5 ms·

I do think it's likely that, assault or not, Assange behaved in an unaceptable way toward these women. He has often been quoted mentioning that he has children

I do think it's likely that, assault or not, Assange behaved in an unaceptable way toward these women. He has often been quoted mentioning that he has children all over the world with various women. Surreptitiously removing a condom would be in character. If true, his attitude reminds me of Jeff Epstein's plan to "seed the human race with his DNA" by impregnanting a bunch of women on a ranch he owned. These people see their own supposed genius as justification for violating moral norms. You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda.

raxxorrax 7y ago
Or the fuckingham palace apparently.
harry8 7y ago
>"Surreptitiously removing a condom would be in character." You provide zero evidence for that naked assertion. > it's not all propaganda. If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks. What I'm doing is what you're doing and what everyone should do: synthesize information into an opinion. I don't claim knowledge, but I have a model of the world, of how people act, and I'm feeding various information into that model and using it to generate an opinion. You have a different model and you've generated a different opinion. That's fine. But to conclude that people can't form certain opinions absent evidence is naive. Human beings are not courts of law. I made no comment about whether Assange should be convicted in a court of law. I only said that I think he did something wrong and that, if I'm right, I see his behavior as representative of a pattern wherein certain people view themselves as above normative morality.
  - harry8 7y ago
    I disagree on the strongest possible way with your characterisation of what you are doing based on reading of it. Information. The lack of it are key. Let us leave it at that.
seamyb88 7y ago
It would not matter one fuck were he a murdering, misogynist, insert horrible personality types here. The discussion is not about his personal attractiveness, but a selection of a few of his actions relating to wikileaks. You know nothing about him raping, I know nothing about him raping, but we all know the US government murdered people, covered it up and all we're stuck here talking about is raping. This isn't Richard Stallman 2.0. Assange told you something that nobody denies is true. He's not head of GNU, let the rape allegations be dealt with by the appropriate people. Your job as somebody talking about Assange is to say, "yea, that shit he told us was terrible, something should be done." Not "he might take his fucking condoms off".
- leftyted 7y ago
  Did you make it to the end of my post? > You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda. Anyway, I agree with you that the release of the "collateral murder" video was a good thing. But I strongly disagree with the idea that I "shouldn't have an opinion about certain things that are beyond my purview" or whatever you're saying.

raxxorrax 7y ago

Or the fuckingham palace apparently.

harry8 7y ago

>"Surreptitiously removing a condom would be in character." You provide zero evidence for that naked assertion. > it's not all propaganda. If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks.

leftyted 7y ago
> If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks. What I'm doing is what you're doing and what everyone should do: synthesize information into an opinion. I don't claim knowledge, but I have a model of the world, of how people act, and I'm feeding various information into that model and using it to generate an opinion. You have a different model and you've generated a different opinion. That's fine. But to conclude that people can't form certain opinions absent evidence is naive. Human beings are not courts of law. I made no comment about whether Assange should be convicted in a court of law. I only said that I think he did something wrong and that, if I'm right, I see his behavior as representative of a pattern wherein certain people view themselves as above normative morality.
- harry8 7y ago
  I disagree on the strongest possible way with your characterisation of what you are doing based on reading of it. Information. The lack of it are key. Let us leave it at that.

seamyb88 7y ago

It would not matter one fuck were he a murdering, misogynist, insert horrible personality types here. The discussion is not about his personal attractiveness, but a selection of a few of his actions relating to wikileaks. You know nothing about him raping, I know nothing about him raping, but we all know the US government murdered people, covered it up and all we're stuck here talking about is raping. This isn't Richard Stallman 2.0. Assange told you something that nobody denies is true. He's not head of GNU, let the rape allegations be dealt with by the appropriate people. Your job as somebody talking about Assange is to say, "yea, that shit he told us was terrible, something should be done." Not "he might take his fucking condoms off".

leftyted 7y ago
Did you make it to the end of my post? > You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda. Anyway, I agree with you that the release of the "collateral murder" video was a good thing. But I strongly disagree with the idea that I "shouldn't have an opinion about certain things that are beyond my purview" or whatever you're saying.