And still you haven't added even one single fact or argument to debunk mine. The only thing you accomplished with your posts is to show that you do not understand what is the fallacy you so eagerly cite and that you have no argument at all to contribute to this discussion besides your obviously wounded pride. No, if anyone here is spilling fallacies from the first post to his last word is you, my good sir.
And no I don't worship Assange, THAT is just another fallacy on your part. I never even once gave him a single word of praise in my posts. I am just not naive enough to take these absurd accusations, which are internally inconsistent, as absolute truth, like you. And even if those accusations were true I still can't accept the circus that was created around it blowing them to ridiculous proportions.
I can call you an idiot without being fallacious because my arguments do not depend on your idiocy. You are mostly irrelevant for them and for about everything else in the universe. Calling you idiot is just a logical conclusion of your lack of arguments and your inability to engage in a discussion with more than childish whinings. It is actually a favor I am doing to you by helping you to achieve some self-awareness.
The text you quotes says absolute nothing about any inability for them to charge him or even give him trial in absentia. It only said that he has the obligation to be present when called for inquiry and when called for trial. Anything else can't really be inferred from this excerpt you posted, no matter how much you want it to be.
Your ignorance also shows when you plainly reveal that you have no clue where he is and what is a Swedish prison. Being in a Swedish prison (which is reasonably nice place by any standard, mind you) for a year would be far less problematic than being in a small room, in an embassy of two rooms and a bathroom, for the rest of his life or at least for many years.
Trial in absentia for criminal offences is indeed forbidden in common law, but in most countries that follow Roman Law it can be done, for example. Either way the point is moot. Even if in Sweden it couldn't be done, they could still have interrogated him in UK and charged him if they decided there was enough evidence to do it. Then they could have asked for him to be extradited to stand trial. They did not. Sweden refused all opportunities it had to interrogate Assange.
Now add that to the fact the "crime" in the worst possible scenario for Assange would imply in his being imprisoned for a year or so in Sweden (which almost never happen in cases like this), against possibly staying in an embassy room for life and you will see how ridiculous these claims about his doing this to evade his "crimes" is.
Nowhere there it says the process cannot follow in his absence, It just says that he is bound to be present, not that in his absence he can't be tried. Sweden does not follow common law, where trials in absentia are not allowed.
Good try. There is not a true scotsman fallacy anywhere in my texts. I am not dismissing your opinion because you doubt his innocence (and thus is not a "true scotsman"). I am dismissing your opinion because of the many arguments I posted here, which you fail to debunk, and pointing that your stupidity, and that of people like you makes it easier for the people trying to smear him to do their job.
She never told him no. She asked him to use a condom, he forced his hand (without violence) she conceded. He didn't use violence to force anything from her. At any moment she could have sent him away. Instead of saying: "really you should have be using condoms" while kissing him how about saying: "Get out of here now!" while pushing him away.
You are too naive. The fact that people like you are buying these ridiculous accusations brought against him is proof enough that the strategy is working very well. When his image is smeared enough, they can do anything they want with him without worrying too much about public opinion.
UK couldn't have legally extradited him to US. They could try and make something stick and do it, but it would generate a lot of confusion and bad publicity. No, it is a lot easier to do this if he gets convicted as a sexual offender.
Obviously not. If we assume that he will indeed be sent to US, which I believe he will, he is doing the only sensible thing he can. My answer above was to the statement that he is running from maybe a year in a Swedish prison by locking himself, maybe forever, in an embassy, which is absurd.
He didn't destroy any credibility with me and with many many people that are smart enough to understand the circumstances. Anyone with half a brain would have done the same he did. It is not his fault you lack such an organ.
How exactly could you present evidence in court that CIA is after you? Please enlighten me. It is no conspiracy theory that CIA has killed people for less than Assange has done, and it isn't any conspiracy theory the fact that US has sent people to Guantanamo for years for much less than this. Assange at least thinks the threat is real enough to risk spending God knows how many years confined in a small room in an embassy instead of risking to go to trial over an offense that won't get him a year in a Swedish jail in the worst possible scenario, which is extremely unlikely to happen if he ever even goes to trial.
How exactly interrogating one of the parties is redundant? Ecuador offered the Swedish officials an opportunity to do just that and enter their embassy to question Assange. They refused. If their objective was to find the truth to access if they should press charges they would have accepted, that obviously wan't the case here. They are not even remotely interested in the truth.
Oh, and yes, suspects can often choose the place and circumstances of their interviews if they are not charged with anything, which is the case here. They can even refuse to say anything in most countries.
You can side with anyone you like that doesn't mean you are right, and yes, a crime whose maximum sentence is two years, which is seldom if ever applied by judges, and is almost always commuted to a year of communitary services, is a minor offence,
1) Stating opinions as facts is not less fallacious because you are doing it in your "opinion" column.
2) They can trial him in absentia, as happens with a lot of cases when the accused is unavailable by any motive. They can also question him and decide if they want to charge him before extraditing him. All in all if they questioned him, decided to charge him and judged him guilty (in absentia or not), they would be no worse than they are now and with a much stronger case.
3) No they are not. They are minor offenses even in Sweden. the maximum penalty he would receive if he was found guilty would be 2 years in jail, which can be further reduced by good behavior to less than a year. That is the worst possible scenario. Similar "criminals" in Sweden have been granted social services penalties and no jail time. That if they can prove anything against him, which they can't because it is his word against the word of the accusers, which have a lot to gain with his demise even if he is innocent.
Because it is not. I reckon that anything that does not fit in your sense of morals is probably a "serious crime" to you, but calling these accusations "serious crimes" only makes light of other crimes that are really serious, as murder, and real rape, that crime that involves violence and whose name people borrowed to use here in the same way MPAA borrows the term "thievery" and "piracy" to define IP violation.
Lesson of the day: "going to bed with a douche is a bad choice". It is your fault, especially considering that he didn't force you to anything and at any point you could have just sent him away. Now grow up and learn to be a big girl and choose your partners better.
Read a few of the reader's arguments and you will see how absolute your "articles" are. The "reporters" did little more than put their opinions in the text disguised as "facts", as usual. Both articles are ridiculously biased and completely out of touch with reality.
Sweden could and still can interrogate him in UK and they can prosecute him without having him in custody. They are just choosing not to, because the prosecutors want to have a circus and without the main character there is no show.
Furthermore the accusations are impossible to be proved and would be dismissed by any court in any country with a sane justice system. Maybe even in Sweden, thus the absence of any process against him to this point. Even the "crimes" per se are ridiculous even if the "victims" are telling the truth.
Because his fears of political persecution are very justified. He is risking to spend far more time locked inside a room in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would get in the worst case scenario if he was judged guilty in Sweden (which is not very likely). Does that seem like someone running from "serious accusations"?
For a battle of wits to happen there needs to be wits available at both sides. Unfortunately you lack this trait from your first post. Concede that your arguments are absurd and let go. There is no sense in humiliating yourself any further.
You are delusional. Japan can hold for a few decades without nuclear power at great cost to its economy, but it will go back to it sooner or later. Simply because there is no other choice. Anything else is wishful thinking
The same can be said about Europe. Germany has banned Nuclear power, but needs to buy energy from France which has 80% of its energy produced by nuclear plants.
US, China, Brazil and other continental countries can wait a lot more, because they have resources to spare, but be it after some decades or centuries they will have inevitably to drift to nuclear energy as well.
You are obviously wrong. Absence of evidence is evidence in itself, scientifically speaking. The absence of contrary evidence is basically what makes us accept most of our current scientific theories. Always with the mindset that they may be false, but are still the best explanation available at this point, as there is no absolute proof for anything outside pure math.
You are also wrong regarding the Korean war. It was also a minor conflict. A proxy war between US and USSR like many others. The last major conflict was WWII. No other such conflict came to be after this, only proxy wars, because US, USSR knew better than to try to pick a direct fight with each other.
Pakistan and Indian were not nuclear powers, both had a very limited nuclear arsenal in 1999. And 35000 killed is a very small skirmish considering the size of both countries' populations and armies. Even so if the conflict had not stopped (which happened mostly because of the nuclear threat) it would have ended in considerable damage to both sides because of the deployment of their few nuclear warheads. Today their nuclear arsenals are probably much greater so you won't see them going to war, rest assured.
US, China and Russia, on the other way, have sufficient nuclear warheads to completely destroy each other. It is a fact. Therefore, there never was and there never will be any real war between those nuclear powers. Period. Mostly because unlike you those in power have at least half a brain and know that M.A.D. is very real.
Name one conflict where mass nuclear weapons were used? Or better name one major conflict at all after nuclear weapons came into existence.
There is no other possible outcome for a nuclear war. M.A.D. is what prevented any major war of happening since WWII, and still does, and US will never attack China, because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
And still you haven't added even one single fact or argument to debunk mine. The only thing you accomplished with your posts is to show that you do not understand what is the fallacy you so eagerly cite and that you have no argument at all to contribute to this discussion besides your obviously wounded pride. No, if anyone here is spilling fallacies from the first post to his last word is you, my good sir.
And no I don't worship Assange, THAT is just another fallacy on your part. I never even once gave him a single word of praise in my posts. I am just not naive enough to take these absurd accusations, which are internally inconsistent, as absolute truth, like you. And even if those accusations were true I still can't accept the circus that was created around it blowing them to ridiculous proportions.
I can call you an idiot without being fallacious because my arguments do not depend on your idiocy. You are mostly irrelevant for them and for about everything else in the universe. Calling you idiot is just a logical conclusion of your lack of arguments and your inability to engage in a discussion with more than childish whinings. It is actually a favor I am doing to you by helping you to achieve some self-awareness.
If you completely ignore interests and do not engage in superfluous activities, like eating or paying your rent.
The text you quotes says absolute nothing about any inability for them to charge him or even give him trial in absentia. It only said that he has the obligation to be present when called for inquiry and when called for trial. Anything else can't really be inferred from this excerpt you posted, no matter how much you want it to be.
Your ignorance also shows when you plainly reveal that you have no clue where he is and what is a Swedish prison. Being in a Swedish prison (which is reasonably nice place by any standard, mind you) for a year would be far less problematic than being in a small room, in an embassy of two rooms and a bathroom, for the rest of his life or at least for many years.
Trial in absentia for criminal offences is indeed forbidden in common law, but in most countries that follow Roman Law it can be done, for example. Either way the point is moot. Even if in Sweden it couldn't be done, they could still have interrogated him in UK and charged him if they decided there was enough evidence to do it. Then they could have asked for him to be extradited to stand trial. They did not. Sweden refused all opportunities it had to interrogate Assange.
Now add that to the fact the "crime" in the worst possible scenario for Assange would imply in his being imprisoned for a year or so in Sweden (which almost never happen in cases like this), against possibly staying in an embassy room for life and you will see how ridiculous these claims about his doing this to evade his "crimes" is.
Nowhere there it says the process cannot follow in his absence, It just says that he is bound to be present, not that in his absence he can't be tried. Sweden does not follow common law, where trials in absentia are not allowed.
They can trial him in absentia. They just chose not to.
Good try. There is not a true scotsman fallacy anywhere in my texts. I am not dismissing your opinion because you doubt his innocence (and thus is not a "true scotsman"). I am dismissing your opinion because of the many arguments I posted here, which you fail to debunk, and pointing that your stupidity, and that of people like you makes it easier for the people trying to smear him to do their job.
She never told him no. She asked him to use a condom, he forced his hand (without violence) she conceded. He didn't use violence to force anything from her. At any moment she could have sent him away. Instead of saying: "really you should have be using condoms" while kissing him how about saying: "Get out of here now!" while pushing him away.
You are too naive. The fact that people like you are buying these ridiculous accusations brought against him is proof enough that the strategy is working very well. When his image is smeared enough, they can do anything they want with him without worrying too much about public opinion.
UK couldn't have legally extradited him to US. They could try and make something stick and do it, but it would generate a lot of confusion and bad publicity. No, it is a lot easier to do this if he gets convicted as a sexual offender.
Obviously not. If we assume that he will indeed be sent to US, which I believe he will, he is doing the only sensible thing he can. My answer above was to the statement that he is running from maybe a year in a Swedish prison by locking himself, maybe forever, in an embassy, which is absurd.
He didn't destroy any credibility with me and with many many people that are smart enough to understand the circumstances. Anyone with half a brain would have done the same he did. It is not his fault you lack such an organ.
How exactly could you present evidence in court that CIA is after you? Please enlighten me. It is no conspiracy theory that CIA has killed people for less than Assange has done, and it isn't any conspiracy theory the fact that US has sent people to Guantanamo for years for much less than this. Assange at least thinks the threat is real enough to risk spending God knows how many years confined in a small room in an embassy instead of risking to go to trial over an offense that won't get him a year in a Swedish jail in the worst possible scenario, which is extremely unlikely to happen if he ever even goes to trial.
How exactly interrogating one of the parties is redundant? Ecuador offered the Swedish officials an opportunity to do just that and enter their embassy to question Assange. They refused. If their objective was to find the truth to access if they should press charges they would have accepted, that obviously wan't the case here. They are not even remotely interested in the truth.
Oh, and yes, suspects can often choose the place and circumstances of their interviews if they are not charged with anything, which is the case here. They can even refuse to say anything in most countries.
You can side with anyone you like that doesn't mean you are right, and yes, a crime whose maximum sentence is two years, which is seldom if ever applied by judges, and is almost always commuted to a year of communitary services, is a minor offence,
1) Stating opinions as facts is not less fallacious because you are doing it in your "opinion" column.
2) They can trial him in absentia, as happens with a lot of cases when the accused is unavailable by any motive. They can also question him and decide if they want to charge him before extraditing him. All in all if they questioned him, decided to charge him and judged him guilty (in absentia or not), they would be no worse than they are now and with a much stronger case.
3) No they are not. They are minor offenses even in Sweden. the maximum penalty he would receive if he was found guilty would be 2 years in jail, which can be further reduced by good behavior to less than a year. That is the worst possible scenario. Similar "criminals" in Sweden have been granted social services penalties and no jail time. That if they can prove anything against him, which they can't because it is his word against the word of the accusers, which have a lot to gain with his demise even if he is innocent.
Because it is not. I reckon that anything that does not fit in your sense of morals is probably a "serious crime" to you, but calling these accusations "serious crimes" only makes light of other crimes that are really serious, as murder, and real rape, that crime that involves violence and whose name people borrowed to use here in the same way MPAA borrows the term "thievery" and "piracy" to define IP violation.
Lesson of the day: "going to bed with a douche is a bad choice". It is your fault, especially considering that he didn't force you to anything and at any point you could have just sent him away. Now grow up and learn to be a big girl and choose your partners better.
Read a few of the reader's arguments and you will see how absolute your "articles" are. The "reporters" did little more than put their opinions in the text disguised as "facts", as usual. Both articles are ridiculously biased and completely out of touch with reality.
Sweden could and still can interrogate him in UK and they can prosecute him without having him in custody. They are just choosing not to, because the prosecutors want to have a circus and without the main character there is no show.
Furthermore the accusations are impossible to be proved and would be dismissed by any court in any country with a sane justice system. Maybe even in Sweden, thus the absence of any process against him to this point. Even the "crimes" per se are ridiculous even if the "victims" are telling the truth.
Because his fears of political persecution are very justified. He is risking to spend far more time locked inside a room in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would get in the worst case scenario if he was judged guilty in Sweden (which is not very likely). Does that seem like someone running from "serious accusations"?
Because otherwise some people would want to buy their games. Oh, the horror!
Still prices for these lens are still cheaper in Japan, strong yen or not.
For a battle of wits to happen there needs to be wits available at both sides. Unfortunately you lack this trait from your first post. Concede that your arguments are absurd and let go. There is no sense in humiliating yourself any further.
You are delusional. Japan can hold for a few decades without nuclear power at great cost to its economy, but it will go back to it sooner or later. Simply because there is no other choice. Anything else is wishful thinking
The same can be said about Europe. Germany has banned Nuclear power, but needs to buy energy from France which has 80% of its energy produced by nuclear plants.
US, China, Brazil and other continental countries can wait a lot more, because they have resources to spare, but be it after some decades or centuries they will have inevitably to drift to nuclear energy as well.
You are obviously wrong. Absence of evidence is evidence in itself, scientifically speaking. The absence of contrary evidence is basically what makes us accept most of our current scientific theories. Always with the mindset that they may be false, but are still the best explanation available at this point, as there is no absolute proof for anything outside pure math.
You are also wrong regarding the Korean war. It was also a minor conflict. A proxy war between US and USSR like many others. The last major conflict was WWII. No other such conflict came to be after this, only proxy wars, because US, USSR knew better than to try to pick a direct fight with each other.
Pakistan and Indian were not nuclear powers, both had a very limited nuclear arsenal in 1999. And 35000 killed is a very small skirmish considering the size of both countries' populations and armies. Even so if the conflict had not stopped (which happened mostly because of the nuclear threat) it would have ended in considerable damage to both sides because of the deployment of their few nuclear warheads. Today their nuclear arsenals are probably much greater so you won't see them going to war, rest assured.
US, China and Russia, on the other way, have sufficient nuclear warheads to completely destroy each other. It is a fact. Therefore, there never was and there never will be any real war between those nuclear powers. Period. Mostly because unlike you those in power have at least half a brain and know that M.A.D. is very real.
No it does not. It does not think it can even start a war with North Korea to be honest. China is out of the question.
Name one conflict where mass nuclear weapons were used? Or better name one major conflict at all after nuclear weapons came into existence.
There is no other possible outcome for a nuclear war. M.A.D. is what prevented any major war of happening since WWII, and still does, and US will never attack China, because of it.