Julian Assange is a prick.

[itsthesheppy]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

 

[smithy_2045]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

 

[smithy_2045]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a random woman off the street, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.

Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.

 

[smithy_2045]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.

Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.

Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.

 

[tehroc]

This guy is one of the last defenders of democracy and you guys shit on him for what is most likely false charges in order to jail him for something other then uncovering the robbery of the world. Expletives at you people. No wonder the world is fucked.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.

Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.

Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.

Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.

 

[DRes82]

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.

Good to see not everyone is blindly praising, defending, and apologizing for this asshole.

When I read that the great Assange had taken refuge with Equador, I nearly spit out my coffee.

 

[smithy_2045]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.

Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.

Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.

Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.

The part I enjoy the most is that you wouldn't care if this was anyone else, you just have an axe to grind.

 

[DRes82]

Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.

Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.

So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you?

You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.

Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.

If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.

Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.

Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.

Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.

The part I enjoy the most is that you wouldn't care if this was anyone else, you just have an axe to grind.

You know who else I think is a scumbag? Roman Polanski, for drugging a 13-year-old, raping her, then fleeing the country and hiding far from where authorities can touch him. But this thread isn't called "Roman Polanski is a prick", is it?

 

[itsthesheppy]

Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.

Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.

I just don't like it when people forgo things because they dislike someone. If it was their parent, they'd defend them to the ends of the Earth and remind everyone that they are accused and nothing more. But the second it's someone they dislike, they feel a little looser with their words.

Innocent until proven otherwise, or, until I think you did it.

EDIT: there their

I've done that a few times this week -_-

I've been using 'accused' this entire time and you jump on me the moment I decide to forgo it because I felt like dipping into a bit of hyperbole for fun. If it'll unrustle your jimmies I'll go edit it for you. But that would make your quote make less sense when referenced later so I guess I won't.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.

Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.

I just don't like it when people forgo things because they dislike someone. If it was their parent, they'd defend them to the ends of the Earth and remind everyone that they are accused and nothing more. But the second it's someone they dislike, they feel a little looser with their words.

Innocent until proven otherwise, or, until I think you did it.

EDIT: there their

I've done that a few times this week -_-

I've been using 'accused' this entire time and you jump on me the moment I decide to forgo it because I felt like dipping into a bit of hyperbole for fun. If it'll unrustle your jimmies I'll go edit it for you. But that would make your quote make less sense when referenced later so I guess I won't.

You don't "dip into hyperbole for fun" when you are talking about accusations of rape.

I do when I'm accusing someone for being a coward and for having a demonstrably shady character. But fine, fair point. I should have used 'accused' instead of 'possible'. I accept my thirty lashes with a wet noodle.

 

[Denny Wallace]

Personally, I'm fucking sick of my government's "Team America, FUCK YEAH!" mantra. I'm glad for Julian. Yeah, he conducts himself in a dickish way, but the government's outrage at him just showed how awful the people I'm living under are. There is no justice in them, just revenge.

Trust is something that needs to be earned, and without calling Assange a hero or a great man, i can't fault him for not showing great confidence[...]

Just wanted to poke my head in here and suggest that you go commit a crime, and then try to sell the idea that you don't have to recognize the police's authority to arrest you because you don't trust the courts. Except you're not a global celebrity who can sell himself as a political game chip to the highest bidder so I doubt it would go well for you.

1) Swedish rape laws are known to be rather extreme (or if a might use another word, excessive), so much in fact that Swedish lawyers often joke that you need written permission from the woman before having sex. What Assange is accused for in Sweden isn't even punishable in many other modern countries.

If a woman tells you she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom and you don't put one on and have sex with her anyway, either under duress or sneakily without her knowing, that's sex without consent and therefor rape. If you have sex with someone who is unconscious, that's rape. Sorry to ruin your weekend.

2) The Swedish government was discovered (ironically through Wikileaks) to have budged to pressure from the US before. If they can budge once, they can budge again, and courts HAVE been known to be able to be politically influenced.

I'm bored by conspiracy theories. Besides, as I said before and you apparently did not read, his beef with the US and Sweden's love for sending suspects to us is a product of his own doing. It's the bed he's made for himself and is immaterial to the rape accusations or the arrest warrant filed because of them.

3) The chief-prosecutor in the case, Marianne Ny, is politically active in the area of sexual crimes. Without going as far as calling her attempt to get Assange convicted a "witch hunt", she is definitely what I'd call "motivated".

I think you'll find that most prosecutors will go to great lengths to try and convict suspected rapists. I find it hard to fault them for zeal. I'm personally not a big fan of rape. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one.

Even if the extradition to the US isn't realistic (and I'm not saying that it isn't), Assange still has the odds stacked against him, and you can't reasonably expect people to just bend over and take it from behind by the bigger guy and then call them cowards if they don't. You didn't expect Al-Queda to just bend over and surrender to the United States when they marched into Afghanistan either, did you? )

Assange is just doing what he can to stay afloat. He fights for what he believes in, and i respect that, and if our beliefs aren't aligned. I'd rather call people who DON'T fight for what they believe in cowards.

Assange is a self serving little weasel who's putting his own hide and wellbeing above that of the truth. If it's true that he did NOT rape those women, a great hero of honesty should stand up for the truth like a man. I do not respect someone who is only brave when his skin isn't on the line.

Perhaps the US isn't justified in trying to nab him. Maybe Sweden will turn him over. There is an arrest warrant out for him on suspicion of rape and he is fleeing from that. Conspiracy theories can go jump off a bridge for all I care. He's a sneaky little wimp, a hypocrite and a coward and deserves not the slightest shred of respect from anyone. Shame on him, and shame on the people who rally behind him.

He would face up to the charges if he thought he would get a free trial, which he probably won't. And as was said, the case against him was previously dropped, and only reopened after the Wikileaks scandals. That's pretty effing suspicious to me.

Oh look, more conspiracy theories. How utterly tedious.

There's a warrant for his arrest on suspicion of rape. He's fleeing justice and hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in defiance of that warrant. He's a fugitive from justice and a coward. The mitigating circumstances of his dustup with the United States, all of which was his own doing, is immaterial to that fact. He had no problem being a celebrity, making a name for himself, but now the going is getting tough. And you know what they say about admirable men. When the going gets tough, you flee from your legal responsibilities and hid in a place where you don't have to face accusations that you raped too women.

No wait, that sounds wrong. Let me try again.

when the going gets tough, the tough give rousing speeches about people who did sacrifice while doing everything you can to keep yourself from having to make similar sacrifices for your cause.

Agh, no... this is harder than I thought!

Here's the thing, you're being smarmy doesn't mitigate any of the facts the person you're quoting said. He was accused of rape in a country where rape accusations are unusually common, tenuous, and often result in convictions. Those charges were dropped (which is telling in Sweden). And when it became apparent that the charges were back in effect, he went to an embassy which offers him diplomatic immunity (which, contrary to what you suggested above ANYONE can do). Any attempt to wrest him from the embassy by authorities would be illegal, and disrespectful to the treaty allowing for the existence of the embassy (not to mention the country which operates it), and make him more of a martyr then he already is.

Having known little about the Wikileaks scandal itself and following the story from the rape charges on, I've always felt that the whole thing was a bit dubious. How many rapists are followed by interpol across sovereign borders to satisfy defunct charges THAT AREN'T also targets of the power regions? Not many I suspect. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just plain common sense. I would be very surprised if there was any truth to the rape charges, and I don't think anyone is stupid for raising an eyebrow at the whole thing.

 

[itsthesheppy]

-snip-

Nobody who espouses wild conspiracy theories thinks that they are wild conspiracy theories. The guy wearing the tin foil hat to block the Illuminati brain scanning rays is being perfectly sensible in his own mind. It's for the rest of us to say he's kooky.

I'll tune into the whole conspiracy angle the very moment there is any credible evidence at all that such a conspiracy exists instead of the perfectly reasonable series of events that have put Assange into the position he's in, all of which are his own fault.

If the charges are false then he better go ahead and answer them. Oh, instead he's hiding in the embassy of a country with a history of free speech abuse? How awkward.

 

[veloper]

There's no chance in hell that Assange could ever be convicted in an honest trial.

The press have already torn that case to shreds. There's zero proof of the aledged rape and plenty of evidence to disprove the case.

Assange has logical reason to be suspicious of the extraditement request. Hopeless cases get dropped even before they reach court, so an honest trial is not likely to be the true reason for the request.
Sweden probably mean to send him to the USA, in spite of leaders saying otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time a politician breaks a promise and this is one word they can easily break without consequences.

 

[Kirex]

Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.

I kind of get where you're coming from, but you're still trivializing rape while you spout anger all over Assange. I don't know the specifics of the case, so there's that, and yes, having sex without a condom while the partner specifically pointed out that he wants to use one is and should be a punishable offense(and severely punishable at that). I just wouldn't call it rape, because it doesn't quite fit the definition.

Hypocrite? Spineless? Yes, I can see why you would call him that. A criminal? Only when it's proven. I don't like him, but that doesn't mean I have to take accusations as fact, that's not the way a fair evaluation goes. Sure, it's quite suspicious that he doesn't face the court, but that could have other reasons beside being actually guilty, you know?

 

[itsthesheppy]

I don't know the specifics of the case

This might have been a good place to stop and fix that.

[...] so there's that, and yes, having sex without a condom while the partner specifically pointed out that he wants to use one is and should be a punishable offense(and severely punishable at that). I just wouldn't call it rape, because it doesn't quite fit the definition.

Rape is sex without consent. Full stop. In fact, read that sentence again.

Did you? If not, please do. If you have, please do again. In fact, I'll type it again, for ease of reading:

Rape is sex without consent.

That's it, that's the definition. That's what it is.

If I have sex with you under false pretenses, or while you're too inebriated to object, or flat-out unconscious, or if you rescind consent halfway through and I don't stop, that's all rape. It's not just when someone wearing a ski mask jumps out of the bushes. It is a crime that covers many possible instances and all of them are terrible.

Assange is accused of, to my knowledge, two different rapey things. First, having sex with a woman without a condom where she made it clear that the condom was necessary. That's rape; she didn't consent to the sex that happened. The other case was that he had sex with a woman while she was unconscious. No consent was possible. That's rape too.

I for one am happy that the people who seem to think differently, that some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others, are either not in positions to make policy, or are publicly grilled [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57498025-503544/ryan-grilled-on-abortion-and-forcible-rape/] and vilified for their dark-ages reasoning. I sincerely hope you don't work in law, enforcement or otherwise.

 

[Signa]

Snip

Ok, that's great and all, but why did you quote me? Click the wrong post? When I spoke of the government, I was speaking of the USA's.