suspect using a subset of the charges you actually have against him. That way you could selectively choose the charges which had the best possible chance of successful extradition. Then once extradition succeeds and the suspect is in your prison, charge him with whatever the hell you want! Exactly like how I said the prosecution is probably tailoring a promising extradition case a few posts ago! Dang, guess you didn't read it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Nah don't throw it out yet because you don't actually know what you're talking about! Try to think of other possibilities boner confessor... put yourself in the shoes of a prosecutor who wants to charge a suspect with a myriad of crimes, some of which carry the possibility of a death sentence. But you also need to successfully extradite the suspect, and the country in question will not extradite on charges which potentially carry the death penalty... what would you do??? again i'd like to point out that you're not willing to speculate as to why the us government isn't or hasn't pressed charges against people other than julian assange, but you're perfectly willing to speculate that they would fabricate sex crimes against assange or lie to judges (what you propose here) to put assange to death you have a very particular selective quality about how you're firmly rational about things which don't support your argument but you're willing to chain together endless speculation if it leads to a conclusion you agree with, that the us government really wants to kill assange for some reason. this double standard really undermines your credibility as well as your argument Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why has this thread been wikileaks stuff for like 100 pages anyway? I have lost track of what that even related to. it's a useful example for the thread to see how conspiracy theorists think and argue. remember that pages ago i said that common defensive techniques are to obfuscate and dismiss any claims which didn't fit the narrative and look at how this has spun out - dog jones will write long circular arguments to people who aren't mean to him and if you are mean to him he starts getting real salty about how dumb and illiterate you must be. it's pretty by the book as conspiracy guys go boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why has this thread been wikileaks stuff for like 100 pages anyway? I have lost track of what that even related to. Someone casually mentioned the conspiracy theory that Assange has been secretly murdered, and Dog Jones launched into claims that the real crazy conspiracy theory here is that Assange is fleeing from a rape investigation and not because the US government is going to haul him to a CIA black site.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Dog Jones is juuuuuuuuust about to the "bowl of spaghetti-logic" stage where he posts a bunch of incomprehensibly strange ramblings that contradict themselves in the same sentence while insulting everyone who dared to disagree with his stunning intellect. I can't wait to see what gold his meltdown will bring the forums. In fairness though, Dog Jones really should not be permitted to clog the thread with his nonsense for much longer. While he is being a useful example of how conspiracy theorists think and why it is worthless to engage them with facts, he is also shutting down all non Dog Jones oriented conversation in the thread and will eventually make the thread unreadable if this continues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ok so if they don't believe he'll be charged what is he actually afraid of in Sweden? Does he just want to permanently be accused of rape and never get a chance to defend himself or what? OR do you think they'd magically decided to charge him with armed robbery or tax evasion or some other non-rape crime? Like I've said many times now, they are concerned that sweden will not guarantee that it will protect assange's human right to not be extradited to a nation which could violate his human rights, and they fear the possibility that the US will seek extradition. fishmech posted:They only did initial questioning. There's still a lot more to go. Do you know if there is any info about the 'schedule' of questioning? fishmech posted:That's because he IS in the embassy entirely to avoid rape charges. That's why he went to the UK and then why he dodged into the embassy when he posted bail after being arrested in the UK. As we've already established, trying to evade US extradition doesn't add up at all with going to the UK. This has not been established, I feel as though I have established that the opposite is true. fishmech posted:They're pursuing an investigation against wikileaks which happens to involve Assange. but that doesn't mean they're going to convict him of any crime or even charge him with any crimes that could invoke extradition. Much of the evidence that comes directly from the US only mentions WikiLeaks and not Assange by name, but there is lots of other evidence that does seem to target Assange specifically. fishmech posted:He is precisely claiming what, exactly, in your opinion? Assange would claim that he is in the embassy to be safe from extradition to the US. fishmech posted:The barriers are very insurmountable for Assange, because he didn't do anything that invoked US jurisdiction and is a severe enough crime to meet Sweden's criteria for allowing extradition. What don't you get? I don't get why you are saying that given that I have already describe several charges which the US could use to prosecute Assange, and the evidence that the investigation is actively pursuing (or has pursued) those possibilities. Wait as a fun side note remember how you were saying that you thought it was more plausible that the CIA would just kill Assange than him getting prosecuted in the US? Apparently someone filed an FOI request about the CIAs plans to kill assange: https://www.scribd.com/document/41076931/CIA-Response-to-Assange-Assassination-FOIA Dog Jones fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:again i'd like to point out that you're not willing to speculate as to why the us government isn't or hasn't pressed charges against people other than julian assange, but you're perfectly willing to speculate that they would fabricate sex crimes against assange or lie to judges (what you propose here) to put assange to death boner confessor come on man you know thats not true. You know I addressed that last night remember man think back! Ill speculate about any drat thing no matter how pointless! I don't know why you think building a case for extradition like that is "lying to judges" or whatever, I suppose you think thats a good way to make what I said seem outlandish. But it is done all the time, even in routine cases. Some types of charges result in quicker extraditions and authorities routinely selectively include and exclude charges based on matters of convenience like that. Almost every single doubt or seemingly penetrating question I am presented with in this thread is usually just a person expressing their ignorance of the subject they are talking about, its my favorite shtick that the conspiracy theory thread gang does
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:In fairness though, Dog Jones really should not be permitted to clog the thread with his nonsense for much longer. While he is being a useful example of how conspiracy theorists think and why it is worthless to engage them with facts, he is also shutting down all non Dog Jones oriented conversation in the thread and will eventually make the thread unreadable if this continues. Prester Jane the only thing you ever engaged me with are excuses for why you didn't have to actually read or respond to anything I say in order to prove that I am wrong, and a bizarre claim that we must ignore peoples intentions in order to understand the world. I think you were also the person who said that your dad could beat me up or trick me, too. The fact that you are able to do poo poo like that with a straight face and then go on to talk authoritatively on the quality of discourse and the way any group of people thinks about the world is an embodiment of the lie of your self-esteem and your remarkable determination to avoid introspection. lmfao you and that boner confessor person seem seriously crazy to me, no hate though
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:My use of aggressive here didn't refer to specific legal strategies which the prosecution might use to indict or to extradite Assange, or the actual status of the case. It was merely intended to describe the character of the investigation overall. I asked you to prove this and instead you denied that you ever even said this. This is the same strategy that you've employed for most of your arguments when other posters have confronted you. quote:Next, when you confronted me demanding evidence of the aggressive legal proceedings against Assange, (you had similiar emphasis on aggressive) That was a reflection of your own emphasis you dummy. quote:My stance on the matter at hand is that we cannot know for sure what specific strategies (legal or operational) the investigation might employ to endict, extradite, prosecute and sentence Assange, but there are a few morsels of evidence which point toward some of the charges the prosecutors my employ. Sure, yes. But the conspiracy theory (the one that you keep defending) is that A) the US is aggressively pursuing or has secret charges against Assange and B) the US fabricated some rape charges in order to get him extradited from Sweden. You've also accused others of conspiracy theorizing for pointing to Assange's creepy online "grooming" of a preteen, which is hilarious. The one thing here that is definitely not a conspiracy theory is that you're a watermelon fucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Dog Jones is juuuuuuuuust about to the "bowl of spaghetti-logic" stage where he posts a bunch of incomprehensibly strange ramblings that contradict themselves in the same sentence while insulting everyone who dared to disagree with his stunning intellect. I can't wait to see what gold his meltdown will bring the forums. This thread was basically dead anyway so the mods may as well let the watermelon fucker continue dancing
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:This has not been established, I feel as though I have established that the opposite is true. Oh sure Assange just happened to suddenly flee Sweden unannounced on the same day that his lawyer received a warrant for Assange's arrest from Swedish authorities. It's just a strange coincidence! But the US is definitely aggressively seeking charges against Assange specifically, and here's my proof:
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I asked you to prove this and instead you denied that you ever even said this. This is the same strategy that you've employed for most of your arguments when other posters have confronted you. Nah with you I legitimately hosed up and forget I had said that, while also misinterpreting what you were asking for, and I think I resolved the matter satisfactorily as soon as you made it clear what the source of confusion was (the contradiction I made accidentally). As far as I know, every single other time someone has accused me of falsely claiming I had never said something they were either obviously ignoring parts of what I actually stated, or misrepresenting my views outright and claiming that that was what I said before. Of course, I'm open to the possibility that I have made other similiar errors. They should be easy to prove as you have demonstrated. QuarkJets posted:That was a reflection of your own emphasis you dummy. Well either way I was a confused sick person when I made the error is my point QuarkJets posted:Sure, yes. But the conspiracy theory (the one that you keep defending) is that A) the US is aggressively pursuing or has secret charges against Assange and B) the US fabricated some rape charges in order to get him extradited from Sweden. Regarding A, I'm not interested in defending this 'aggressive' word. I know that the US is pursuing (or has successfully pursued) charges against Assange and WikiLeaks via a large scale criminal investigation, because of the large amount of evidence which the government has released directly, and because high level US officials have openly admitted that the investigation exists. The actual proceedings of this investigation are secret. I don't see why this is controversial. Regarding B, I've never said that the US fabricated rape charges against Assange. There is no evidence that suggests the US government fabricated the rape charges that I am aware of, and I do not think the US government fabricated the rape charges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:The fact that you are able to do poo poo like that with a straight face and then go on to talk authoritatively on the quality of discourse and the way any group of people thinks about the world is an embodiment of the lie of your self-esteem and your remarkable determination to avoid introspection. With projection like that I could make "Project Blue Beam" a reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This thread was basically dead anyway so the mods may as well let the watermelon fucker continue dancing I mean I don't think I'm gonna hang around if you guys are feeling like maybe I should get banned or probated for responding to the messages you all send me, yall are bitch made for that though. Like if yall wanna stop talking about this we can you don't have to go get the teacher
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I mean I don't think I'm gonna hang around if you guys are feeling like maybe I should get banned or probated for responding to the messages you all send me, yall are bitch made for that though. well at least we've moved on from you accusing everyone of being deranged illiterates to being tattletale children. at least something is changing about your argument, even if it is the devolving quality of your dismissive insults Dog Jones posted:boner confessor come on man you know thats not true. You know I addressed that last night remember man think back! Ill speculate about any drat thing no matter how pointless! you said "What if you extradited the suspect using a subset of the charges you actually have against him". sweden forbids extradition based on 'political offenses', extradition requires specific charges, and sweden will not extradite if the death penalty is a possibility. either assange is irrationally afraid or lying about facing charges in the us, or you are saying the us prosecutor will lie to swedish authorities about the nature of the charges on which assange will be extradited - say they'll charge him with hacking or whatever, a non death penalty offense, and then switch it to espionage because the us government really wants to murder julian assange for unknown and unknowable reasons http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/ quote:Is Assange’s conspiracy theory correct? And would Sweden extradite him? for someone bemoaning the ignorance of everyone you speak to you're still dead set on speaking to these ignorant persons despite not looking so good yourself. like multiple people now have pointed out the sheer implausibility of extradition from sweden and yet you still insist you're the only person in the conversation with any knowledge of swedish criminal proceedings or whatever. it's really transparent that you're not very knowledgable yourself perhaps your nerd pride is wounded and you're stuck in this argument because you can't bear to leave it without winning? because then you may have to admit to yourself that perhaps you were fooled by the sex offender assange's ridiculous story of extradition after all? the hardest part of getting past a conspiracy theorists' ideas is getting them to realize that this idea, which has burrowed into their very identity (i am a Smart Person, i cannot be tricked or fooled) can be discarded without damaging the identity. it's ok to admit you were wrong, dog jones boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Like I've said many times now, they are concerned that sweden will not guarantee that it will protect assange's human right to not be extradited to a nation which could violate his human rights, and they fear the possibility that the US will seek extradition. Julian Assange does not have a "human right" to not be extradited to a country that doesn't want him and would not execute him even if they did want him (unless it turns out he actually killed a federal employee or other crime that invokes the federal death penalty, which doesn't seem to have happened?). No, just that they want to do further questioning and don't consider the case closed yet. Nope, it's been established that's why he's there. It's the entire reason he fled to Sweden, and the reason he fled othe embassy when he bailed himself out of British jail (where he was being held pending extradition to Sweden for the charges). There is 0 evidence that Assange is being "targeted" with being charged for crimes that would permit for a successful extradition request from Sweden. Ok, so you're saying he's saying what I said he said? Then why did you act like that wasn't true? You have not given any charges the US could use to prosecute Assange that would lead to him being eligible for extradition from Sweden. But again, extradition laws are actually laxer from the UK to the US - to the point that many brits have complained that the most recent treaty enacted after 2006 US ratification is unfairly one sided to make it way easy for the US to demand people from the UK - so fleeing to the UK for fear of extradition to the US doesn't hold up. Unless Assange and his lawyers were that stupid on extradition law, and really thought it was safer. That'd basically require Julian-boy to be massively ignorant and stupid, so is that your allegation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
So I heard the moon landing was faked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Stickarts posted:So I heard the moon landing was faked. Yes, but what the lizards don't want you to know is that it was faked on Mars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 05:40
|
|