What does that first part mean practically? Do you think rape should be decriminalised? Like many areas where society should probably change, there are both criminal acts to punish and cultural efforts to make.
I'm having a tough time pulling the meaning out of your language - what kind of sickness and degradation are you talking about?
Men can be raped too, and it's often just as damaging to them. Rape is not more serious than other forms of assault because it's about women, rape is more serious because it affects our sexual and social identity.
It's possible that Assange is a rapist or that the women involved lied. I don't think we know which of those things is true, but I don't have this impression that either is impossible to talk about as a possibility. It wouldn't be cool to assume the truth of either, but considering them - fine.
How many rape victims have you known? The sense to which it violates the person is deeper than other forms of assault - people don't always go right to the police or do anything but hide the shame they might feel. Rape's an almost uniquely damaging crime - I've known victims of it and dated someone once who had been raped a few times when they were young - it left a big mark on their mind and left them less than rational about certain topics, even that many years afterwards.
I think I seriously misphrased the thing you responded to - I meant to enclose the statement with "it is claimed that" rather than "I believe that" - I don't know if it was rape (I wasn't there). I believe it *would be* rape were consent withdrawn during sex and Assange continued.
I don't believe there's a reason to believe that the charge is political in nature (even if it's pursuit *might* be more visible either because of celebrity or because of political interests).
I mostly agree, although I dispute that Assange is Wikileaks. I don't think he's necessary or even particularly important to the organisation - either it or something much like it would go on without him.
When consensual sex stops being consensual, it becomes rape. Rape is a serious crime, not a minor one. We don't know what accounts of the events are correct, but this is a serious matter.
Railroading would be a serious concern and remains a possibility, but remember that Assange seems to discount that idea and considers it a cultural matter tied to feminism. I suggest that instead of considering this strongly tied to Wikileaks, this is a plain old dispute over the sexual conduct of a celebrity. Side information suggests that any of the parties involved may be being dishonest.
I wouldn't read too much into Assange's claims of revolutionary feminism being at fault. It's too hard to know whether he's someone playing fast and loose with sexual morals or a victim of jealousy - both seem very plausible given the parties involved.
The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?
I suppose this might mean that submitter finds adverts funny, but we have to wonder - doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?
Most of the people I know took deliberate steps to cut advertising entirely out of their lives, and that's been essential to feeling more peace/quiet/sanity. The technologies are there. Why wouldn't someone want to use them?
They're really into either; they'll support libertarians to end things that stop them from trampling the public garden, and more generally if they think they'd like fare well without such privilegel, while they'll aim for direct favours at other times.
Generally, Libertarian groups are their most reliable stooges.
If someone is setting up policies to make devices incompatible, they lose. End of story. Devices should be open, hacker-friendly, and free to lie. It's lies that form the foundation of virtualisation. It's lies that let us run OSs in VMs without permission. People who have a strong sense of policy do more to hold the platform back than advance it. More often than not, this is because of someone having the mistaken idea that information can be owned.
More skilled? Hardly. They have a few, well-defined tweaks to make to an existing codebase. That's quite a ways apart from a finished work. Even the best art vandal who draws a genre-appropriate mustache on every bit of art they can get their hands on is hardly displaying skill compared to someone working from scratch.
Mind you, this isn't to say that I support IP -- I don't, but don't go getting confused as to who has the coding skills.
(also, look up the word "fallacy" - you're not using it correctly)
At most it was a pragmatic measure with the sole intent to make creative works more likely to be produced. Many of us even consider that to have been a mistake.
Whatever the actual reason that inspired it, it was a good act. Every frank view we have behind the curtains is valuable. Shame on you for trying to defend the blindfolding of humanity.
Rubbish. He should be commended. We have far too little access to information as-is. Anytime someone risks their career and safety to let us see what's going on, it's precious. Bravo to Bradley, we appreciate your sacrifice.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a need for the flowery language? It gets in the way of clear communication.
Are you saying that the metric of "if sex stops becoming consensual, it becomes rape" is radical, or are you saying some other definition is radical?
What does that first part mean practically? Do you think rape should be decriminalised? Like many areas where society should probably change, there are both criminal acts to punish and cultural efforts to make.
I'm having a tough time pulling the meaning out of your language - what kind of sickness and degradation are you talking about?
Men can be raped too, and it's often just as damaging to them. Rape is not more serious than other forms of assault because it's about women, rape is more serious because it affects our sexual and social identity.
It's possible that Assange is a rapist or that the women involved lied. I don't think we know which of those things is true, but I don't have this impression that either is impossible to talk about as a possibility. It wouldn't be cool to assume the truth of either, but considering them - fine.
As soon as she communicates it to him and he fails to stop, it is indeed rape.
Men don't have a right to keep going, nor do they have a right to sexual satisfaction. These things are contingent on continued consent.
It's possible, criminal, and unacceptable to rape someone one's married to. Marriage doesn't solve things.
How many rape victims have you known? The sense to which it violates the person is deeper than other forms of assault - people don't always go right to the police or do anything but hide the shame they might feel. Rape's an almost uniquely damaging crime - I've known victims of it and dated someone once who had been raped a few times when they were young - it left a big mark on their mind and left them less than rational about certain topics, even that many years afterwards.
I think I seriously misphrased the thing you responded to - I meant to enclose the statement with "it is claimed that" rather than "I believe that" - I don't know if it was rape (I wasn't there). I believe it *would be* rape were consent withdrawn during sex and Assange continued.
I don't believe there's a reason to believe that the charge is political in nature (even if it's pursuit *might* be more visible either because of celebrity or because of political interests).
You'd seriously rather live in a city with billboards?
As far as I can tell, it's rape because Assange continued with the sex after the lady withdrew consent. That doesn't seem particularly radical.
I mostly agree, although I dispute that Assange is Wikileaks. I don't think he's necessary or even particularly important to the organisation - either it or something much like it would go on without him.
Care to explain your reasoning, or at least interpretation of facts?
When consensual sex stops being consensual, it becomes rape. Rape is a serious crime, not a minor one. We don't know what accounts of the events are correct, but this is a serious matter.
Railroading would be a serious concern and remains a possibility, but remember that Assange seems to discount that idea and considers it a cultural matter tied to feminism. I suggest that instead of considering this strongly tied to Wikileaks, this is a plain old dispute over the sexual conduct of a celebrity. Side information suggests that any of the parties involved may be being dishonest.
Nothing is clear.
I wouldn't read too much into Assange's claims of revolutionary feminism being at fault. It's too hard to know whether he's someone playing fast and loose with sexual morals or a victim of jealousy - both seem very plausible given the parties involved.
The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?
I suppose this might mean that submitter finds adverts funny, but we have to wonder - doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?
Most of the people I know took deliberate steps to cut advertising entirely out of their lives, and that's been essential to feeling more peace/quiet/sanity. The technologies are there. Why wouldn't someone want to use them?
They're really into either; they'll support libertarians to end things that stop them from trampling the public garden, and more generally if they think they'd like fare well without such privilegel, while they'll aim for direct favours at other times.
Generally, Libertarian groups are their most reliable stooges.
Libertarian "economists" are like libertarian "philosophers". They may qualify for the low bar of libertarianism, but not generally anything else.
The "Austrian" school is just a bunch of well-funded kooks, used as a tool for big business.
You're confusing authentication with ownership.
If someone is setting up policies to make devices incompatible, they lose. End of story. Devices should be open, hacker-friendly, and free to lie. It's lies that form the foundation of virtualisation. It's lies that let us run OSs in VMs without permission. People who have a strong sense of policy do more to hold the platform back than advance it. More often than not, this is because of someone having the mistaken idea that information can be owned.
I'm not sure how many tourists will want to follow Voyager where it's going.
Hardly his best work, to put it mildly.
More skilled? Hardly. They have a few, well-defined tweaks to make to an existing codebase. That's quite a ways apart from a finished work. Even the best art vandal who draws a genre-appropriate mustache on every bit of art they can get their hands on is hardly displaying skill compared to someone working from scratch.
Mind you, this isn't to say that I support IP -- I don't, but don't go getting confused as to who has the coding skills.
(also, look up the word "fallacy" - you're not using it correctly)
IP is not a right.
At most it was a pragmatic measure with the sole intent to make creative works more likely to be produced. Many of us even consider that to have been a mistake.
Whatever the actual reason that inspired it, it was a good act. Every frank view we have behind the curtains is valuable. Shame on you for trying to defend the blindfolding of humanity.
Rubbish. He should be commended. We have far too little access to information as-is. Anytime someone risks their career and safety to let us see what's going on, it's precious. Bravo to Bradley, we appreciate your sacrifice.
Fine talk from an Anonymous Coward. If you're going to call for somebody's execution, you should at least be willing to put your name behind the call.
Cue thousands of people who stood screaming on a soapbox before to ... mumble something before scuttling off.