The problem is you're trying to apply reasoning to taste. You and the posters above you. Talent may be measurable to some degree, but it would be an enormous waste of time to determine and measure all of the criteria, and most performers are unlikely to participate in the process; but music quality is determined by more than just talent.
As a silly example, it's debatable who has more talent in a class of guitarists which includes folks like Joe Satriani, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai and so on, but I personally am more inclined to listen to Steve Vai, because his style appeals to me more than the others. That doesn't make him better or worse, and other people with different taste might prefer the others, and quite a lot of people prefer none of the above.
Taste isn't a measurement of talent, and measuring talent is largely pointless except for the talented seeking to advance their craft or career.
If you liked the disease risks of isolated microclimates full of the food supply we depend on, you'll love filling those up with the incubators we call mammals.
It's pretty doubtful that it tasted like a hoppy IPA; the hop trend is extremely recent, even modern American pale ales tend to be substantially hoppier than traditional IPAs. Traditional American recipes often used other herbs besides hops, and it would be unsurprising if pine needles were included. In fact, it was also common in many traditional American recipes to use sugar sources other than malted barley, such as molasses.
It's not so much that you have baboons in your kitchen, or even that you fondle them. But with fetuses scavenged from civil war victims? You disgust me.
Stupid jokes aside, not giving a shit is compelling, but it's a tall order, and one we have to do all at once for it to be effective. At least the idea of airing all of our dirty laundry at once gets us on that path (though I'd much favor putting the genie back in its bottle).
I think the lesson is that we're going to be hard pressed to find answers without costs. We're going to have to work hard and fast, and be honest and forthcoming about these costs.
It's a frame of reference, and a compelling one that raises questions about the direction of the computer industry. In short, an interesting coincidence.
If you agree to have sex with her only if she's on birth control; and if she tells you, falsely, that she is on birth control; and if you proceed to have sex; yes, you were raped. You didn't consent to sex without birth control, only to sex with birth control; you had sex you didn't consent to. It's interesting that you assumed I would be inconsistent on this, I've given you no reason to believe that.
To the rest of your post, I'm glad to see you've stayed classy. Especially the part where you claim no one is defending rape, then proceed to say I should be raped. Keep it up, it really helps your case.
I think you do just what Assange is doing. Secure asylum, demand immunity from extradition as a condition of facing the real criminal charges. It's not perfect, but you can't delay justice indefinitely, and you can't do so on the basis of a hunch that you might be framed; and if you have evidence of being framed, the best way to gain attention for that evidence is in a very public court case.
I'm not sure I understand what you're implying, but I'll take a shot. Are you saying that you think I'm suggesting Assange should give up and go without a guarantee? I'm definitely not. I have had no purpose in this thread other than to call out rape denial and rape defense. I stand by what I said: we should demand a guarantee against extradition as a condition of Assange cooperating with the investigation of his alleged rape. That's all.
My point is, that should be our demand. We shouldn't be denying rape without an investigation, we shouldn't be pretending things that are rape aren't. We should, as I said in the post you replied to, "rise to the moral level of Assange himself".
lol, the left has a singular opinion on this matter huh?
Clearly not. I am a part of the left and I'm shocked by my comrades' positions.
1. Nothing that happens relating to Assange's sex crimes undermines Wikileaks
Already is.
2. The left has no collective opinion on the extradition of Julian Assange. Fuck you. Somehow, you've misrepresented the most often held position I've encountered among progressive supporters of Wikileaks, deny they hold it, and then claim it as your own. Fuck you. Many of us would gladly surrender the alleged rapist to Sweden if they disallowed extradition to the US. Again, Fuck you.
You misunderstand me. My disappointment is that this position, which you and I evidently share, is not universal among Wikileaks supporters.
3. Given the stigma attached to rape, I find you to be more of a more of a scumbag for promulgating allegations of RAPE than any scumbag who lied about his condom use. I would say as much in a jury. I'd convict someone of a lesser crime, but on principle I would never convict anyone of this crime using your language.
So you are saying that unprotected sex where consent was only given for protected sex—that is, nonconsensual sex—is not rape, and on a jury you would not convict nonconsensual sex as rape? Gee, and you wonder why I'm so upset by the moral positions of WikiLeaks' defenders.
3. If you want to devalue rape by referring it to as any violation of sexual consent then you have to deal with a lot of rapists and a lot of rape apologists, by your own screwball definition. In sex, like any matter, someone can act like a scum bag. That doesn't make them a rapist. But if you want to refer to rape as "any specific, nonconsensual action that was part of an otherwise consensual sexual encounter," then you are going to bear the responsibility for the a) the increased legal burden and b) the legitimate rapists who will not find justice in a swam of your lesser "rape." Fuck you.
Any nonconsensual sex is rape. That's a tautology. And when you're using the exact language of Todd Akin you may want to look at yourself in the mirror.
Who knows? That's something an investigation might ask. But hey, you might not know this... some people have sex with the lights off. Some people, in fact, have sex with their eyes closed. It's also possible that she discovered the transgression sometime during the sex and was either unable to stop it or did stop it. We don't know a lot. That's why there should be an investigation, like any other similar allegation.
But claiming she must have known and therefore silently consented is a tremendous assumption, and one for which there is no evidence at all.
The act of sex between two consenting adults does not require lawyers and a bunch of legal language. It is insane, and hence retarded, to create all these ridiculous fucking conditions, and then claim that rape occurred if the sexual activity did not go exactly to plan.
According to the allegations, it was not sex between two consenting adults. One of the adults consented to an activity that was not performed and explicitly did not consent to the activity that was alleged. This doesn't require legal language or a lawyer, it's a simple fact of the two sex acts being different. Any person engaging in sexual activity can agree or decline to engage in specific acts. If she had agreed to, say, vaginal penetration but not anal penetration, and he had elected to penetrate her anus anyhow, it would be disgusting to frame that as "did not go exactly to plan". Consent can be conditional on specific actions, period.
She was there the whole fucking time. She could have stopped at any point. She is just as responsible for the unprotected sex as he is. Once again, SHE IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPROTECTED SEX AS HE IS.
We weren't in the bedroom, nor were we in her head. We can't know that she could stop at any point; we can't know that she was even aware that he wasn't wearing a condom. Furthermore, this logic essentially discards date rape as real rape. There is a huge set of possibilities here. According to her allegations, she did not agree to sex without a condom, which occurred anyway. She isn't responsible for that.
You're a complete fucking retard to be going on and on and on about how consent can be retroactively revoked because something did not happen. In this case it is a condom, but according to your logic, because it is limited to the concept of consent and legal contracts, it could be fucking anything.
I didn't say it can be retroactively revoked, not once. I'm saying it was never given in the first place. She, again according to her allegations, did not consent to unprotected sex at all. You can't frame this as something that happened after the fact.
Then you call us rape defenders. Well, fuck you. I'm all for castrating men who have performed rape. This was not rape. Period.
It may or may not have been rape. But if her allegations are true, it certainly was. Denying it by assigning blame to her for something she didn't agree to do is rape denial, period.
It may or may not be a frame, that is why there should be a serious investigation; that requires a guarantee against extradition for unrelated issues. But we can't know whether or not the allegations are true at this point, and unless you're privy to some information that isn't public, you can't either.
And I must disagree, there are numerous people defending rape. They are saying that it is okay to agree to wear a condom, then fail to wear a condom, but proceed to have sex anyway. They're blaming the alleged victim by saying that she should have known; they're comparing agreeing to protected sex to agreeing to walk the dog. This is rape denial and rape defense, of a very obvious kind. And they're by and large doing it according to political motivations, which shows just how morally twisted even elements of the left can be.
Rape is sexual assault. The sexual assault described is rape. It's not uncommon for warrants to be issued under the terms of the classification of crime, rather than the specific crime.
She didn't have an issue with it while he didn't have the condom on.
According to her allegations, she did in fact have an issue with it.
She can't retract that consent at a later date.
According to her allegations, she didn't give consent in the first place. She consented to an entirely other act, which didn't take place, namely sex protected with a condom.
You are advocating throwing someone in jail for literally, nothing.
I'm not advocating throwing anyone in jail at all. I'm advocating rising to the moral level of knowing what rape is. Furthermore, allegations are not nothing. Authorities investigating those allegations believe he should be questioned. Julian Assange believes he should be questioned. But putting all of that aside, it's disgusting that people are, for political reasons, defending sex without informed consent. That is what I'm on about.
So don't be getting all hot-headed and sanctimonious on us douchebag. The chicks you know still aren't going to fuck you no matter how they see you blathering on about rape on the internet.
I really don't get this. Did the women not feel the difference? Did they not look down there? Do they like to have sex only with their eyes closed or what? Either they went right along with the condom-free sex or they would have been saying no, trying to get away, etc...
What you're suggesting is that a woman must have a certain level of vaginal sensitivity (according to you) in order to assert a right to not have unwanted sex? If she doesn't know, from sensation—either from lack of experience or sensitivity—whether the penis penetrating her is covered with latex, she cannot complain that it wasn't covered with the latex she stipulated it must be before it penetrated her? Or are you saying that there is a statute of limitations on withdrawing consent; after she has realized the penis penetrating her isn't protected as she stipulated, she must accept the penetration? Are you suggesting that sex without adequate lighting, narration, or other sensory aids that would indicate a missed cue, is not really sex? Do you have a vagina? Do you know what it feels like to be penetrated with a penis with or without latex covering? Any penis? Every penis? Under any circumstance? Who the fuck are you?
If they had a verbal agreement to use a condom beforehand but in the heat of the moment didn't then does that mean he raped her?
Yes. That's what I said already. You haven't even offered a disagreement, only really stupid fucking questions.
If she went along with it then accusing him of rape seems extremely sexist to me. No.. it just is sexist.
What does sex have to do with it? If he had stipulated a condition for consent, and she had agreed, and that condition was omitted but the sex still occurred, that is rape. Consent is a mutual agreement; there's no condition of who has which genitals when consent is achieved or withdrawn.
Unless she didn't go along with it... in that case there was a lot more obvious rape happening than just the lack of a condom.
According to the allegation, she didn't go along with it. She agreed to sex with a condom; she didn't agree to sex without a condom; the latter is what occurred; she didn't consent to the sex that happened, she consented to entirely other sex.
Yes, actually it is. Any matter that concerns consent is a legal contract. It's a verbal contract, which isn't the same as a written one, but it's a contract nonetheless. In sex, consent is a contract. You can withdraw consent (and rescind the contract) at any time. So can your partner(s). It is every involved party's responsibility to achieve and maintain consent; failure to do so is rape, because sex has happened without consent. That is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion.
According to your twisted logic, terms of consent could have been that he was required to cuddle, or mow her lawn, or walk her dog, or some shit like that. Failure, after the fact is determined to retroactively take away consent?
Have you had even a little bit of sex? Do you realize that you have to wear a condom during the sex? I hate when Slashdot commenters make fun of sexual experience, but here it matters. Do you not realize that the prophylactic is required during the time the penis penetrates the vagina? The requirement that a condom is worn is no different than a requirement that a hired driver obtains liability coverage; the consent is void unless the other party is protected.
If you genuinely think that it's okay to tell someone that you will have sex with them under conditions that you violate, and you think this isn't a violation of their consent to sex, I genuinely hope you never ever have sex. If you do, you are a rapist.
You don't to scream rape after the fact, while admitting that you gave consent the entire time , but just had regrets or a disagreement aftewards.
According to the allegations, she didn't consent at all. She consented to an act that didn't take place, and not to the act that did. Protected sex and unprotected sex are not the same thing; it is possible to consent to one and not the other.
I am not saying Assange did or didn't do any of the things above. I'm talking in the abstract, as the parent post did. If the fact is that someone, anyone, agreed to wear a condom and did not, it's fucking rape.
If Assange's defenders could rise to the moral level of accepting what rape is and accepting that the allegations are rape, we could rise to the moral level of Assange himself and accept the seriousness of the charges. Then we can discard the potential for extradition by demanding he stand trial or face charges for his alleged crimes, with a guarantee that he won't be extradited for unrelated reasons. If you read the other responses, you'll see that the left has not risen to this moral point, and instead has become rape defenders.
I am a WikiLeaks supporter. I even think Assange has been a positive force in terms of journalism. That doesn't mean he isn't a rapist.
Pretending that violating sexual consent is anything other than rape only undermines WikiLeaks and Julian Assange's journalistic work. And it ensures that he can be extradited for unrelated reasons by muddying the waters.
Agreeing to wear a condom as a condition of sex, then having sex without a condom, is a violation of the terms of consent that led to the sex. That is, sex without consent. That is, rape. A serious sex crime. In any sane country. Period.
News flash: Todd Akin didn't make rape denial okay.
Slashdot Mirror
The hr element may lack semantic meaning, but as far as I'm aware no semantic equivalent has been proposed (which is a shame!).
The problem is you're trying to apply reasoning to taste. You and the posters above you. Talent may be measurable to some degree, but it would be an enormous waste of time to determine and measure all of the criteria, and most performers are unlikely to participate in the process; but music quality is determined by more than just talent.
As a silly example, it's debatable who has more talent in a class of guitarists which includes folks like Joe Satriani, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai and so on, but I personally am more inclined to listen to Steve Vai, because his style appeals to me more than the others. That doesn't make him better or worse, and other people with different taste might prefer the others, and quite a lot of people prefer none of the above.
Taste isn't a measurement of talent, and measuring talent is largely pointless except for the talented seeking to advance their craft or career.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/somebody-should-do-something-about-all-the-problem,11018/
If you liked the disease risks of isolated microclimates full of the food supply we depend on, you'll love filling those up with the incubators we call mammals.
It's pretty doubtful that it tasted like a hoppy IPA; the hop trend is extremely recent, even modern American pale ales tend to be substantially hoppier than traditional IPAs. Traditional American recipes often used other herbs besides hops, and it would be unsurprising if pine needles were included. In fact, it was also common in many traditional American recipes to use sugar sources other than malted barley, such as molasses.
Are you the person with the baboons?
It's not so much that you have baboons in your kitchen, or even that you fondle them. But with fetuses scavenged from civil war victims? You disgust me.
Stupid jokes aside, not giving a shit is compelling, but it's a tall order, and one we have to do all at once for it to be effective. At least the idea of airing all of our dirty laundry at once gets us on that path (though I'd much favor putting the genie back in its bottle).
I think the lesson is that we're going to be hard pressed to find answers without costs. We're going to have to work hard and fast, and be honest and forthcoming about these costs.
It's a frame of reference, and a compelling one that raises questions about the direction of the computer industry. In short, an interesting coincidence.
Yah the melatonin helps you sleep but the zombie nightmares get much more awesome.
If you agree to have sex with her only if she's on birth control; and if she tells you, falsely, that she is on birth control; and if you proceed to have sex; yes, you were raped. You didn't consent to sex without birth control, only to sex with birth control; you had sex you didn't consent to. It's interesting that you assumed I would be inconsistent on this, I've given you no reason to believe that.
To the rest of your post, I'm glad to see you've stayed classy. Especially the part where you claim no one is defending rape, then proceed to say I should be raped. Keep it up, it really helps your case.
I think you do just what Assange is doing. Secure asylum, demand immunity from extradition as a condition of facing the real criminal charges. It's not perfect, but you can't delay justice indefinitely, and you can't do so on the basis of a hunch that you might be framed; and if you have evidence of being framed, the best way to gain attention for that evidence is in a very public court case.
I'm not sure I understand what you're implying, but I'll take a shot. Are you saying that you think I'm suggesting Assange should give up and go without a guarantee? I'm definitely not. I have had no purpose in this thread other than to call out rape denial and rape defense. I stand by what I said: we should demand a guarantee against extradition as a condition of Assange cooperating with the investigation of his alleged rape. That's all.
My point is, that should be our demand. We shouldn't be denying rape without an investigation, we shouldn't be pretending things that are rape aren't. We should, as I said in the post you replied to, "rise to the moral level of Assange himself".
lol, the left has a singular opinion on this matter huh?
Clearly not. I am a part of the left and I'm shocked by my comrades' positions.
1. Nothing that happens relating to Assange's sex crimes undermines Wikileaks
Already is.
2. The left has no collective opinion on the extradition of Julian Assange. Fuck you. Somehow, you've misrepresented the most often held position I've encountered among progressive supporters of Wikileaks, deny they hold it, and then claim it as your own. Fuck you. Many of us would gladly surrender the alleged rapist to Sweden if they disallowed extradition to the US. Again, Fuck you.
You misunderstand me. My disappointment is that this position, which you and I evidently share, is not universal among Wikileaks supporters.
3. Given the stigma attached to rape, I find you to be more of a more of a scumbag for promulgating allegations of RAPE than any scumbag who lied about his condom use. I would say as much in a jury. I'd convict someone of a lesser crime, but on principle I would never convict anyone of this crime using your language.
So you are saying that unprotected sex where consent was only given for protected sex—that is, nonconsensual sex—is not rape, and on a jury you would not convict nonconsensual sex as rape? Gee, and you wonder why I'm so upset by the moral positions of WikiLeaks' defenders.
3. If you want to devalue rape by referring it to as any violation of sexual consent then you have to deal with a lot of rapists and a lot of rape apologists, by your own screwball definition. In sex, like any matter, someone can act like a scum bag. That doesn't make them a rapist. But if you want to refer to rape as "any specific, nonconsensual action that was part of an otherwise consensual sexual encounter," then you are going to bear the responsibility for the a) the increased legal burden and b) the legitimate rapists who will not find justice in a swam of your lesser "rape." Fuck you.
Any nonconsensual sex is rape. That's a tautology. And when you're using the exact language of Todd Akin you may want to look at yourself in the mirror.
Who knows? That's something an investigation might ask. But hey, you might not know this... some people have sex with the lights off. Some people, in fact, have sex with their eyes closed. It's also possible that she discovered the transgression sometime during the sex and was either unable to stop it or did stop it. We don't know a lot. That's why there should be an investigation, like any other similar allegation.
But claiming she must have known and therefore silently consented is a tremendous assumption, and one for which there is no evidence at all.
The act of sex between two consenting adults does not require lawyers and a bunch of legal language. It is insane, and hence retarded, to create all these ridiculous fucking conditions, and then claim that rape occurred if the sexual activity did not go exactly to plan.
According to the allegations, it was not sex between two consenting adults. One of the adults consented to an activity that was not performed and explicitly did not consent to the activity that was alleged. This doesn't require legal language or a lawyer, it's a simple fact of the two sex acts being different. Any person engaging in sexual activity can agree or decline to engage in specific acts. If she had agreed to, say, vaginal penetration but not anal penetration, and he had elected to penetrate her anus anyhow, it would be disgusting to frame that as "did not go exactly to plan". Consent can be conditional on specific actions, period.
She was there the whole fucking time. She could have stopped at any point. She is just as responsible for the unprotected sex as he is. Once again, SHE IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPROTECTED SEX AS HE IS.
We weren't in the bedroom, nor were we in her head. We can't know that she could stop at any point; we can't know that she was even aware that he wasn't wearing a condom. Furthermore, this logic essentially discards date rape as real rape. There is a huge set of possibilities here. According to her allegations, she did not agree to sex without a condom, which occurred anyway. She isn't responsible for that.
You're a complete fucking retard to be going on and on and on about how consent can be retroactively revoked because something did not happen. In this case it is a condom, but according to your logic, because it is limited to the concept of consent and legal contracts, it could be fucking anything.
I didn't say it can be retroactively revoked, not once. I'm saying it was never given in the first place. She, again according to her allegations, did not consent to unprotected sex at all. You can't frame this as something that happened after the fact.
Then you call us rape defenders. Well, fuck you. I'm all for castrating men who have performed rape. This was not rape. Period.
It may or may not have been rape. But if her allegations are true, it certainly was. Denying it by assigning blame to her for something she didn't agree to do is rape denial, period.
It may or may not be a frame, that is why there should be a serious investigation; that requires a guarantee against extradition for unrelated issues. But we can't know whether or not the allegations are true at this point, and unless you're privy to some information that isn't public, you can't either.
And I must disagree, there are numerous people defending rape. They are saying that it is okay to agree to wear a condom, then fail to wear a condom, but proceed to have sex anyway. They're blaming the alleged victim by saying that she should have known; they're comparing agreeing to protected sex to agreeing to walk the dog. This is rape denial and rape defense, of a very obvious kind. And they're by and large doing it according to political motivations, which shows just how morally twisted even elements of the left can be.
Rape is sexual assault. The sexual assault described is rape. It's not uncommon for warrants to be issued under the terms of the classification of crime, rather than the specific crime.
She didn't have an issue with it while he didn't have the condom on.
According to her allegations, she did in fact have an issue with it.
She can't retract that consent at a later date.
According to her allegations, she didn't give consent in the first place. She consented to an entirely other act, which didn't take place, namely sex protected with a condom.
You are advocating throwing someone in jail for literally, nothing.
I'm not advocating throwing anyone in jail at all. I'm advocating rising to the moral level of knowing what rape is. Furthermore, allegations are not nothing. Authorities investigating those allegations believe he should be questioned. Julian Assange believes he should be questioned. But putting all of that aside, it's disgusting that people are, for political reasons, defending sex without informed consent. That is what I'm on about.
So don't be getting all hot-headed and sanctimonious on us douchebag. The chicks you know still aren't going to fuck you no matter how they see you blathering on about rape on the internet.
Stay classy.
I really don't get this. Did the women not feel the difference? Did they not look down there? Do they like to have sex only with their eyes closed or what? Either they went right along with the condom-free sex or they would have been saying no, trying to get away, etc...
What you're suggesting is that a woman must have a certain level of vaginal sensitivity (according to you) in order to assert a right to not have unwanted sex? If she doesn't know, from sensation—either from lack of experience or sensitivity—whether the penis penetrating her is covered with latex, she cannot complain that it wasn't covered with the latex she stipulated it must be before it penetrated her? Or are you saying that there is a statute of limitations on withdrawing consent; after she has realized the penis penetrating her isn't protected as she stipulated, she must accept the penetration? Are you suggesting that sex without adequate lighting, narration, or other sensory aids that would indicate a missed cue, is not really sex? Do you have a vagina? Do you know what it feels like to be penetrated with a penis with or without latex covering? Any penis? Every penis? Under any circumstance? Who the fuck are you?
If they had a verbal agreement to use a condom beforehand but in the heat of the moment didn't then does that mean he raped her?
Yes. That's what I said already. You haven't even offered a disagreement, only really stupid fucking questions.
If she went along with it then accusing him of rape seems extremely sexist to me. No.. it just is sexist.
What does sex have to do with it? If he had stipulated a condition for consent, and she had agreed, and that condition was omitted but the sex still occurred, that is rape. Consent is a mutual agreement; there's no condition of who has which genitals when consent is achieved or withdrawn.
Unless she didn't go along with it... in that case there was a lot more obvious rape happening than just the lack of a condom.
According to the allegation, she didn't go along with it. She agreed to sex with a condom; she didn't agree to sex without a condom; the latter is what occurred; she didn't consent to the sex that happened, she consented to entirely other sex.
It's called consent. Learn what the fuck it is.
Having sex is not a legal contract.
Yes, actually it is. Any matter that concerns consent is a legal contract. It's a verbal contract, which isn't the same as a written one, but it's a contract nonetheless. In sex, consent is a contract. You can withdraw consent (and rescind the contract) at any time. So can your partner(s). It is every involved party's responsibility to achieve and maintain consent; failure to do so is rape, because sex has happened without consent. That is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion.
According to your twisted logic, terms of consent could have been that he was required to cuddle, or mow her lawn, or walk her dog, or some shit like that. Failure, after the fact is determined to retroactively take away consent?
Have you had even a little bit of sex? Do you realize that you have to wear a condom during the sex? I hate when Slashdot commenters make fun of sexual experience, but here it matters. Do you not realize that the prophylactic is required during the time the penis penetrates the vagina? The requirement that a condom is worn is no different than a requirement that a hired driver obtains liability coverage; the consent is void unless the other party is protected.
If you genuinely think that it's okay to tell someone that you will have sex with them under conditions that you violate, and you think this isn't a violation of their consent to sex, I genuinely hope you never ever have sex. If you do, you are a rapist.
You don't to scream rape after the fact, while admitting that you gave consent the entire time , but just had regrets or a disagreement aftewards.
According to the allegations, she didn't consent at all. She consented to an act that didn't take place, and not to the act that did. Protected sex and unprotected sex are not the same thing; it is possible to consent to one and not the other.
I am not saying Assange did or didn't do any of the things above. I'm talking in the abstract, as the parent post did. If the fact is that someone, anyone, agreed to wear a condom and did not, it's fucking rape.
If Assange's defenders could rise to the moral level of accepting what rape is and accepting that the allegations are rape, we could rise to the moral level of Assange himself and accept the seriousness of the charges. Then we can discard the potential for extradition by demanding he stand trial or face charges for his alleged crimes, with a guarantee that he won't be extradited for unrelated reasons. If you read the other responses, you'll see that the left has not risen to this moral point, and instead has become rape defenders.
I am a WikiLeaks supporter. I even think Assange has been a positive force in terms of journalism. That doesn't mean he isn't a rapist.
Pretending that violating sexual consent is anything other than rape only undermines WikiLeaks and Julian Assange's journalistic work. And it ensures that he can be extradited for unrelated reasons by muddying the waters.
Agreeing to wear a condom as a condition of sex, then having sex without a condom, is a violation of the terms of consent that led to the sex. That is, sex without consent. That is, rape. A serious sex crime. In any sane country. Period.
News flash: Todd Akin didn't make rape denial okay.
Based on the responses I've gotten so far, why the hell am I not a Canadian resident?