9 ms·
Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives. He claims his real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how he
by dannyb 16y ago
Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives. He claims his real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how he behaves when he gets a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that he could rationalize in the name of the greater good.
- babeKnuth 16y agoso are all people that risk people's lives scumbags? what if the people he releases info about are ones that risk more people's lives than he does? part of war is about putting your life at risk in order to preserve the lives of many more. a small sacrifice for a larger one. if you don't like war, don't participate in it.
- dannyb 16y agoNo, I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite.
- babeKnuth 16y agoummmm, you realize that's not what you said in your post?
- dannyb 16y agoAre you really that literal? My one sentence response contains a comma. The "No" is a response to your query. The rest of the sentence does not in any way contradict what I said before.
- babeKnuth 16y agoliteral about what? your explanation was poorly phrased, how was i to interpolate what you really meant if you didn't clarify it fully? my parsing of your sentence is valid, as is yours. and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts (no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool. "Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives." "I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."
- dannyb 16y agoLet's see: false dichotomy - check. Overly argumentative - check. Strawman argument - check. Yup, I'm on the internet...
- babeKnuth 16y agowe were on the internet before you had any of your "am i on the internet?" criteria checked :) just trying to have a conversation, not really interested in arguing (usually futile, especially on the web/forums/etc.). if i'm missing something i didn't see/understand, i'm always looking to find the error in my ways (it happens often, hence i've learned to always be eager in engaging conversation, whether on the streetcorners or the webs...). what were the strawmen or false dichotomies? i think all my points and questions were valid. i'm not sure if you're being disingenuous and dismissive, or just afraid to concede that your rhetoric is both unconvincing and (probably) wrong, or a combination of the two.
- babeKnuth 16y agoagain, same type of question: are all hypocrites scumbags?
- babeKnuth 16y agodoes this also apply (my simple sanity check test): "The US gov't are real scumbags for risking people's lives. They claim their real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how they behave when they get a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that they could rationalize in the name of the greater good."
- Adam503 16y agoGot any links to any evidence whatsoever? No? Didn't think so.