Julian Assange Rape Allegations

Which part of Interpol encouraging arrest of a man who owes 715bux sounded legit to you?

They also rarely go after sex offenders.

Seule wrote:

I think this could be a pretty bad move on the judge's part. Whatever your view on these things, you have to admit that refusing a person who's voluntarily surrendered for questioning over rape charges bail (especially when multiple people have offered surety) is a little excessive...

The point of bail is to guarantee your appearance in court. It doesn't matter how many people have stepped up and said "I'll post the surety", or that he voluntarily surrendered - if the defendant has a high propensity to skip the jurisdiction, then they aren't getting bail.

Given Assange's past actions even before all the allegations, getting any amount of bail was a long-shot to begin with.

The Unoriginal wrote:

they can't frame an average Joe for anything more heinous than not being bothered with a rubber?

It isn't that he wasn't "bothered with a rubber". The allegation is that he was asked to use a condom, didn't use a condom and then didn't stop when asked. He's also alleged not to have stopped when asked after a condom broke. What do we call it when you're having sex with someone, they ask you to stop, and you don't?

Psy-4 wrote:

Which part of Interpol encouraging arrest of a man who owes 715bux sounded legit to you?

They also rarely go after sex offenders.

That's hardly a conspiracy though. That's abusing channels which already exist.

I quite agree that it's thoroughly disproportionate. Once again, I shall mention Roman Polanski.

ZoZo wrote:

That's hardly a conspiracy though. That's abusing channels which already exist.

This is a non-argument. Semantics rarely are. False semantics even less so.

It's obvious a government (dohoho, wonder which one) has its fat finger in Interpol's agenda, so that they weigh in on the issue they have no business with.

There is no official word which government is involved, and the motivation is obviously to perpetuate the idea of Assange as a rapist, and discredit him. So yes, it's a conspiracy. Failing that, it's coercion to get Interpol involved.

Gee, Psy, maybe he did actually rape those women, whose names have been dragged through the mud by every blogger who loves the taste of Julian's asshole. I notice how quick you were to brand them as liars even though you supposedly believe 'innocent till proven guilty'.

EDIT: Alas! A Blog has a list of links about the case.

Of course Psy thinks they're liars. He can't appreciate the nuances that Wikileaks isn't evil, but Julian Assange might be a rapist. It's too hard for him.

I totally did not consider that I have to hold all allegations as false by default, with burden of proof on the prosecution to convince me otherwise, who then proceeded to fuck it up completely, which led me to believe they never had a case in the first place, which, in turn, led me to believe that this narrative makes the most sense.

Quote :

"One of the women involved in the claims is a radical feminist in Sweden who is known to have a theory that men dominate their social positions through sex and she's also been known to write a blog called 'seven steps to legal revenge'."

Did this actually happen or is it an unsubstantiated claim? Because, uh, if it did it's kind of telling.

Also, not to nitpick, but how do you not notice that someone isn't wearing a condom? It feels different. It looks different. It tastes/smells/(sounds?) different.

Psy-4 wrote:

I totally did not consider that I have to hold all allegations as false by default

In which case you have to hold all the allegations that you've made and every other blogger has made as false by default.

TheHedonist wrote:

Quote :

"One of the women involved in the claims is a radical feminist in Sweden who is known to have a theory that men dominate their social positions through sex and she's also been known to write a blog called 'seven steps to legal revenge'."

Did this actually happen or is it an unsubstantiated claim? Because, uh, if it did it's kind of telling.

Why is it telling, Hedonist? You wouldn't be suggesting that certain women can't possibly be raped based on something they did X amount of time in the past now would you?

Quote :

Also, not to nitpick, but how do you not notice that someone isn't wearing a condom?

Eh, the point is that she DID notice, hence the charges. Dumbfuck.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Why is it telling, Hedonist? You wouldn't be suggesting that certain women can't possibly be raped based on something they did X amount of time in the past now would you?

No. I'm saying that she has shown in a very public manner that she knows how to drag someone's name through the mud legally, to the point of creating her own how-to. Nowhere did I suggest anything about whether or not she was raped. That is for the courts to decide and until they do I am keeping silent about it. Keep puttin words in my mouth tho bb u so cute wen u do dat

Cyberwulf wrote:

Eh, the point is that she DID notice, hence the charges. Dumbfuck.

LEST YOU PURPOSELY MISCONSTRUE WHAT I'M SAYING AGAIN the point I was making is: 'What. How did she not notice that.' Not 'What. How did she not notice that JULIAN IS INNOCENT I SWEAR I KNOW IT BECAUSE OF BLOGS.' If you haven't noticed it's kind of a huge logical step so thanks for making it for me, I guess.

Oh, wait.

Also did she notice it before or after? It matters. Not as to whether or not he gets prosecuted, it's pretty cut-and-dry that his alleged crimes are just that: crimes under swedish law, and if it can be proven he did it then yes, he should do the prescribed time/pay the prescribed fine. My question is just how does anyone not notice that. I can't get my head around how you would not notice if it's latex rubbing all up in your or skin. They two feel pretty damned different.

She noticed, The Hedonist:

Quote :

She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity"

ETA: Assange's blog from 2006-7. Might as well dump it here. It's quite fascinating. Part crazy ramblings, part pretentious, with a chunk of rather bizarre attitudes towards women in there to boot.

Quote :

Caddie or cadet used to denote the passenger of a horse-coach picked up for personal profit by the driver (i.e placed next to the driver and not in the already booked interior). So a 'cad' is a man who picks up women, profits from them, and then leaves them by the road side. 'Caddie' or 'cad-et', as in the diminutive -- 'there goes a cad and his cadette'.

Such romantic etymology is enough to make a man want to don his oilskin and mount his horse with whip and smile at the ready.

Quote :

Mathematics is a systemization of communicable human thought created by brain architectures that have male-type spacial abilities and extremised by the extremes within that group. Extreme female brain architectures would create a different sort of mathematics. It won't be created by the females currently in mathematics because they need a male type brain to thrive in the existing mathematical world.

Quote :

But then, just when one might suspect that men are krill to the baleen of female romantic manipulation, I found myself loving a girl who was a coffee addict. I would make a watery paste of finely ground coffee and surreptitiously smear this around my neck and shoulders before seducing her so she would associate my body with her dopaminergic cravings. But every association relates two objects both ways. She started drinking more and more coffee. Sometimes I looked at her cups of liquid arabicia with envious eyes for if there were four cups then somehow, I was one of them, or a quarter of everyone one of them...

I thought he was an attention-seeking wanker before. Now I think he might be a little crazy.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I notice how quick you were to brand them as liars even though you supposedly believe 'innocent till proven guilty'.

Uh...

Maybe it's different in your magical fantasy land (Europe), but in America, it means that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. It does not mean that the accuser is being truthful until proven otherwise.

If anything, it implies the exact opposite. As long as Assange is "innocent," the accusers are either honestly mistaken or flat out lying.

ZoZo wrote:

He can't appreciate the nuances that Wikileaks isn't evil

Have you ever seen Assange talks about why WikiLeaks exists? He doesn't even care what collateral damage releasing the information causes, he just wants to create a sensation. Hence the heavily-edited "Collateral Murder" video.

WikiLeaks, at best, is a tool for disseminating intelligence to people without the resources to aquire it on their own. At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Penguin wrote:

At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Name a single person whose life has been lost due to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.

ZoZo wrote:

She noticed, The Hedonist:

Quote :

She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity"

Ah. Okay, I redact my statement.

Penguin wrote:

WikiLeaks, at best, is a tool for disseminating intelligence to people without the resources to aquire it on their own. At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Uh-huh, okay.

And they say that Assange's and Wikileaks supporters have their lips encrusted in semen. At least ours had a chance to dry off.

TheHermit wrote:

Penguin wrote:

At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Name a single person whose life has been lost due to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.

Well, one of the things included in the cables were lists of important American assets in each of those countries. So the terrorists now have a handy list of targets in places where you can go without having to be molested to get on a plane.

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

He can't appreciate the nuances that Wikileaks isn't evil

Have you ever seen Assange talks about why WikiLeaks exists? He doesn't even care what collateral damage releasing the information causes, he just wants to create a sensation. Hence the heavily-edited "Collateral Murder" video.

WikiLeaks, at best, is a tool for disseminating intelligence to people without the resources to aquire it on their own. At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

I don't know, I think on the whole Wikileaks is a good thing, or at the very least, something that is necessary (though I wish they'd be a little more careful about redacting, etc).

Assange, on the other hand, is a complete bellend.

Assange isn't Wikileaks. It would be a pretty shitty wiki if the whole thing shut down because of that one bloke.

Azzandra wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

Penguin wrote:

At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Name a single person whose life has been lost due to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.

Well, one of the things included in the cables were lists of important American assets in each of those countries. So the terrorists now have a handy list of targets in places where you can go without having to be molested to get on a plane.

Sooooo... you got nothing, then? Okay, that's about what I figured.

I am neither interested nor impressed by "Won't someone PLEASE think of the terrorists?!" rhetoric.

Actually, Hedonist, you ARE suggesting something about the validity of her rape complaint by saying 'oh it's telling that she made a blog post about how to get even with men'. Don't pretend you aren't just because I pointed out you were insinuating that the woman is lying.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Actually, Hedonist, you ARE suggesting something about the validity of her rape complaint by saying 'oh it's telling that she made a blog post about how to get even with men'. Don't pretend you aren't just because I pointed out you were insinuating that the woman is lying.

Uh, no. She easily could have been raped. She easily could not have been. I'm not making any insinuations one way or the other as to either person's innocence or guilt because there's a lot of bullshit going around, and I don't claim to know what's fact and what is false. One fact that seems to be consistently upheld is that the woman wrote a treatise on how to get legal revenge on someone for cheating on you, and discounting that is stupid because it is entirely relevant. Remember that thread a while back about the guys who wrote a whole guide on how to molest children? Would you discount that as proof in their pedophilia trial, even if they wrote it X years ago?

TheHedonist wrote:

I'm not making any insinuations one way or the other

Yes. You are.

Because you say this:

Quote :

One fact that seems to be consistently upheld is that the woman wrote a treatise on how to get legal revenge on someone for cheating on you, and discounting that is stupid because it is entirely relevant.

You're insinuating that she's probably making it up for revenge. How has your head not exploded from cognitive dissonance?

Quote :

Remember that thread a while back about the guys who wrote a whole guide on how to molest children? Would you discount that as proof in their pedophilia trial, even if they wrote it X years ago?

By drawing this parallel, you're insinuating that the women are or should be on trial regarding the validity of their rape complaints.

TheHermit wrote:

Penguin wrote:

At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Name a single person whose life has been lost due to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.

Won't be able to until WikiLeaks publishes the results of secret investigations into what happened to informants. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Psy-4 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

WikiLeaks, at best, is a tool for disseminating intelligence to people without the resources to aquire it on their own. At worst it's physical evidence that Assange and his fellows are willing to kill people get attention.

Uh-huh, okay.

"Oops, I forgot to make an argument!"

Penguin wrote:

"Oops, I forgot to make an argument!"

>WHARGARBL about Wikileaks
>See Wikileaks expose horendous shit
>So what's your point?

Top score.

The death count due to Wikileaks will need to hit the fourth digit before I even start considering that what they are doing is bad.