you would be the retard here. since you are not able to see the irony of someone who has been calling privacy to be over, complaining about privacy in google+. and then proceed to comment about 'slashtards'.
i invite you to re-read the title of the comment you replied to. this is not some event that has occurred only in this article, and this wasnt the only discussion which has taken place.
Do you have any evidence that the posters who put forward those objections you listed were American?
We'll set aside the fact that you insist on talking about sex like a commercial transaction.
sex is just an interaction in between one or more people, just like anything else. it doesnt have 'special status' among human interactions.
The answer is yes. Some transactions are over the second that both parties make them, like the donut purchase. Some transactions are ongoing and can be broken at will at any moment. Like, for example, at-will employment [wikipedia.org]. Then there's all sorts of cases in between.
quite. and the sex transaction was over more than one time after the parties made them. THEN, DAYS later, the woman changed her stance regarding the matter.
Let's leave aside the fact that you are wrong about what the accusers' testimony is. Explicit verbal refusal is not necessary for rape. The thing that's relevant is whether the accused party had sex with the alleged victim in spite of a lack of consent. There are many ways this can happen; one of them is disregarding explicit refusals, but another is showing a clear disregard for whether the victim consents.
lets leave aside the fact that there is nothing other than the testimony of the alleged, WILLING rape victim in this case regarding all these.
'explicit verbal refusal is not necessary' -> yes, we need to telepathically understand that the sex partner is unwilling to participate in the act, if we are told nothing by her. and the standard for that, is 'showing a clear disregard', the definitions of 'clear' and 'disregard' being impossible to determine in any given context. totally subjective.
really. gtfo.
It's physically impossible to pull out during sex? Damn, I must be doing it wrong.
then allow me to tell you that, you seem to be not exactly enjoying your sex intercourses....
And in Assange's case, there is one allegation that he used force to overcome resistance before starting—and another that he started while the alleged victim was asleep.
yes. allegations of women who have changed their stance days later after sexual intercourse, when they discovered that they were being cheated by other women.
are you aware that leave aside woman CONSENTUALLY engaging in multiple acts of sex over a duration of time countable by days, she at NO point told assange to stop in any of these sexual intercourses, and this is in her testimony ? what 'forced down' you speaking of, idiot ? are you just expressing opinion without having information about what you are speaking of ?
When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want
IS it ? so, you are saying that, a mutually agreed interaction/transaction can be broken at will in the case of sex, but, not in the case of other transactions ?
my my. and the reason for this leisurely, at-will double standard comes from, what ?
of course, i would like to also remind you that the woman in NO case had said ANYthing about wanting him to stop, to assange, and this is her testimony. it appears you have missed that bit of information about the case, and instead talking out of your ass.
so in this case we not only have the physiologically unlikely proposition of male being ordered to stop sex at any point the other participant desires, but also in assange's case, male is supposed to be understand that the woman is wanting him to stop, WITHOUT being told to stop.
american zealotry comes to surface. first, read below regarding how it actually unfolded in sweden, and behold the shitty arguments that they have not hesitated from wandering out to in order to justify what is being done to him - not twice, not thrice, but EVERY occasion when wikileaks or assange comes up:
Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim. He then had sex with another woman, and when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police. Also undisputed is the fact that the first woman had previously written an article suggesting such a course of action to get revenge on any man she felt had cheated her.
the arguments that have been used to justify the bullshit are :
- you have to stop when you are told to stop. even if you are ejaculating and your body is convulsing involuntarily. (defies physiology)
- a woman may 'endure' despite she doesnt enjoy the sex, if the man enjoys. multiple times. she can attend social functions with him. (defies definition of rape, and actually anything that people have to endure in their life, including jobs)
- condom broke. (makes probably 30% of male population and similarly 30% or more of female population guilty of rape - broken condoms and broken pills)
- insert random bullshit that hasnt come up yet. (anything goes)
it is not too difficult to see why americans are disliked globally. the INSTANT something is harmful to your self-interests, you let go of any high principle you were touting just before that moment, and in this case, its REASON. leave aside democracy, liberty, freedom etc and all that. (iraq, somalia, now bombing of libya - you name it)
you are way too willing to portray yourselves as self-contradictory, self-indulged assholes. i have not been ascribing to that general perceptive about americans, but the continual bullshit i have observed in these wikileaks/assange threads is making me think that the people who think like that, actually have a strong point.
youre screwing someone, and she withdraws consent half a second before your ejaculation. or, just at the point you started ejaculation and your body is convulsing involuntarily.
im waiting for your justification in regard to biological impossibilities above, for the bullshit you have proposed.
really. some of you people are SO much willing to villify julian assange that, you are going to extreme ends, even putting forth totally unjustifiable, idiotic, rationale-free bullshit.
last to be challenged, has become entire field of biology in regard to homo sapiens sapiens physiology. im waiting for the next bullshit.
is there someone in their right mind justifying people complaining about sex, DAYS later it happened in a consentual fashion ? have sex today willingly, decide its rape tomorrow.
im anxiously awaiting justification of the moron who downmodded the parent as flamebait. not that it is possible to RATIONALLY justify what i have posed though.
so, she didnt enjoy it, but she endured it, because HE ENJOYED it. and you are, along with the morons who modded your idiotic post up, are actually jus tifying the charges against the man on those grounds. not only that, you uttered out another idiotic bullshit saying 'if swedes have laws agains that, good for them'.
no. good for you. well done. as of this moment, you basically practically classified 50% or more of sexual relations in between 1 or more participants as rape.
totally leaving out the fact that, everyone at all times endures a lot of things they dont like in any voluntary participation in ANYthing (ranges from marriage to jobs) and things just cant be perfect to the point of you enjoying everything you participate every time, the woman who has participated in that 'joyless' sex act, has not only attended social functions with assange later, but also had MORE sex with him later. if she hadnt enjoy having sex with him, she would not.
the idiocy here stems mainly from the fact that, you are totally clueless about the fact that 'rape' suddenly came into being when assange had sex with ANOTHER women, and AFTER that act, the first woman, who not only had engaged in multiple acts of repeated sex with the guy, suddenly felt the need to go to police to talk about rape.
it is appalling that there were people who modded your clueless and foolish post to +5.
someone mod parent down please. maybe he wont talk shit before actually researching and knowing about the current events he is talking about, next time. not that i have much hope that he will tho.
The girl that we had willing sex with, decides days LATER that she may or may not be so willing after all, and goes and asks for advice.
a conservative (swedish) politician (with ties to u.s. backed companies) intervenes, and a prosecutor in a DIFFERENT area takes up the case that the other prosecutor has DROPPED, and conjures up a new sex crime by stating 'continuing after a condom broke constitutes rape'.
with that fantastic, politically-driven propped-up legal interpretation, probably 30% or more of the world's male population are now classified as rapists. yes. if your condom popped out in the last moments before your ejaculation, you are a rapist.
how could you stop, you ask ? well, thats not the prosecutor's problem apparently. you may need to go to tibet and train 10 years in a mountain temple to be able to control your dick, in last stages of pre-ejaculation maybe. prosecutor doesnt care. he had to invent a sex crime, and he did.
well done sweden. good for you. you were one of the few countries in which corporate backed conservative politicians didnt start to screw the basic human rights over. now, you are one.
yes, they shut it down. in incremental steps, so there wouldnt be fuss about it. they consolidated servers etc, then last year they suddenly shut down japanese swg servers out of the blue, and then eventually this.
source of analysis and the fervency of analysis does invalidate it. it is possible to challenge any given proposition on and on by citing various objections, even in the case of almost surefire research or papers. and many people tend to just do that when they want to suppress something they dont want to hear. spending hours and hours for a random internet persona engaging in such an act is not something anyone desires in their right mind.
and, hot on the heels of my above observation, you drop the gem that is "using a second account to mod up your own posts". for someone who had talked about statistic samples, independent observation and so on to object to a scientific research, you just concluded that i mod up my own posts 'with a second account' by just a mere observation. that goes as far to invalidate all the effort you have been putting out to picture yourself as arguing scientifically.
i havent posted anonymous even for purposes of swearing at some other person in slashdot, leave aside being my radical views downmoded by thosew who are disturbed by them. modding my own post with a 'second' account 'observation' of yours, has concluded my discussion with you, on grounds that you are totally full of shit, leave aside having being arguing scientifically and rationally.
audieu. hasta la vista. whatever goes in your locale.
yes, they are scientists. even if they werent, at least they are not a random guy on the internet who is arguing excessively fervently and aggressively - apparently emotionally, rather than analytically. the sparkling of analytical expressions and propositions in amongst the fervent text you are posting does not make neither your motive, nor your argument analytical. the picture you are putting in front of me is the picture of someone who is vehemently and aggressively opposing to something, AND finding justifications and reasons to do so, instead of someone opposing BECAUSE there are justifications and reasons to do so.
let me tell you what's scientific : an actual study, regardless of how much a random internet persona plays it down, versus a random internet persona. the former is scientific.
my final verdict is that it is rather too disturbing for you to admit/accept the possibility of a major convenience in your life is damaging your ecosystem. lest you may need to give up on it.
'that' research. what research ? there are more than 1 research. there were two researches pointing to the same result, one from lausanne, switzerland, and one from india, Punjab University in Chandigarh.
im calling you a zealot, because despite you could have reached to the above results with a little bit effort, you went in a foray to discredit an 'original' study thinking that there was only one, ranging from ranting about statistic samples to controlled environments. there now, you can proceed on to working on these two papers trying to discredit them, since now you know that there isnt only ONE research, but more. you didnt even know that just a post ago, but you were raving all around.
even the effort i expended above on YOUR behalf is way too much. apparently the inconvenience of accepting something you find convenient harms your environment hits your nerves.
Slashdot Mirror
you would be the retard here. since you are not able to see the irony of someone who has been calling privacy to be over, complaining about privacy in google+. and then proceed to comment about 'slashtards'.
insightful. the irony is dumbfounding
source is above in higher posts of this thread. there are many posts pointing to other phenomenon not broadcast by anglo-american media as well.
Do you have any evidence that the posters who put forward those objections you listed were American?
We'll set aside the fact that you insist on talking about sex like a commercial transaction.
sex is just an interaction in between one or more people, just like anything else. it doesnt have 'special status' among human interactions.
The answer is yes. Some transactions are over the second that both parties make them, like the donut purchase. Some transactions are ongoing and can be broken at will at any moment. Like, for example, at-will employment [wikipedia.org]. Then there's all sorts of cases in between.
quite. and the sex transaction was over more than one time after the parties made them. THEN, DAYS later, the woman changed her stance regarding the matter.
Let's leave aside the fact that you are wrong about what the accusers' testimony is. Explicit verbal refusal is not necessary for rape. The thing that's relevant is whether the accused party had sex with the alleged victim in spite of a lack of consent. There are many ways this can happen; one of them is disregarding explicit refusals, but another is showing a clear disregard for whether the victim consents.
lets leave aside the fact that there is nothing other than the testimony of the alleged, WILLING rape victim in this case regarding all these.
'explicit verbal refusal is not necessary' -> yes, we need to telepathically understand that the sex partner is unwilling to participate in the act, if we are told nothing by her. and the standard for that, is 'showing a clear disregard', the definitions of 'clear' and 'disregard' being impossible to determine in any given context. totally subjective.
really. gtfo.
It's physically impossible to pull out during sex? Damn, I must be doing it wrong.
then allow me to tell you that, you seem to be not exactly enjoying your sex intercourses ....
And in Assange's case, there is one allegation that he used force to overcome resistance before starting—and another that he started while the alleged victim was asleep.
yes. allegations of women who have changed their stance days later after sexual intercourse, when they discovered that they were being cheated by other women.
why not go all the way and quote fox news instead of official swedish legal documents then, since you started.
You think everyone in this discussion is american.
yea. i said something just like that - if you pull one out of your ass that is.
go back and reread what i posted.
are you aware that leave aside woman CONSENTUALLY engaging in multiple acts of sex over a duration of time countable by days, she at NO point told assange to stop in any of these sexual intercourses, and this is in her testimony ? what 'forced down' you speaking of, idiot ? are you just expressing opinion without having information about what you are speaking of ?
woman says in her own testimony that she never told him to stop. you cant even begin to charge 'involuntary intercourse' with that.
When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want
IS it ? so, you are saying that, a mutually agreed interaction/transaction can be broken at will in the case of sex, but, not in the case of other transactions ?
my my. and the reason for this leisurely, at-will double standard comes from, what ?
of course, i would like to also remind you that the woman in NO case had said ANYthing about wanting him to stop, to assange, and this is her testimony. it appears you have missed that bit of information about the case, and instead talking out of your ass.
so in this case we not only have the physiologically unlikely proposition of male being ordered to stop sex at any point the other participant desires, but also in assange's case, male is supposed to be understand that the woman is wanting him to stop, WITHOUT being told to stop.
world of wonders.
please enumerate all of the circumstances when someone sells you a donut, and withdraws their consent just after you swallowed it.
the most enlightening post in this whole discussion. spills out a lot of names to watch for.
Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim. He then had sex with another woman, and when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police. Also undisputed is the fact that the first woman had previously written an article suggesting such a course of action to get revenge on any man she felt had cheated her.
the arguments that have been used to justify the bullshit are :
- you have to stop when you are told to stop. even if you are ejaculating and your body is convulsing involuntarily. (defies physiology)
- a woman may 'endure' despite she doesnt enjoy the sex, if the man enjoys. multiple times. she can attend social functions with him. (defies definition of rape, and actually anything that people have to endure in their life, including jobs)
- condom broke. (makes probably 30% of male population and similarly 30% or more of female population guilty of rape - broken condoms and broken pills)
- insert random bullshit that hasnt come up yet. (anything goes)
it is not too difficult to see why americans are disliked globally. the INSTANT something is harmful to your self-interests, you let go of any high principle you were touting just before that moment, and in this case, its REASON. leave aside democracy, liberty, freedom etc and all that. (iraq, somalia, now bombing of libya - you name it)
you are way too willing to portray yourselves as self-contradictory, self-indulged assholes. i have not been ascribing to that general perceptive about americans, but the continual bullshit i have observed in these wikileaks/assange threads is making me think that the people who think like that, actually have a strong point.
youre screwing someone, and she withdraws consent half a second before your ejaculation. or, just at the point you started ejaculation and your body is convulsing involuntarily.
im waiting for your justification in regard to biological impossibilities above, for the bullshit you have proposed.
really. some of you people are SO much willing to villify julian assange that, you are going to extreme ends, even putting forth totally unjustifiable, idiotic, rationale-free bullshit.
last to be challenged, has become entire field of biology in regard to homo sapiens sapiens physiology. im waiting for the next bullshit.
explain to me. why it is flamebait.
is there someone in their right mind justifying people complaining about sex, DAYS later it happened in a consentual fashion ? have sex today willingly, decide its rape tomorrow.
im anxiously awaiting justification of the moron who downmodded the parent as flamebait. not that it is possible to RATIONALLY justify what i have posed though.
so, she didnt enjoy it, but she endured it, because HE ENJOYED it. and you are, along with the morons who modded your idiotic post up, are actually jus tifying the charges against the man on those grounds. not only that, you uttered out another idiotic bullshit saying 'if swedes have laws agains that, good for them'.
no. good for you. well done. as of this moment, you basically practically classified 50% or more of sexual relations in between 1 or more participants as rape.
totally leaving out the fact that, everyone at all times endures a lot of things they dont like in any voluntary participation in ANYthing (ranges from marriage to jobs) and things just cant be perfect to the point of you enjoying everything you participate every time, the woman who has participated in that 'joyless' sex act, has not only attended social functions with assange later, but also had MORE sex with him later. if she hadnt enjoy having sex with him, she would not.
the idiocy here stems mainly from the fact that, you are totally clueless about the fact that 'rape' suddenly came into being when assange had sex with ANOTHER women, and AFTER that act, the first woman, who not only had engaged in multiple acts of repeated sex with the guy, suddenly felt the need to go to police to talk about rape.
it is appalling that there were people who modded your clueless and foolish post to +5.
someone mod parent down please. maybe he wont talk shit before actually researching and knowing about the current events he is talking about, next time. not that i have much hope that he will tho.
The girl that we had willing sex with, decides days LATER that she may or may not be so willing after all, and goes and asks for advice.
a conservative (swedish) politician (with ties to u.s. backed companies) intervenes, and a prosecutor in a DIFFERENT area takes up the case that the other prosecutor has DROPPED, and conjures up a new sex crime by stating 'continuing after a condom broke constitutes rape'.
with that fantastic, politically-driven propped-up legal interpretation, probably 30% or more of the world's male population are now classified as rapists. yes. if your condom popped out in the last moments before your ejaculation, you are a rapist.
how could you stop, you ask ? well, thats not the prosecutor's problem apparently. you may need to go to tibet and train 10 years in a mountain temple to be able to control your dick, in last stages of pre-ejaculation maybe. prosecutor doesnt care. he had to invent a sex crime, and he did.
well done sweden. good for you. you were one of the few countries in which corporate backed conservative politicians didnt start to screw the basic human rights over. now, you are one.
Easy to use, uncluttered. the circles thing is great.
yes, they shut it down. in incremental steps, so there wouldnt be fuss about it. they consolidated servers etc, then last year they suddenly shut down japanese swg servers out of the blue, and then eventually this.
the 200 people on remaining 10 servers of swg were ....... forget that. there wasnt even 200 people.
So, their fucking up an extremely successful franchise's online mmo, did not play a big part ? oh my. now now.
source of analysis and the fervency of analysis does invalidate it. it is possible to challenge any given proposition on and on by citing various objections, even in the case of almost surefire research or papers. and many people tend to just do that when they want to suppress something they dont want to hear. spending hours and hours for a random internet persona engaging in such an act is not something anyone desires in their right mind.
and, hot on the heels of my above observation, you drop the gem that is "using a second account to mod up your own posts". for someone who had talked about statistic samples, independent observation and so on to object to a scientific research, you just concluded that i mod up my own posts 'with a second account' by just a mere observation. that goes as far to invalidate all the effort you have been putting out to picture yourself as arguing scientifically.
i havent posted anonymous even for purposes of swearing at some other person in slashdot, leave aside being my radical views downmoded by thosew who are disturbed by them. modding my own post with a 'second' account 'observation' of yours, has concluded my discussion with you, on grounds that you are totally full of shit, leave aside having being arguing scientifically and rationally.
audieu. hasta la vista. whatever goes in your locale.
yes, they are scientists. even if they werent, at least they are not a random guy on the internet who is arguing excessively fervently and aggressively - apparently emotionally, rather than analytically. the sparkling of analytical expressions and propositions in amongst the fervent text you are posting does not make neither your motive, nor your argument analytical. the picture you are putting in front of me is the picture of someone who is vehemently and aggressively opposing to something, AND finding justifications and reasons to do so, instead of someone opposing BECAUSE there are justifications and reasons to do so.
let me tell you what's scientific : an actual study, regardless of how much a random internet persona plays it down, versus a random internet persona. the former is scientific.
my final verdict is that it is rather too disturbing for you to admit/accept the possibility of a major convenience in your life is damaging your ecosystem. lest you may need to give up on it.
'that' research. what research ? there are more than 1 research. there were two researches pointing to the same result, one from lausanne, switzerland, and one from india, Punjab University in Chandigarh.
http://alerte.ch/etudes/4-presentation/76-la-telephonie-mobile-perturbe-le-comportement-des-abeilles.html
that is the lausanne study
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sharma%2C+V.P.+and+Kumar%2C+N.+K.+2010.+Changes+in+honeybee+behaviour+and+biology+under+the+influence+of+cellphone+radiations.+Current+Science+98+(10)%3A+1376+%E2%80%93+1378.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
that is the punjab study.
im calling you a zealot, because despite you could have reached to the above results with a little bit effort, you went in a foray to discredit an 'original' study thinking that there was only one, ranging from ranting about statistic samples to controlled environments. there now, you can proceed on to working on these two papers trying to discredit them, since now you know that there isnt only ONE research, but more. you didnt even know that just a post ago, but you were raving all around.
even the effort i expended above on YOUR behalf is way too much. apparently the inconvenience of accepting something you find convenient harms your environment hits your nerves.