7 ms·

What a disgrace. He did humanity a favor with the difficult decision to shine the lights on the horrific war-crimes committed by the U.S. The people in the U.S

What a disgrace. He did humanity a favor with the difficult decision to shine the lights on the horrific war-crimes committed by the U.S. The people in the U.S government who want him silenced for this, or even dead, should take his place, and he should be set free.

dontbenebby 4y ago
- fit2rule 4y ago
- Ygg2 4y ago
  Even if, everything you wrote is true. This sets up a horrible precedent. Sure today Jullian Assange. Tomorrow a future-Watergate journalist. And after that anyone that dissents.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    This isn't a precedent. There's been some extraditions for decades, each a case with specific details. This is also one case with specific details. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
    - dontbenebby 4y ago
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent. They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist. Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense. "And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example. The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme). So I don't think I ignored any valid points. Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct. Feel free to tell me which points were valid.
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      EU politicians believe it will. Other leakers also agreed it would set a dangerous precedent. What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange-detention-sets-dangerous-precedent-for-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange... Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. Tell me if this sounds familiar. A law is made that targets heinous individuals. Then that law is broadened. Eventually everyone that law is used to target ordinary people or critics. E.g. civil forfeiture laws. Designed to seize organized crime assests. Eventually used to shake down innocent people. Was it used first to shakedown an innocent man? Nah. I'm pretty sure along the way it's use was broadened bit by bit.
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. >Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. I don't even know how to respond - maybe see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ? If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi". If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim. Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.
        Ygg2 4y ago
        > That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? > I don't even know how to respond Double check it. > slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
gadders 4y ago
- geysersam 4y ago
  Shady dealings such as? (I'm genuinely curious. Not American, and I found it difficult to follow that story when it broke.)
  - ttybird2 4y ago
    I have not read the leaks myself but as far as I know it was about sabotaging Sanders' campaign.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      As despicable as this was, it was all the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign. The irrational Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton is absolutely ridiculous and without remotely resembling anything rational or honest. It was a campaign of bullying, hatred and sexism, and ignorance won. The character assassination of Hillary Clinton, the election of President Trump, and the January 6 Insurrection, all stand to embarrass our nation on the international stage. The World turns it's lonely eyes to America, for inspiration, as a roll model, and we just screwed the pooch. If America was a conscious entity, it'd wish it could just curl up and die of embarrassment for the Republican shenanigans over the last 6-7 years. If everyone would simply ignore all other distractions and vote in their personal economic interests, we'd never see another Republican elected to any office, and our economy would boom like we've never seen. But the ignorance and hatred is strong, so our economy will struggle while the uber rich continue to desperately consolidate the vast majority of the wealth into the hands of the minuscule few.
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        Starting with an assumption that Republicans have a goal of winning elections isn't it pretty rational for them for do character assassination and not irrational? The average voter isn't going to fact check your attack ads.
dbbk 4y ago
What was the UK gonna do, say no? That wasn't really an option.
- belter 4y ago
  They could have started by saying, send us Anne Sacoolas first. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-extradition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-a...
  - tailspin2019 4y ago
    Was just going to post the same! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
  - PhantomBKB 4y ago
    Uk is a puppet of the USA. They are in no position to make any demands
    - notavalleyman 4y ago
      Why do you think that? The two most recent American administrations have been seemingly polar opposites. It would be weird for the UK PM, who has seen both POTUS, to have been a puppet of both of them
      - hulitu 4y ago
        Maybe from an US point of view. From a foreigner perspective is that the new US president does not scream to other european liders like the old one did.
        notavalleyman 4y ago
        So you're saying that Trump and Biden are part of the same "team" puppeting Boris Johnson, but Biden is the quieter one, from a European perspective... But if they're the same team, then why did Trump mind losing the election, why the big lie, why attempt a coup? If he was just handing over control to his quieter teammate. The whole thing makes no sense to me

dontbenebby 4y ago

fit2rule 4y ago
Ygg2 4y ago
Even if, everything you wrote is true. This sets up a horrible precedent. Sure today Jullian Assange. Tomorrow a future-Watergate journalist. And after that anyone that dissents.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  This isn't a precedent. There's been some extraditions for decades, each a case with specific details. This is also one case with specific details. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
  - dontbenebby 4y ago
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent. They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist. Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense. "And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example. The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme). So I don't think I ignored any valid points. Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct. Feel free to tell me which points were valid.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    EU politicians believe it will. Other leakers also agreed it would set a dangerous precedent. What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange-detention-sets-dangerous-precedent-for-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange... Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. Tell me if this sounds familiar. A law is made that targets heinous individuals. Then that law is broadened. Eventually everyone that law is used to target ordinary people or critics. E.g. civil forfeiture laws. Designed to seize organized crime assests. Eventually used to shake down innocent people. Was it used first to shakedown an innocent man? Nah. I'm pretty sure along the way it's use was broadened bit by bit.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. >Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. I don't even know how to respond - maybe see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ? If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi". If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim. Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.
      - Ygg2 4y ago
        > That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? > I don't even know how to respond Double check it. > slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?

gadders 4y ago

geysersam 4y ago
Shady dealings such as? (I'm genuinely curious. Not American, and I found it difficult to follow that story when it broke.)
- ttybird2 4y ago
  I have not read the leaks myself but as far as I know it was about sabotaging Sanders' campaign.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    As despicable as this was, it was all the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign. The irrational Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton is absolutely ridiculous and without remotely resembling anything rational or honest. It was a campaign of bullying, hatred and sexism, and ignorance won. The character assassination of Hillary Clinton, the election of President Trump, and the January 6 Insurrection, all stand to embarrass our nation on the international stage. The World turns it's lonely eyes to America, for inspiration, as a roll model, and we just screwed the pooch. If America was a conscious entity, it'd wish it could just curl up and die of embarrassment for the Republican shenanigans over the last 6-7 years. If everyone would simply ignore all other distractions and vote in their personal economic interests, we'd never see another Republican elected to any office, and our economy would boom like we've never seen. But the ignorance and hatred is strong, so our economy will struggle while the uber rich continue to desperately consolidate the vast majority of the wealth into the hands of the minuscule few.
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      Starting with an assumption that Republicans have a goal of winning elections isn't it pretty rational for them for do character assassination and not irrational? The average voter isn't going to fact check your attack ads.

dbbk 4y ago

What was the UK gonna do, say no? That wasn't really an option.

belter 4y ago
They could have started by saying, send us Anne Sacoolas first. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-extradition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-a...
- tailspin2019 4y ago
  Was just going to post the same! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
- PhantomBKB 4y ago
  Uk is a puppet of the USA. They are in no position to make any demands
  - notavalleyman 4y ago
    Why do you think that? The two most recent American administrations have been seemingly polar opposites. It would be weird for the UK PM, who has seen both POTUS, to have been a puppet of both of them
    - hulitu 4y ago
      Maybe from an US point of view. From a foreigner perspective is that the new US president does not scream to other european liders like the old one did.
      - notavalleyman 4y ago
        So you're saying that Trump and Biden are part of the same "team" puppeting Boris Johnson, but Biden is the quieter one, from a European perspective... But if they're the same team, then why did Trump mind losing the election, why the big lie, why attempt a coup? If he was just handing over control to his quieter teammate. The whole thing makes no sense to me