View Full Version : Wikileak's sex flounders charges leaked.
Freiwillige
02-04-11, 01:41 PM
Oh the Irony. But after reading the charges I had to LOL. Are Swede's that up tight? The charges are laughable and would hardly constitute rape in my opinion.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110204/ap_on_re_eu/eu_wikileaks_assange
frau kaleun
02-04-11, 01:45 PM
and would hardly constitute rape in my opinion.
Where the law defines rape as "sex without consent," initiating sexual intercourse with a partner who is unconscious and therefore cannot have consented to it is rape, the end.
Catfish
02-04-11, 01:46 PM
They need a reason to accuse him. Any reason.
The oldest rule, "destroy a man publicly, before you kill him".
Imagine how many people now think that Assange is a criminal, even if he is set free this will always haunt him.
Greetings,
Catfish
So, the woman let him continue the act in BOTH occasions and is now screaming RAPE RAPE?
Rrrright...
The charges are laughable and would hardly constitute rape in my opinion
Wow. :o
Where the law defines rape as "sex without consent," initiating sexual intercourse with a partner who is unconscious and therefore cannot have consented to it is rape, the end.
This.
Note that even if the woman consented AFTER the act started, the act of starting without consent was in itself rape. Intent matters.
Freiwillige
02-04-11, 03:18 PM
Now do not misunderstand me, Rape is a horrific crime that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and then some. The Issue as I understand isn't one of consensual sex but over the issue of the usage of a condom.
So before I get hung on my statement one needs to understand that one judge already threw it out only to have it reinstated by another.
It was clear by her statement that she wasn't offended they were having intercourse but was offended that he did not use a condom the second time.
She allowed the intercourse to continue with the statement "You batter not have aids".........So STD concern is the context of the issue not sexual intercourse. That is how I read into it and just my opinion.
gimpy117
02-04-11, 03:41 PM
So, the woman let him continue the act in BOTH occasions and is now screaming RAPE RAPE?
Rrrright...
It happens a lot actually...but I think it's extra suspicious in this case..especially when it was thrown out but re-instated by somebody up the ladder.
but then again, you piss off world governments and this sort of thing happens to you.
Now do not misunderstand me, Rape is a horrific crime that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and then some. The Issue as I understand isn't one of consensual sex but over the issue of the usage of a condom.
So before I get hung on my statement one needs to understand that one judge already threw it out only to have it reinstated by another.
It was clear by her statement that she wasn't offended they were having intercourse but was offended that he did not use a condom the second time.
She allowed the intercourse to continue with the statement "You batter not have aids".........So STD concern is the context of the issue not sexual intercourse. That is how I read into it and just my opinion.
My bad, I read frau's reply, but not the OP link.
You're right.
Takeda Shingen
02-04-11, 04:02 PM
When you scan the thread titles quickly, this appears to read 'Wikileaks founders sex changes leaked'. :o
I winder why we don't just bump him off. Even the Obama Admin for all their talk before his election have shown they are willing to kill people with no due process (that's what using a drone attack on a "high value target" is, after all.
If you can bump off some AQ guy who might not actually kill people, but instead, um, manages the AQ website and propaganda, then why not Assange?
What's the difference?
Tribesman
02-04-11, 04:07 PM
this appears to read 'Wikileaks founders sex changes leaked.
That is the real story, he released the cables to publicise his book to raise money for the operation.
He is trying to delay the extradition until the op and then get it thrown out by claiming he is now Julie-ann.
They need a reason to accuse him. Any reason.
The oldest rule, "destroy a man publicly, before you kill him".
Imagine how many people now think that Assange is a criminal, even if he is set free this will always haunt him.
Greetings,
Catfish
I thought he was a criminal before these allegations surfaced.
Skybird
02-04-11, 05:03 PM
Haven'T we been here before, in a thread some weeks ago aboiut Assange'S sex charges? There I pointed out that the laws in Sweden are such that a woman that is not feeling well after intercourse (or at least claims that), can sue her partner for rape. As a male you can get into trouble just because the woman makes up her mind - afterwards.
I think they are nuts up there.
Edit:
P.S. Here it is. I knew I already had put it on the table:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1550300&postcount=186
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1555988&postcount=274
Platapus
02-04-11, 05:59 PM
Having sex with a woman who is unconscious is pretty creepy in any context. :nope:
Excuse me, I feel the need to wash my hands after reading about this guy. ewww
What a creapazoid. :nope:
Dunno about Swedish law, but from the international "guy law" this guy sounds like a loser. :nope: Porking women when they are unconscious is totally lame. :yep:
Catfish
02-04-11, 06:05 PM
I thought he was a criminal before these allegations surfaced.
No he was not, but see how this stuff already works ?
Sun Tzu at its finest :-?
Greetings,
Catfish
P.S. If you probably mean that he is a criminal for making the stuff public in this wikileaks, i guess all witnesses of concentration camps spreading the word should also have been silenced ? Well, it has been tried :shifty:
They need a reason to accuse him. Any reason.
The oldest rule, "destroy a man publicly, before you kill him".
Imagine how many people now think that Assange is a criminal, even if he is set free this will always haunt him.
Greetings,
Catfish
Reminds me of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nAJk_gdXwrs) :O:
No he was not, but see how this stuff already works ?
Sun Tzu at its finest :-?
My dear departed Father was fond of a saying, which I shall not repeat here, that addressed the concept that everyone has an opinion just like they have certain body parts. It fits perfectly.
P.S. If you probably mean that he is a criminal for making the stuff public in this wikileaks, i guess all witnesses of concentration camps spreading the word should also have been silenced ? Well, it has been tried :shifty:Godwins law. If you have to invoke the nazis then you have already lost the debate. Assange isn't fit to shine a concentration camp survivors shoes.
bookworm_020
02-04-11, 08:13 PM
I agree that he is a moral deprived scumbag, but the case has many holes, signs of policital grandstanding and all sides contradict themselves and each other.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/assanges-extradition-may-turn-on-a-crayfish-party-20110204-1aguk.html
Sailor Steve
02-04-11, 08:17 PM
Godwins law. If you have to invoke the nazis then you have already lost the debate.
As I recall, Godwin's law only describes the correlation between the length of the debate and the likelyhood of Nazis being invoked.
I think you meant 'August's Law'. :D
Sailor Steve
02-04-11, 08:26 PM
For once I disagree with Frau on the "Rape" charge. Though the courts seem to be waffling.
It is clear that the night before sex was consensual. That doesn't make rape the next morning okay - far from it. But was it rape? Did he he start while she was asleep? Obviously. But did he know that? Was she responding in her sleep? Did he know that? The only problem she seemed to have with it at the time was the condom question.
I'm not arguing one way or the other. It just seems to me that it's not entirely cut-and-dried. In other words, I don't know. But the behaviour of both of them seems questionable to me.
As I recall, Godwin's law only describes the correlation between the length of the debate and the likelyhood of Nazis being invoked.
I think you meant 'August's Law'. :D
Two pages isn't sufficient?
Then how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Sailor Steve
02-04-11, 08:39 PM
Two pages isn't sufficient?
Then how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
To be fair (and clear), all I was trying to say was that Godwin's Law itself doesn't say anything about losing the argument just by bringing up Hitler. That is arguably true, but Godwin didn't say it.
the_tyrant
02-04-11, 08:42 PM
break it up now old guys:O:
[conspiracy rant]It is really possible that wikileaks falsely leaked false information regarding assange's charges, to get sympathy. After all, they already have enough "street cred"[/conspiracy rant]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
To be fair (and clear), all I was trying to say was that Godwin's Law itself doesn't say anything about losing the argument just by bringing up Hitler. That is arguably true, but Godwin didn't say it.
A mere detail. Comparing my simple statement that I think Assange is a criminal to stopping concentration camp survivors pretty much counts, as the wiki quote you posted clearly shows:
there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law.
See? I'm just following established forum tradition here! :DL
Sailor Steve
02-04-11, 09:23 PM
Well, here's an older one: YOU'RE WRONG, JUST 'CAUSE I SAYS SO!!! :O:
Tchocky
02-05-11, 07:57 AM
I winder why we don't just bump him off. Even the Obama Admin for all their talk before his election have shown they are willing to kill people with no due process (that's what using a drone attack on a "high value target" is, after all.
If you can bump off some AQ guy who might not actually kill people, but instead, um, manages the AQ website and propaganda, then why not Assange?
What's the difference?
Thank god, the asteroid barely missed us, we're alive!
Now let's go burn down the observatory so this never happens again.
DarkFish
02-05-11, 08:47 AM
See? I'm just following established forum tradition here! :DLwell, needing to rely on "forum tradition" does say something about the validity of your arguments, doesn't it? IMO it's quite a bit cowardly to do so, and personally I think someone using Godwin's law to try to "win" a discussion should automatically lose it.
No matter in which words you pack it, Godwin's law doesn't say anything about the real validity of ones arguments.
well, needing to rely on "forum tradition" does say something about the validity of your arguments, doesn't it? IMO it's quite a bit cowardly to do so, and personally I think someone using Godwin's law to try to "win" a discussion should automatically lose it.
No matter in which words you pack it, Godwin's law doesn't say anything about the real validity of ones arguments.
I'm glad you think so. That says a lot about you too.
Thank god, the asteroid barely missed us, we're alive!
Now let's go burn down the observatory so this never happens again.
Simpsons ?
Platapus
02-05-11, 09:47 AM
(reminiscing)
Ya know, I remember when this thread was about Assange.
Those were the days. :D
(reminiscing)
Ya know, I remember when this thread was about Assange.
Those were the days. :D
Good point, but whatever you do don't say anything negative about the little creep or somebody with the word fish in his name will call you a nazi!
Thank god, the asteroid barely missed us, we're alive!
Now let's go burn down the observatory so this never happens again.
He has a negative effect on US interests. If it harms the prosecution of the war on the Islamists that love to attack us, then he's aiding them every but as much as if he worked for AQ.
He meets any rational definition of a "high value target" to me. He should get invited someplace like Yemen to give a talk, then have an unfortunate accident. ;)
Platapus
02-05-11, 10:15 AM
Good point, but whatever you do don't say anything negative about the little creep or somebody with the word fish in his name will call you a nazi!
One should never wrestle with a pig in mud. Both parties get dirty and you soon realize that the pig enjoyed it more than you did. :know:
krashkart
02-05-11, 10:20 AM
Did anyone notice the subtle title change? XD
UnderseaLcpl
02-05-11, 10:33 AM
Did anyone notice the subtle title change? XD
I noticed that it still says "sex changes". Any thread that has "sex" in the title is probably interesting, right?
Sadly, I do not have enough information on this topic to form an opinion. However, that will not keep me from +1:yeah:
One should never wrestle with a pig in mud. Both parties get dirty and you soon realize that the pig enjoyed it more than you did. :know:
Touche' :DL
Platapus
02-05-11, 10:48 AM
Touche' :DL
There you go with your high falutin latin stuff again. :D
DarkFish
02-05-11, 12:36 PM
Good point, but whatever you do don't say anything negative about the little creep or somebody with the word fish in his name will call you a nazi!Excuse me? Did I ever call you a Nazi?
All I did was comment on how you misused Godwin's law in order to not having to provide any counterarguments to a very valid point Catfish raised. "You used the word Nazi so no matter how valid your point is, I win and I don't have to provide any arguments for it."
So now you turn towards even dirtier debating techniques, and falsely accuse me of calling you a Nazi. Well, nice discussing with you. You don't want to (or cannot?) provide any arguments for your claim, so you completely misuse a certain rule so you don't have to. When someone points out your way of "winning" a debate is completely flawed, he's a Nazi.:nope::nope::nope:
One should never wrestle with a pig in mud. Both parties get dirty and you soon realize that the pig enjoyed it more than you did. :know:Ah so now I'm a pig? A trolling pig?:nope:
GoldenRivet
02-05-11, 12:59 PM
the assange issue is a simple one
there are those who think him a hero because he exposed national secrets.
and there are those who consider him a criminal because the exposure of those secrets has resulted in people being killed.
i tend to agree with the second group.
the problem with the concentration camp comment is that he was NOT performing the good deed of exposing the United States as having massive camps in which they were killing Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, handicapped and mentally deficient people.
he WAS exposing vital and important information to the our enemies.
DarkFish
02-05-11, 01:55 PM
the assange issue is a simple one
there are those who think him a hero because he exposed national secrets.
and there are those who consider him a criminal because the exposure of those secrets has resulted in people being killed.I wonder if the number of people killed as a result of the leaked intel exceeds 0. I do know that the number of people killed by the US that Wikileaks revealed does exceed 0. Therefore I think you'd better change the issue into:
there are those who think him a hero because he exposed national secrets.
and there are those who consider him a criminal because he exposed national secrets.
the problem with the concentration camp comment is that he was NOT performing the good deed of exposing the United States as having massive camps in which they were killing Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, handicapped and mentally deficient people.You make a valid point here.
But he DID expose the US as having killed innocent people (UAV incident anyone?)
he WAS exposing vital and important information to the our enemies.I wonder how vital and important most of the revealed information really is in the hands of the enemy.
Excuse me? Did I ever call you a Nazi?
No you didn't. You're not the fish that I was referring to. Looking to get insulted much? Try some reading comprehension next time.
So now you turn towards even dirtier debating techniques, and falsely accuse me of calling you a Nazi. Well, nice discussing with you.What discussion? You commented on something that I said to another person about a third person, neither of which was you. That's not a discussion.
You don't want to (or cannot?) provide any arguments for your claimWhat claim? I said that I think that Assange is a criminal. Am I not entitled to my opinion? How about you show why you think my opinion means that I also favor silencing concentration camp survivors like Catfish implied.
All I did was comment on how you misused Godwin's law in order to not having to provide any counterarguments to a very valid point Catfish raised.Right, valid point. The way I see it you made a totally inaccurate statement and called me a coward. I don't see much in the way of counterarguments or justification in that either.
When someone points out your way of "winning" a debate is completely flawed, he's a Nazi.:nope::nope::nope:Now you're just making things up. Show me where I have called anyone a nazi, especially you.
Ah so now I'm a pig? A trolling pig?:nope:Only if you really want to be because he was not referring to any specific individual, most certainly not you but that's ok you go ahead and feel insulted.
Jimbuna
02-05-11, 03:10 PM
Here was me thinking he was changing his sexual orientation/gender :doh:
Having read the link I think there is something 'not quite right' about both of them....something odd going or having gone on.
Freiwillige
02-05-11, 03:13 PM
(reminiscing)
Ya know, I remember when this thread was about Assange.
Those were the days. :D
For the WIN!:up: Made me LOL.
Platapus
02-05-11, 04:15 PM
Ah so now I'm a pig? A trolling pig?:nope:
Did I call you a pig?
The same advice applies equally to you.
One should never wrestle with a pig in mud. Both parties get dirty and you soon realize that the pig enjoyed it more than you did. :know:
Did I call you a pig?
The same advice applies equally to you.
One should never wrestle with a pig in mud. Both parties get dirty and you soon realize that the pig enjoyed it more than you did. :know:
Oh er, ahem,... Ah so now I'm a pig? A trolling pig?:nope:
:DL
Catfish
02-05-11, 05:06 PM
Good point, but whatever you do don't say anything negative about the little creep or somebody with the word fish in his name will call you a nazi!
Ah yes, i may be a pig, or a fish. But this was Platapus who called me that, anyway.
Back to topic:
What i mean is that you seem to like to kill the messenger rather than the people who obviously did commit crimes. Ah yes, for the greater good, i know.
This has been the excuse for a$$holes for milleniums, and is in no way different from today's China, or North Corea.
But honestly, to all people who raise their voice here to kill Assange via your neat devices like predator drones, or whatever:
This is so cowardly you cannot even imagine what I think of you :yep:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/predadork.jpg
:O:
Thanks for reading,
Catfish
This is so cowardly you cannot even imagine what I think of you :yep:
Call me a coward to my face and you won't have to imagine what I think of you sir. :yep:
krashkart
02-05-11, 05:21 PM
Here was me thinking he was changing his sexual orientation/gender :doh:
Having read the link I think there is something 'not quite right' about both of them....something odd going or having gone on.
It keeps getting better and better, Jim. :DL
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=3636
:har:
NeonSamurai
02-05-11, 05:22 PM
I'm not going to have to put you all in the time out corner am I?
Tchocky
02-05-11, 05:29 PM
Ah, sex flounders.
krashkart
02-05-11, 05:37 PM
But honestly, to all people who raise their voice here to kill Assange via your neat devices like predator drones, or whatever:
Blowing him up with an armed drone just seems too obvious. If the gubmint really wants him dead he'll just disappear under mysterious circumstances. That would be my guess, anyway. :yep:
gimpy117
02-05-11, 05:37 PM
Ah, sex flounders.
I don't think i wanna see one of those
Platapus
02-05-11, 07:15 PM
What i mean is that you seem to like to kill the messenger rather than the people who obviously did commit crimes.
When the messenger breaks laws in delivering his message, then yes, I believe he needs to be punished. I assume the phrase "killing the messenger" is only a cliche. I don't feel that any crimes Assange may have committed warrant the death penalty. :nope:
The crimes committed by all parties are totally separate from each other. It may be true that crimes were committed by the government officials. If so, then they should be brought to trial and evidence presented and evaluated.
However, any crimes that the government officials may or may not have committed are totally independent of the crimes Assange may or may not have committed.
A consequentialist viewpoint in this context is not appropriate in my opinion.
Platapus
02-05-11, 07:19 PM
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/predadork.jpg
:yeah: Awesome!
I guess the Predadork is the contemporary manifestation of what we called Wizzos. Wizzos were weapons control officers. They road, as cargo, in the back seat of two seater such as the F-4. Wizzos were notorious for trying to pass themselves off as pilots to impress people, especially baghags.
I had the misfortune to working next to a wizzo during an exercise in Korea. I just wanted to tell him "dude, you ain't got no radiator! You are a Wizzo!"
The more things change, the more they stay the same. :up:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.