Wikileak's sex flounders charges leaked. - Page 2

02-04-11, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

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

August · 02-04-11, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.

Quote:

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

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...204-1aguk.html

Sailor Steve · 02-04-11, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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'.

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.

August · 02-04-11, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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'.

Two pages isn't sufficient?

Then how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Sailor Steve · 02-04-11, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Two pages isn't sufficient?

Then how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Quote:

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

[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]

August · 02-04-11, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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:

Quote:

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!

Sailor Steve · 02-04-11, 09:23 PM

Well, here's an older one: YOU'RE WRONG, JUST 'CAUSE I SAYS SO!!!

Tchocky · 02-05-11, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

See? I'm just following established forum tradition here!

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.

August · 02-05-11, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.

Morts · 02-05-11, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.

02-04-11, 08:13 PM	#18
bookworm_020 Navy Seal Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sinking ships off the Australian coast Posts: 5,966 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	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...204-1aguk.html __________________ "There is always one person in any organization who knows whats going on, That person must be fired"

02-04-11, 08:26 PM	#20
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	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. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

02-04-11, 08:42 PM	#23
the_tyrant Admiral Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 2,272 Downloads: 58 Uploads: 0	break it up now old guys [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] __________________ My own open source project on Sourceforge OTP.net KGB grade encryption for the rest of us

02-04-11, 09:23 PM	#25
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Well, here's an older one: YOU'RE WRONG, JUST 'CAUSE I SAYS SO!!! __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

02-05-11, 09:47 AM	#30
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,362 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	(reminiscing) Ya know, I remember when this thread was about Assange. Those were the days. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.