Julian Assange Rape Allegations

Psy-4 wrote:

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.

None of this contradicts my at best/at worst statement.

Cyberwulf wrote:

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.

Yes. Yes I am. Every complaint, sexual or non-sexual, brought about by a man or a woman, should have its validity questioned. It's called due process, and it protects the rights of the accused because they are just that: accused. We have not proven that they have committed a crime yet. Just because the accuser is bringing up an accusation doesn't mean we should automatically believe her, just as we shouldn't automatically believe the accused because he's denying it. This goes for every crime, not just rape.

This thread made me realize I have no idea how rape trials work. Also, Assange is fascinating, and I mean that in the most value-neutral way possible. Seriously, what is with this guy?

TheHedonist wrote:

Yes. Yes I am. Every complaint, sexual or non-sexual, brought about by a man or a woman, should have its validity questioned. It's called due process, and it protects the rights of the accused because they are just that: accused. We have not proven that they have committed a crime yet. Just because the accuser is bringing up an accusation doesn't mean we should automatically believe her, just as we shouldn't automatically believe the accused because he's denying it. This goes for every crime, not just rape.

Yes, but what you don't seem to understand is that all women are virtuous flower children, to whom the topic of rape is a like a shot of the truth serum straight to the spinal column.

saeku wrote:

This thread made me realize I have no idea how rape trials work. Also, Assange is fascinating, and I mean that in the most value-neutral way possible. Seriously, what is with this guy?

It's the hair.

saeku wrote:

This thread made me realize I have no idea how rape trials work. Also, Assange is fascinating, and I mean that in the most value-neutral way possible. Seriously, what is with this guy?

He's either a God-Tier attention whore or crazy. How is that fascinating?

saeku wrote:

This thread made me realize I have no idea how rape trials work. Also, Assange is fascinating, and I mean that in the most value-neutral way possible. Seriously, what is with this guy?

Have you seen the WikiLeaks bunker?

Now THAT'S fascinating. It's like a real-life James Bond movie set.

So basically all crime victims must be suspected of making it all up for attention, and an acquittal means the crime didn't happen. Gotcha. Thanks for finally admitting that you only care about alleged criminals and not victims of crime.

Cyberwulf wrote:

So basically all crime victims must be suspected of making it all up for attention, and an acquittal means the crime didn't happen. Gotcha. Thanks for finally admitting that you only care about alleged criminals and not victims of crime.

Yes, because wanting due process for alleged criminals is totally the same thing as denying it to the accuser. Oh, wait, it's not. If Assange had written a paper called 'How to Rape Women' or something to the extent I'd agree that should be used as evidence in the trial as well. But he didn't and now he doesn't have to live with the inherent implications of writing it.

Oh, by the way, last time I checked, assuming that someone committed a crime before they're found guilty or after acquittal and saying that they did it without 'alleged' attached is called slander.

But no, of course you think the accused is lying. You can't appreciate the nuances that, in a fair trial, while the plaintiff isn't assumed to be lying, neither is the defendant. It's too hard for you.

Ugh, the identites of the accusers have been posted online with personal details. Revolting. Anybody going to try to justify that shit?

No, Hedonist, YOU can't appreciate that while the accused is presumed innocent, police have a duty to assume complaints are made in good faith and not automatically assume the complainant is lying. YOU admitted you think rape victims should be on trial (only without an attorney or the presumption that they aren't lying). YOU think it's totally fine for a victim's character to be attacked in court but booo hooo poor Julian is being slandered (in a written medium, somehow). Both women are being libelled all over the media but you don't give a fuck about them.

Cyberwulf wrote:

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

No, I'm insinuating that you shouldn't discount the fact that she wrote a paper detailing how to do exactly that. It is entirely possible to do that without making any inferences as to Assanges guilt or innocence. It's possible that she wrote the paper and also got raped. I never said otherwise. It's also possible she wrote the paper and is following through on it. All we know for sure is, she wrote it.

Cyberwulf wrote:

No, Hedonist, YOU can't appreciate that while the accused is presumed innocent, police have a duty to assume complaints are made in good faith and not automatically assume the complainant is lying. YOU admitted you think rape victims should be on trial (only without an attorney or the presumption that they aren't lying). YOU think it's totally fine for a victim's character to be attacked in court but booo hooo poor Julian is being slandered (in a written medium, somehow). Both women are being libelled all over the media but you don't give a fuck about them.

Hahahaha what.

1. 'police have the duty to assume' stop. Stop right there. The police don't have a duty to assume anything, and if they do they're bad cops. Period. If their attention is necessary in a situation it is their job to assess all evidence fairly, whether it works in favor of the plaintiff or the accused.

2. 'YOU admitted you think rape victims should be on trial (only without an attorney or the presumption that they aren't lying).' What. What. Honey, baby, darling, I can't talk for all the words you puttin' in my mouth. In any criminal trial, all of the evidence should be looked at, not just the evidence that supports the outcome you want them to arrive at.

3. 'YOU think it's totally fine for a victim's character to be attacked in court' HAHAHA Okay, so now bringing up the fact that the alleged victim wrote an article that's completely related to the case and utterly apropos in every way is attacking their character? She wrote the article, and she certainly didn't seem to have any trouble making it public when she wrote it. She attacked her own goddamned character. Since you're being so adamantly thick about this, allow me to draw another metaphor. A banker accuses a banker with a fraud charge that damaged his business, but the accusing banker had written an essay called 'How to take down rival banks using the legal system'. Do you discredit the written essay because it would be attacking the victim's character? No. You wouldn't. Because that would be idiocy.

4. 'Julian is being slandered (in a written medium, somehow)' Okay, fine. Julian is being libeled, not slandered. Point conceded, I used the term slander where I meant libel. SEMANTIC ARGUMENTS WILL GET YOU EVERYWHERE

5. 'Both women are being libelled all over the media but you don't give a fuck about them. '

The Plaintiff wrote:

Step 3

The principle of proportionality.
Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.
A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.

For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

...

Step 5

Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.
Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion

...

Step 7

Get to work.
And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.

As much as this is a narrative that a lot of men assume about a lot of rape cases that is generally bullshit, it strikes me as a little funny that she outlined how to do exactly what the bullshit narrative suggests women do in a supposedly pro-feminist article. She attacked her own character there, but all you want to do is BAWWWW that this woman is being held accountable for her own printed words that she chose to publish in a public written medium. MAKES SENSE TO ME wait wat

Arthur Miller wrote:

I have seen too many frightful proofs in court - the Devil is alive in Salem, and we dare not quail to follow wherever the accusing finger points!

ZoZo wrote:

Ugh, the identities of the accusers have been posted online with personal details. Revolting. Anybody going to try to justify that shit?

Nope.

TheHedonist wrote:

Honey, baby, darling, I can't talk for all the words you puttin' in my mouth.

Bwaha. Looks like you've been given a taste of what it's like to be me, how is it?

TheHedonist wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

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

No, I'm insinuating that you shouldn't discount the fact that she wrote a paper detailing how to do exactly that. It is entirely possible to do that without making any inferences as to Assanges guilt or innocence. It's possible that she wrote the paper and also got raped.

In other words, IT'S IRRELEVANT. It's irrelevant because THE COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT THE ONES ON TRIAL. It's irrelevant because you have no fucking proof it is related to the case. It's only relevant to people who love rapists and/or have their tongues so far up Julian's rectum they're tasting stomach acid.

Quote :

1. 'police have the duty to assume' stop. Stop right there. The police don't have a duty to assume anything,

A) yet you think they should suspect complainants of lying.
B) Perhaps a better way to word it is that they have to take reports of crimes seriously, and not automatically decide that someone is lying based on [bullshit reason here]

Quote :

2. 'YOU admitted you think rape victims should be on trial (only without an attorney or the presumption that they aren't lying).' What. What. Honey, baby, darling, I can't talk for all the words you puttin' in my mouth.

TheHedonist wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

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.

Yes. Yes I am.

OOPS.

Quote :

In any criminal trial, all of the evidence should be looked at,

And where does this evidence fit, other than to attack the complainant's character and cast her as an evil feminist out for revenge?

Quote :

3. 'YOU think it's totally fine for a victim's character to be attacked in court' HAHAHA Okay, so now bringing up the fact that the alleged victim wrote an article that's completely related to the case

HOW IS IT RELATED TO THE CASE?? It's only related to the case if you think she's a vengeful bitch. Tell me again how impartial you're being, fuckface. Your bias gets more and more obvious the more you type.

Quote :

A banker accuses a banker with a fraud charge that damaged his business, but the accusing banker had written an essay called 'How to take down rival banks using the legal system'. Do you discredit the written essay because it would be attacking the victim's character? No. You wouldn't. Because that would be idiocy.

Yes, I would, because it's completely irrelevant. Because the accuser IS NOT ON TRIAL. I know you'd love for rape victims to be shamed into silence, but the world has moved on. Sorry to disappoint you.

Quote :

OMG THE VICTIM WHOSE NAME I'M CIRCULATING IS A LYING VENGEFUL BITCH AND ALSO THIS IS TOTALLY A WITCHHUNT

I love it when people compare one man being charged with rape with, you know, systematic misogyny that resulted in the agonising deaths of several women. You fail at everything.

So tell me something Cy.

In your perfect world, if this woman's step-by-step manual of how to extract revenge on a man by crying rape/assault/whathaveyou were to be discounted and ignored, what other pieces of damning evidence would you like stricken from the courts?

Maybe you don't quite know how trials work. See, it's a fairly simple concept. Party A accuses Party B of Crime C. The validity of Party B's defense is weighed against the validity of Party A's claims.

BUT BUT BUT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A RAPE CLAIM DURP MISOGYNISTIC PATRIARCHY

Sorry Cy, but that she'd write out and advocate for crying wolf for petty revenge is pretty telling. If a man on trial for murdering his family was presented with his own blog post detailing "How to murder your family and get away with it," it has EVERYTHING to do with determining the guilt or innocence of this man. IT provides a bounty of ammuniton for the other party- Motive, mental state, and more.

You're right though Cy, the accuser isn't on trial here. Assange is on trial for the alleged crime of rape. This woman's blog post if fair game against her claim. I'm not saying that this automatically disqualifies her accusation; she very well may be telling the truth. But her blog is going to weigh heavily against her- it provides both motive AND willingness to make shit up.

ETA: Entirely relevant video

Cyberwulf wrote:

In other words, IT'S IRRELEVANT. It's irrelevant because THE COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT THE ONES ON TRIAL. It's irrelevant because you have no fucking proof it is related to the case. It's only relevant to people who love rapists and/or have their tongues so far up Julian's rectum they're tasting stomach acid.

Yes. You're absolutely right. The complainants are not on trial but it's the defense's job to attempt to disprove their claims. And if they, you know, wrote a paper basically called I'm A Vengeful Bitch And You Can Too, it's completely fair game for them to use against her in a court of law.

Cyberwulf wrote:

A) yet you think they should suspect complainants of lying.
B) Perhaps a better way to word it is that they have to take reports of crimes seriously, and not automatically decide that someone is lying based on [bullshit reason here]

A.) No, I think the defense should.
B.) Because international incidents are made of reports the police didn't take seriously.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

2. 'YOU admitted you think rape victims should be on trial (only without an attorney or the presumption that they aren't lying).' What. What. Honey, baby, darling, I can't talk for all the words you puttin' in my mouth.

TheHedonist wrote:

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.

Yes. Yes I am.

OOPS.
[/quote]

Learn to read. Also I thought you meant on trial figuratively. I'll break it down for you because clearly if I am the slightest bit unclear you will assume the worst: if the complaint goes to trial, their testimony should be put to the same scrutiny as the defendant's. I'll admit my first metaphor was flawed, the banker one was far better.

Cyberwulf wrote:

HOW IS IT RELATED TO THE CASE?? It's only related to the case if you think she's a vengeful bitch. Tell me again how impartial you're being, fuckface. Your bias gets more and more obvious the more you type.

IT'S RELATED TO THE CASE BECAUSE IT SHOWS SHE WROTE A TREATISE ON HOW TO BE A VENGEFUL BITCH. THAT SUGGESTS A CERTAIN EXPERTISE.

GODDAMN ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

A banker accuses a banker with a fraud charge that damaged his business, but the accusing banker had written an essay called 'How to take down rival banks using the legal system'. Do you discredit the written essay because it would be attacking the victim's character? No. You wouldn't. Because that would be idiocy.

Yes, I would, because it's completely irrelevant. Because the accuser IS NOT ON TRIAL. I know you'd love for rape victims to be shamed into silence, but the world has moved on. Sorry to disappoint you.

My mouth is so full of your words I'm beginning to resemble a chipmunk.

It is the defense's job to attempt to discredit the accuser no matter how much you think they've been wronged. No matter how much they actually have been wronged. And if she happened to play right into the hands of her defense's version of what happened by illustrating it exactly in something she wrote and telling other women to do it, then so be it. I am not saying the 'vengeful bitch' scenario happens often, I am not even necessarily saying it happened here, and I know that real rape is usually unreported, and that even in recorded cases this particular version of evens happens a miniscule amount of the time. It's also entirely possible that she's a vengeful bitch who got raped. I DON'T KNOW. It's for the trail to decide. I am saying she gave the defense's story credence by writing what she did, and so saying discredited her own claims. I know you're all for burning people at the stake as soon as there's an accusation raised against them, but the world has moved on. Sorry to disappoint you.

Cyberwulf wrote:

OMG THE VICTIM WHOSE NAME I'M CIRCULATING IS A LYING VENGEFUL BITCH AND ALSO THIS IS TOTALLY A WITCHHUNT

Cyberwulf's-word-in-mouth level has progressed from Chipmunk to Basking Shark. Overload is imminent.

JK bb I can just spit u kno dat

I never said I approved of her name being circulated, and if it wasn't circulated by the press to begin with I wouldn't have known it. Still though, you're right, that's a bit fucked up, and I'll edit it out. But only if I can call you another name. So uh. You're ugly or something, I don't know.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I love it when people compare one man being charged with rape with, you know, systematic misogyny that resulted in the agonising deaths of several women. You fail at everything.

I was making a point about the accusers being automatically believed over the accused, seeing as, you know, that's what the play is about (lol McCarthyism). You fail at everything.

Zoey wrote:

Ugh, the identites of the accusers have been posted online with personal details. Revolting. Anybody going to try to justify that shit?

Lemme guess, Wikileaks?

Also, I don't give a fuck. The name and personal information of the accused is always available to anyone who wants it.

ZoZo wrote:

Ugh, the identites of the accusers have been posted online with personal details. Revolting. Anybody going to try to justify that shit?

Nope. In fact, I flag it on any forum I see where it's posted.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Zoey wrote:

Ugh, the identites of the accusers have been posted online with personal details. Revolting. Anybody going to try to justify that shit?

Lemme guess, Wikileaks?

Heh. Wouldn't be surprised.

For this topic, a bingo card!

>Rape Apologist

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ZoZo wrote:

For this topic, a bingo card!

Wow, as bingo card jokes go, that one's pretty shitty. I don't think "rape apologist" would point out that "sex by surprise," e.g. "I have a condom OH LOL I DON'T" is a crime that Assange can be legitimately charged with.

The real punchline here is that the same people that are more than happy to act like the guy's guilt is a foregone conclusion any time a girl accuses him of rape, the moment the mob goes in the other direction, they get all defensive and wahhh, no proof, waaaahh.

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

For this topic, a bingo card!

Wow, as bingo card jokes go, that one's pretty shitty. I don't think "rape apologist" would point out that "sex by surprise," e.g. "I have a condom OH LOL I DON'T" is a crime that Assange can be legitimately charged with.

But it's said in an "OH MY GOD THOSE CRAZY SWEDES WHAT A BACK-ASSWARDS COUNTRY" way.

fun fact: in Sweden less than 10% of rapes reported to the police are brought to trial

WHICH MAKES IT THE PERFECT WAY FOR AN EVIL FEMINAZI TO GET REVENGE ON SOME GUY

I mean seriously do you dumbfucks not understand how fucking hard it is to even get someone charged with rape let alone convicted of it and here you are insisting that OMG SHE'S A VENGEFUL BITCH SHE WROTE A BLOGPOST (that says nothing about 'crying rape' but who cares, your shit is delicious Julian) ABOUT REVENGE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY HER GRAND PLAN. With the "moral" of the story according to you dipshits as "Women, don't ever do anything that might 'attack your own character' because if you get raped in the future we can use it to prove you're a lying bitch".

Cyberwulf wrote:

I mean seriously do you dumbfucks not understand how fucking hard it is to even get someone charged with rape let alone convicted of it and here you are insisting that OMG SHE'S A VENGEFUL BITCH SHE WROTE A BLOGPOST (that says nothing about 'crying rape' but who cares, your shit is delicious Julian) ABOUT REVENGE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY HER GRAND PLAN. With the "moral" of the story according to you dipshits as "Women, don't ever do anything that might 'attack your own character' because if you get raped in the future we can use it to prove you're a lying bitch".

You know, Cyberwulf, I used to dislike you but respected you for your intelligence. But now I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're a fucking idiot. Let's break down why.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I mean seriously do you dumbfucks not understand how fucking hard it is to even get someone charged with rape let alone convicted of it

I said this. I said almost exactly this.

Cyberwulf wrote:

and here you are insisting that OMG SHE'S A VENGEFUL BITCH SHE WROTE A BLOGPOST ABOUT REVENGE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY HER GRAND PLAN

I never insisted anything. I never said anything about her being a vengeful bitch, I just said that her writing that blogpost made her look like one, playing into the defense's picture. Making her look like they wanted her to look. Whether or not you'd like to acknowledge it is irrelevant, there is a difference.

Cyberwulf wrote:

(that says nothing about 'crying rape' but who cares, your shit is delicious Julian)

1. It talks about revenge on a man for wronging you emotionally, and through legal mediums. HMM.
2. I never defended Assange once.

Cyberwulf wrote:

With the "moral" of the story according to you dipshits as "Women, don't ever do anything that might 'attack your own character' because if you get raped in the future we can use it to prove you're a lying bitch".

YOU KNOW FOR SOMEONE WHO ADVOCATES GENDER EQUALITY YOU SURE MAKE IT ABOUT GENDER A WHOLE LOT OF THE TIME.

My only assertion was that this should be true for all criminal cases no matter what the gender. A man writes a treatise on making bombs. His grandmother's car blows up. HMM. A man sues his credit card company for overcharging him and they find an essay he wrote about how to commit credit card fraud. But that shouldn't be admissible as evidence unless you think he's lying, right? Yeah no it's exactly the same thing, except because the emotions aren't running as high because the topic isn't rape you can actually see straight. The only difference is at the end of this court case she will not be in jail but he might, and so the defense needs to root through her history to make sure that there isn't, you know, anything to make sure she isn't a lying bitch. Like a paper on how to be one. The lesson here isn't to not do anything that might attack your own character it's to not go public with information that makes you look like a loud, proud lying bitch because if you are a lying bitch and can be proven to be a lying bitch (by, say, a paper you wrote on how to be one) no one is going to believe anything you say even if you actually were raped (and there is no additional evidence beyond your word). And that is your fault for publicly presenting yourself as a lying bitch. (Note that I don't define 'lying bitch' as 'girl who wasn't raped but says she was'. People who pull credit card frauds are equally lying and bitchy and infinitely more common.)

Note that I'm saying all of this without saying once if the woman involved in this case is lying or telling the truth. Because I don't know and because it doesn't matter. She has played directly into the defense's narrative of what happened by publishing that, even before there was a narrative or a defense or a court case. Notice I didn't say a rape. That's because we don't know if it happened or not. Nobody does except Assange and her. Stop assuming Assange raped her, it makes you just as much of an idiot as the ones who assume he didn't.

I don't know why I'm even bothering, this is falling on deaf ears. Cy, I'm out. You're not going to hear anything that doesn't present the woman as a rosy-cheeked cherub because you hate men or just think women are morally better, or something. Seriously, for someone who claims to want gender equality you sure are wrapped up in the idea of women being somehow morally superior or something.

Oh also you're fat and smell like asparagus piss because you've called me probably dozens of names at this point and I've been relatively kind.