WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
Watch this for more information...
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
It is perfectly normal that the US govt doesn't want all its diplomatic cables to be made public. The whole "if they are taking action against it they have something to hide" annoys me. Of course they have something to hide, including to their citizens: discretion is the basis of diplomacy, and every state in the world has reasons to be concerned if all the discussion between its ambassy, diplomats and foreign relation-related cables are suddenly made public. It doesn't mean they are doing something evil or that there is some scandal waiting to be revealed. If everything you say is made public, there is no diplomacy anymore at all.
And of course the US govt is spending money to protect the confidentiality of its secrets documents. And for Christ sake, will people stop with "money of the taxpayer"? It's the money of the State, period, and if the government judges that they should do something with it, like for example, fight an organization that is putting them in trouble, they are perfectly entitled to do so. That's what you pay taxes for: having a good and safe diplomacy.
Furthermore, wikileaks hasn't revealed anything really embarassing about american diplomacy. If anything, we have learnt that american diplomacy under the Obama administration is extremely professional and pragmatic, which is a rather good news.
I have no opinion about Assange, although I respect his position towards the USA. And I really do not think that the US are behind this sex scandal.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
It is perfectly normal that the US govt doesn't want all its diplomatic cables to be made public. The whole "if they are taking action against it they have something to hide" annoys me. Of course they have something to hide, including to their citizens: discretion is the basis of diplomacy, and every state in the world has reasons to be concerned if all the discussion between its ambassy, diplomats and foreign relation-related cables are suddenly made public. It doesn't mean they are doing something evil or that there is some scandal waiting to be revealed. If everything you say is made public, there is no diplomacy anymore at all.
And of course the US govt is spending money to protect the confidentiality of its secrets documents. And for Christ sake, will people stop with "money of the taxpayer"? It's the money of the State, period, and if the government judges that they should do something with it, like for example, fight an organization that is putting them in trouble, they are perfectly entitled to do so. That's what you pay taxes for: having a good and safe diplomacy.
Furthermore, wikileaks hasn't revealed anything really embarassing about american diplomacy. If anything, we have learnt that american diplomacy under the Obama administration is extremely professional and pragmatic, which is a rather good news.
I have no opinion about Assange, although I respect his position towards the USA. And I really do not think that the US are behind this sex scandal.
Whether you like it or not, it is the money of the taxpayer.
On September 30 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 29 2012 13:43 Silidons wrote:
On September 29 2012 02:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On September 29 2012 02:26 Silidons wrote:
On September 28 2012 03:38 Guanyin wrote:
On September 28 2012 02:21 Voltaire wrote:
On September 27 2012 14:23 Probe1 wrote:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
It is perfectly normal that the US govt doesn't want all its diplomatic cables to be made public. The whole "if they are taking action against it they have something to hide" annoys me. Of course they have something to hide, including to their citizens: discretion is the basis of diplomacy, and every state in the world has reasons to be concerned if all the discussion between its ambassy, diplomats and foreign relation-related cables are suddenly made public. It doesn't mean they are doing something evil or that there is some scandal waiting to be revealed. If everything you say is made public, there is no diplomacy anymore at all.
And of course the US govt is spending money to protect the confidentiality of its secrets documents. And for Christ sake, will people stop with "money of the taxpayer"? It's the money of the State, period, and if the government judges that they should do something with it, like for example, fight an organization that is putting them in trouble, they are perfectly entitled to do so. That's what you pay taxes for: having a good and safe diplomacy.
Furthermore, wikileaks hasn't revealed anything really embarassing about american diplomacy. If anything, we have learnt that american diplomacy under the Obama administration is extremely professional and pragmatic, which is a rather good news.
I have no opinion about Assange, although I respect his position towards the USA. And I really do not think that the US are behind this sex scandal.
Whether you like it or not, it is the money of the taxpayer.
And?
You pay taxes for having a good diplomacy. Protecting secret cables is part of having a good diplomacy. So that's what you pay your taxes for.
On September 30 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 29 2012 13:43 Silidons wrote:
On September 29 2012 02:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On September 29 2012 02:26 Silidons wrote:
On September 28 2012 03:38 Guanyin wrote:
On September 28 2012 02:21 Voltaire wrote:
On September 27 2012 14:23 Probe1 wrote:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
It is perfectly normal that the US govt doesn't want all its diplomatic cables to be made public. The whole "if they are taking action against it they have something to hide" annoys me. Of course they have something to hide, including to their citizens: discretion is the basis of diplomacy, and every state in the world has reasons to be concerned if all the discussion between its ambassy, diplomats and foreign relation-related cables are suddenly made public. It doesn't mean they are doing something evil or that there is some scandal waiting to be revealed. If everything you say is made public, there is no diplomacy anymore at all.
And of course the US govt is spending money to protect the confidentiality of its secrets documents. And for Christ sake, will people stop with "money of the taxpayer"? It's the money of the State, period, and if the government judges that they should do something with it, like for example, fight an organization that is putting them in trouble, they are perfectly entitled to do so. That's what you pay taxes for: having a good and safe diplomacy.
Furthermore, wikileaks hasn't revealed anything really embarassing about american diplomacy. If anything, we have learnt that american diplomacy under the Obama administration is extremely professional and pragmatic, which is a rather good news.
I have no opinion about Assange, although I respect his position towards the USA. And I really do not think that the US are behind this sex scandal.
Whether you like it or not, it is the money of the taxpayer.
And?
You pay taxes for having a good diplomacy. Protecting secret cables is part of having a good diplomacy. So that's what you pay your taxes for.
Easy.
I think the point is that especially the US diplomacy has been made up of so many "dark deals" in the past decades that the emphasis of "good diplomacy" should be more on trying to be honest and of trying to make good deals ... for both sides. There are too many things which the US did in the past to list them, but they have included lots of dictatorships and quite a few wars and the world would be better off without such "Now look here guys, we have the biggest guns/wallets and you should do as we want you to" kind of diplomacy. Thus it actually is good that those diplomats get a little warning shot by Wikileaks and rethink their behaviour.
The key question is: What are you willing to do to keep a secret? The "lawless prison" at Guantanamo bay is a good example of where the US diplomacy failed to adhere to its own standards and where even a change in government didnt produce the promised change ... because keeping that prison would be easier than admitting to being wrong.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Why don't you just look around you and make interesting obesrvation about the ratio man / women in high responsability jobs, the difference of salary, etc etc etc
The burden of proof is on the person who wishes to establish a claim. It's a bold claim that we live in a male-dominated society, and you need a lot of evidence to back it up, not just "look around". I've already debunked the two examples you gave in my response to Euronyme.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And you probably aren't looking around if you don't notice how women are treated in the street and basically everywhere by horny losers.
Anecdotal evidence makes for poor evidence. That said, I would argue that the treatment of women by "horny losers" mostly implies that women are in a position of sexual power, the same way that the negative treatment of the 1% in the street mostly implies that the 1% are in a position of economic power.
On September 29 2012 02:21 Biff The Understudy wrote: Thinking that we are in a female dominnated society today is just puzzling. It's like saying black people have the power in America (Obama doesn't change anything)
Thinking we're not in a male-dominated society does not imply thinking we're in a female-dominated society. Our society is neither male-dominated nor female-dominated. Rather, it is a society where both men and women are sexually discriminated against in different ways. Unlike racial privilege, which is unidirectional, sexual privilege is a two way street in which there are both advantages and disadvantages for either gender.
Please close this ffing thread already. Every time it pops up I get a heart attack thinking that some drastic arrest has been made and it will be all over the news....only to find this was made 2 years ago
On September 30 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 29 2012 13:43 Silidons wrote:
On September 29 2012 02:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On September 29 2012 02:26 Silidons wrote:
On September 28 2012 03:38 Guanyin wrote:
On September 28 2012 02:21 Voltaire wrote:
On September 27 2012 14:23 Probe1 wrote:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
It is perfectly normal that the US govt doesn't want all its diplomatic cables to be made public. The whole "if they are taking action against it they have something to hide" annoys me. Of course they have something to hide, including to their citizens: discretion is the basis of diplomacy, and every state in the world has reasons to be concerned if all the discussion between its ambassy, diplomats and foreign relation-related cables are suddenly made public. It doesn't mean they are doing something evil or that there is some scandal waiting to be revealed. If everything you say is made public, there is no diplomacy anymore at all.
And of course the US govt is spending money to protect the confidentiality of its secrets documents. And for Christ sake, will people stop with "money of the taxpayer"? It's the money of the State, period, and if the government judges that they should do something with it, like for example, fight an organization that is putting them in trouble, they are perfectly entitled to do so. That's what you pay taxes for: having a good and safe diplomacy.
Furthermore, wikileaks hasn't revealed anything really embarassing about american diplomacy. If anything, we have learnt that american diplomacy under the Obama administration is extremely professional and pragmatic, which is a rather good news.
I have no opinion about Assange, although I respect his position towards the USA. And I really do not think that the US are behind this sex scandal.
Whether you like it or not, it is the money of the taxpayer.
And?
You pay taxes for having a good diplomacy. Protecting secret cables is part of having a good diplomacy. So that's what you pay your taxes for.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
The CEO claim does not fall under the apex fallacy, as I said that an overwhelming majority of CEOs are men. Not that all men are CEOs. The fact that CEOs are men and politicians are men means that men basically rule the world, albeit a select group of a couple of million individuals. I would very much so like you to back your claims on women having equal or higher wages overall than men. I highly doubt that.
On December 07 2010 19:55 Nixda wrote: Hm, this is big news.
So many countries want revenge for what he did, hard to imagine he'll face a completely fair and unbiased trial.
Why? Juries are made up by random people and I doubt a random jury of Swedes would feel and overwhelming need to convict an innocent man in order to do the U.S. a favor.
-_-; The Jury system is not used anywhere in continental Europe. Only in the UK.
In Europe the judge passes sentence. Is it better ? Yes and no.
Obviously 1 person is more easily corruptible than 20 however i would rather have a judge with years of experience pass judgement rather than 20 random people taken off the streets. I honestly don't think that the average person is intelligent enough in most cases.
That's why the jury is required to come to a consensus. You can't have 9 members voting one way and 11 voting the other.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
Care to tell me how put anyone in danger for example?
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
The CEO claim does not fall under the apex fallacy, as I said that an overwhelming majority of CEOs are men. Not that all men are CEOs.
Nobody said you claimed all men are CEOs. That would just be a case of the fallacy of being completely wrong, and it's a non sequitur. You haven't actually defended yourself against the apex fallacy here, only repeated your claim.
I would very much so like you to back your claims on women having equal or higher wages overall than men. I highly doubt that.
He didn't underline for emphasis, that's a hyperlink to another post that's full of references.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa?
On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote: kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa?
Him being from the U.S. and saying our troops is the same as you being from Germany and saying your troops, I don't get what you checked him on...
And you should care for American troops because they're human. Just because people aren't German, or because they are American, you think you don't have to care for their lives? That sounds pretty fucked up to me.
And don't blame the troops for the war. It's the governments that decide to put them out there. They are just doing their jobs. Some of them might like killing, and that's bad, but some of them are scared shitless and just want to survive. They aren't murderers by choice, as much as protectors being used poorly by the people they are trying to protect.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
Firstly, you're working with a misunderstanding of who the Iraq and Afghan war logs ostensibly put at risk. They could never have put US soldiers at risk, because the most recent documents published were over 6 months old. There was never any information like tipping off al-Qaeda or the Taliban to a raid. The soldiers are always at risk because they're the white people wearing US uniforms. The enemy doesn't need help finding where US troops are.
The main criticism was the potential risk to civilians/informants whose names appeared in the documents, but were redacted by Wikileaks' meticulous policies for minimizing risk when publishing leaked files. And here again, nobody (the Pentagon has said this) has been able to point to anyone who was put in danger.
It's not a case of "how could it not put people in danger?" it's a case of show me the people who were harmed if you think there were any, because Wikileaks took very careful measures to ensure nobody would be harmed. You can't just say "these documents are secret because they protect national security" and then when the documents get leaked say "oh the release of these documents jeopardizes security." You have to demonstrate why, and nobody has done that convincingly, and this is 2 years after the leak (we aren't even in Iraq anymore).
On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote: kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa?
Him being from the U.S. and saying our troops is the same as you being from Germany and saying your troops, I don't get what you checked him on...
And you should care for American troops because they're human. Just because people aren't German, or because they are American, you think you don't have to care for their lives? That sounds pretty fucked up to me.
And don't blame the troops for the war. It's the governments that decide to put them out there. They are just doing their jobs. Some of them might like killing, and that's bad, but some of them are scared shitless and just want to survive. They aren't murderers by choice, as much as protectors being used poorly by the people they are trying to protect.
I'm pretty sure the US army is voluntary? So they're in fact murderers by choice. These are men murdering innocent civilian men, women and children every day and laugh about it. This is what Wikileaks has published, and it's what the American media has sourly failed to achieve. Publishing war crimes should never be a criminal act, yet the war criminals are treated much more gentle than the person making the public aware of these atrocious acts.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
The CEO claim does not fall under the apex fallacy, as I said that an overwhelming majority of CEOs are men. Not that all men are CEOs.
Nobody said you claimed all men are CEOs. That would just be a case of the fallacy of being completely wrong, and it's a non sequitur. You haven't actually defended yourself against the apex fallacy here, only repeated your claim.
I would very much so like you to back your claims on women having equal or higher wages overall than men. I highly doubt that.
He didn't underline for emphasis, that's a hyperlink to another post that's full of references.
He called on the apex fallacy which is, and I quote: "Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group." which would point out that just because nearly all CEOs are men, very few men are actually CEOs. That's not the point I made, and that's why I cleared it up.
The links are indeed interesting, but I've read opposite numbers as well (after adjustment of field of work, education and experience) that points the other way.
EPT
