No, stop being a dick. I have no problem with gay. But are you trying to say (as a gay person) that it is a personal choice and you could choose not to be gay? Because my response is to say that that is bullshit. Ans that is what this thread is about.
Trumptard? Err... I think you have it backwards. I am and always have been a liberal who believes in freedom of thought and action. I am reluctant to say so excuse I hate the abuse that is handed out to liberals in the USA where the constitution of the USA is and was about as liberal as you can get. To me the "trumptards" are betraying the heritage of the founders of the USA.
You want examples but as I tried to say, from external (to the USA) media the overall impression is that it is about three-to-one. I am not trying to make the claim of three incidents to one incident as it is no longer possibly to accept the accuracy of any US source on its own. The US is now a post factual society where truth can only be adjudged and never known.
Trump lawlessness? Emoluments act. Why is he not already in jail? Openly and determinably corrupt. A public scofflaw.
You are answering the wrong question. I am trying to get Notabadguy that he would not, could not change is lifestyle as a matter of choice. He knows it but he will not admit it.
Transgender is not a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. Or are you claiming otherwise? If you are then show me how you can "close" to be gay and tell me how it affected you after the event.
So, someone releasing your phone, number, address and tax records is free speech protected by the constitution is it? I am not American but the constitution is (In my not so humble opinion) about the third greatest political document in history. I suggest to you "Study basic justice principles and the US Constitution". Be ashamed because a foreigner knows better than that. But, hey, that is not an uncommon thing...
No, you gave nothing. Some Anonymous Coward did several posts above yours. But even that person gave nothing. An apocryphal "about 7%" with no support at all is giving less than nothing. You have not even defined terms. What is this "Feminism" that you speak of? Who comprises it? Are there any internal divisions?
You gave nothing. Except negativity. Bubbles, bubbles, every where, Nor any drop to think.....
You say you can decide things about your identity. I simply do not believe you. You can not decide these things. You can claim to choose but you can not. These things are or they are not. Possibly except for the younger bit. We all identify as younger than we are at some stages in life. SO it seems to me that you are one who believes that gay, trans, whatever is something you choose rather than something you are inflicted with.
That does not seem to be the case for the information we have. Best guess at the moment is that it is not a choice. Is it a choice for you? If "she wins" (wins what I don't know) could you really live up to your claim and become a "gender, age, and race fluid opposer of rape culture". Could you do it and make it stick? Could you be happy with those choices?
I would really be interested in your reply if it is a serious one.
I'm from overseas. I use media from many countries. From what I have seen so far (but not recorded for either side) it would seem to be running about three-to-one the other way. Do a little googling or better yet, a search engine that does not just give you want you want to see.
This though, applies to both sides...
Please note that a demonstration is not a riot and cannot become one unless there is an opposition presence (although sometimes that opposition may come from politicised police). That presence is intrinsically aggressive and promotes volatile situations that start at insult and descend to violence. Often by the time the first punch is thrown both sides have gone way beyond civil respect. If you are going to protest a protest then have your counter-protest elsewhere. For good manners, for freedom of speech and safety of all concerned.
He is at least willing to post a pseudo identity and affected by rep. You on the other hand do not appear to have the courage of your convictions. Commit to your opinions - or realise they have the value of used cat-shredded toilet paper.
AH, you now realise you lost the argument and are now maintaining my point of view. Sorry, you cannot change your position to mine and claim you "won" the argument. That is dishonest. Arguing is a negative sum game.
I don't care what you see. I don't care what I see. Nobody cares what either of us see. Whatever anyone "sees" means nothing but that they thought they perceived something. However what you see contradicts known, public, established facts. You are either ignorant or dishonest and I decline to deal with either. Goodbye.
When he went to Sweden is one situation, being in Sweden is another. Without knowing his thoughts your "point" is a beach ball
Your point here? You are disingenuously claiming that where there is smoke there is fire. A person can have "legitimate" allegations and even prosecutions but that does not make them accurate. You use "legitimate charges" as an implication of guilt in one place and use it differently in another.
No the rape accusation is not a legitimate accusation under law in the way that you imply. You are saying he is guilty because the UK agreed to his extradition. That is complete and utter rubbish. There is no implication of guilt in being extradited. The process of extradition is supposed to ensure that there is some basis for the charges (not guilt) and to ensure that there will be a fair trial. The process of extradition has bupkis to do with guilt or innocence. Besides the UK does not even follow that standard any more. See Laurie Love.
That the UK granted extradition means nothing about guilt or innocence.
>I have seen no actual evidence that supports Assange's claimed fear of US extradition or extraordinary rendition. He traveled freely to Sweden and the UK after releasing Manning's leaks, and the UK is not the place to go if you fear US extradition. The US has some individuals who want him punished, but no part of the US government has made any movement in that direction.
That is just disingenuous. There were illegal renditions in Sweden with the victims winding up in US black holes. Assange had reason to fear. Oh, yeah, no evidence, right. That is supporting evidence at least.
Just as you have no evidence. You claim no US interest. You speak for all the three letter organisations do you? You have the authority to do this?
I do not think that you are being unintentional in your manner of speech. You actually lie. Interpol and the UK did not find any rape charges legitimate, they found the warrant a legitimate document. Yet you claim they found the rape charges legitimate. This is false. Patently false. Demonstrably false. The law does not work that way.
Well, I did say I was using old knowledge. However I reject your response not because it from Wikipedia but because if you follow link provided (2) you find that it points to a document that says it is already extinct because there are less than 100,000 cases existent. So forgive me if I con sider the "cured" dubious. Restrained, of no further medical importance I might accept, but trace free? I want more evidence.
Nothing wrong with wikipedia provided you follow the links to see where the information came from. Wikipedia provides co-ordination not accuracy.
I would not trust the courts in my own country not to pander to the US, let alone the UK. Both of our countries are bought and paid for. But yes, the UK could charge Assange of about avoiding their law. But as the crap falls out in Sweden, I am not sure it is likely though, I think that will have much to do with what Sweden (and USA) say and the public image the UK will have to face. What happens when the Swede says it was an invalid warrant issued by an overzealous prosecutor?It looks like it might be heading that way.
Slashdot Mirror
No, stop being a dick. I have no problem with gay. But are you trying to say (as a gay person) that it is a personal choice and you could choose not to be gay? Because my response is to say that that is bullshit. Ans that is what this thread is about.
Trumptard? Err... I think you have it backwards. I am and always have been a liberal who believes in freedom of thought and action. I am reluctant to say so excuse I hate the abuse that is handed out to liberals in the USA where the constitution of the USA is and was about as liberal as you can get. To me the "trumptards" are betraying the heritage of the founders of the USA.
You want examples but as I tried to say, from external (to the USA) media the overall impression is that it is about three-to-one. I am not trying to make the claim of three incidents to one incident as it is no longer possibly to accept the accuracy of any US source on its own. The US is now a post factual society where truth can only be adjudged and never known.
Trump lawlessness? Emoluments act. Why is he not already in jail? Openly and determinably corrupt. A public scofflaw.
You are answering the wrong question. I am trying to get Notabadguy that he would not, could not change is lifestyle as a matter of choice. He knows it but he will not admit it.
I do not believe that for one minute. I doubt you do either.
Transgender is not a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. Or are you claiming otherwise? If you are then show me how you can "close" to be gay and tell me how it affected you after the event.
You are as silly as she is.
Maybe you should. The 40 referred to one little terminal monkey (who apologised) not to Wu.
So, someone releasing your phone, number, address and tax records is free speech protected by the constitution is it? I am not American but the constitution is (In my not so humble opinion) about the third greatest political document in history. I suggest to you "Study basic justice principles and the US Constitution". Be ashamed because a foreigner knows better than that. But, hey, that is not an uncommon thing...
You poor, pool fool. So in love with your own image of your mentality that you do not even see the traps you are walking into.
Next, women will have prove rape to get an abortion.
We will get a lot more false rape reports.
What will happen to someone who obtains an abortion on false statements? A murder charge?
That is just off the top of my head. I am sure there is much else. How you going to handle all that oh-so-smart one?
It is not smart to call someone dumb and an idiot when you make dumb and idiotic statement yourself. You have to do better, not worse.
No, you gave nothing. Some Anonymous Coward did several posts above yours. But even that person gave nothing. An apocryphal "about 7%" with no support at all is giving less than nothing. You have not even defined terms. What is this "Feminism" that you speak of? Who comprises it? Are there any internal divisions?
You gave nothing. Except negativity. Bubbles, bubbles, every where, Nor any drop to think.....
How do you know?
Why the conditional?
You say you can decide things about your identity. I simply do not believe you. You can not decide these things. You can claim to choose but you can not. These things are or they are not. Possibly except for the younger bit. We all identify as younger than we are at some stages in life. SO it seems to me that you are one who believes that gay, trans, whatever is something you choose rather than something you are inflicted with.
That does not seem to be the case for the information we have. Best guess at the moment is that it is not a choice. Is it a choice for you? If "she wins" (wins what I don't know) could you really live up to your claim and become a "gender, age, and race fluid opposer of rape culture". Could you do it and make it stick? Could you be happy with those choices?
I would really be interested in your reply if it is a serious one.
I'm from overseas. I use media from many countries. From what I have seen so far (but not recorded for either side) it would seem to be running about three-to-one the other way. Do a little googling or better yet, a search engine that does not just give you want you want to see.
This though, applies to both sides...
Please note that a demonstration is not a riot and cannot become one unless there is an opposition presence (although sometimes that opposition may come from politicised police). That presence is intrinsically aggressive and promotes volatile situations that start at insult and descend to violence. Often by the time the first punch is thrown both sides have gone way beyond civil respect. If you are going to protest a protest then have your counter-protest elsewhere. For good manners, for freedom of speech and safety of all concerned.
Unless you can logically show that stupidity. If you can show it, then you were not being bigoted in describing it as stupid, merely accurate.
He is at least willing to post a pseudo identity and affected by rep. You on the other hand do not appear to have the courage of your convictions. Commit to your opinions - or realise they have the value of used cat-shredded toilet paper.
From what do we know?
It is for horses, chickens, sheep, cows and pigs.....
If your species can not out run, out breed, out eat, or out live mankind, the best survival strategy your species can have is to be tasty or useful.
All labour intensive. Why bother in a land of plants plenty?
I doubt it. To fear christ one would have to believe in him. And believe very strange things about him to boot.
Troll
AH, you now realise you lost the argument and are now maintaining my point of view. Sorry, you cannot change your position to mine and claim you "won" the argument. That is dishonest. Arguing is a negative sum game.
I don't care what you see. I don't care what I see. Nobody cares what either of us see. Whatever anyone "sees" means nothing but that they thought they perceived something. However what you see contradicts known, public, established facts. You are either ignorant or dishonest and I decline to deal with either. Goodbye.
When he went to Sweden is one situation, being in Sweden is another. Without knowing his thoughts your "point" is a beach ball
Your point here? You are disingenuously claiming that where there is smoke there is fire. A person can have "legitimate" allegations and even prosecutions but that does not make them accurate. You use "legitimate charges" as an implication of guilt in one place and use it differently in another.
No the rape accusation is not a legitimate accusation under law in the way that you imply. You are saying he is guilty because the UK agreed to his extradition. That is complete and utter rubbish. There is no implication of guilt in being extradited. The process of extradition is supposed to ensure that there is some basis for the charges (not guilt) and to ensure that there will be a fair trial. The process of extradition has bupkis to do with guilt or innocence. Besides the UK does not even follow that standard any more. See Laurie Love.
That the UK granted extradition means nothing about guilt or innocence.
Covered elsewhere
You say...
>I have seen no actual evidence that supports Assange's claimed fear of US extradition or extraordinary rendition. He traveled freely to Sweden and the UK after releasing Manning's leaks, and the UK is not the place to go if you fear US extradition. The US has some individuals who want him punished, but no part of the US government has made any movement in that direction.
That is just disingenuous. There were illegal renditions in Sweden with the victims winding up in US black holes. Assange had reason to fear. Oh, yeah, no evidence, right. That is supporting evidence at least.
Just as you have no evidence. You claim no US interest. You speak for all the three letter organisations do you? You have the authority to do this?
I do not think that you are being unintentional in your manner of speech. You actually lie. Interpol and the UK did not find any rape charges legitimate, they found the warrant a legitimate document. Yet you claim they found the rape charges legitimate. This is false. Patently false. Demonstrably false. The law does not work that way.
Well, I did say I was using old knowledge. However I reject your response not because it from Wikipedia but because if you follow link provided (2) you find that it points to a document that says it is already extinct because there are less than 100,000 cases existent. So forgive me if I con sider the "cured" dubious. Restrained, of no further medical importance I might accept, but trace free? I want more evidence.
Nothing wrong with wikipedia provided you follow the links to see where the information came from. Wikipedia provides co-ordination not accuracy.
I would not trust the courts in my own country not to pander to the US, let alone the UK. Both of our countries are bought and paid for. But yes, the UK could charge Assange of about avoiding their law. But as the crap falls out in Sweden, I am not sure it is likely though, I think that will have much to do with what Sweden (and USA) say and the public image the UK will have to face. What happens when the Swede says it was an invalid warrant issued by an overzealous prosecutor?It looks like it might be heading that way.