ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Julian Assange

Reply
Old 13th June 2018, 08:52 AM   #721
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,043
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
(Will respond to your longer post when on laptop, on cel now)

I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterize him as having a generally deceptive nature based on a couple things. Generally, he seems at least direct and honest.
Uhhh... no, he doesn't.

In Assange you have an individual who promised he would avoid commenting about the political affairs of other countries while at the embassy... then broke that promise by posting about Catalyn independence. That shows that either he was lying, or that his 'promises' don't really mean anything.

From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-separatists
...he (Assange) had breached an agreement at the end of last year not to issue messages that might interfere with other states.

You have an individual who, as a "houseguest" of the Ecuadorian embassy, was accessing things that he did not have the right to access. (It got to the point where embassy staff had to keep their personal information in a locked safe because they couldn't trust Assange.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nwelcome-guest

You have an individual who (in theory) wants to open up the world and get rid of secrets, yet supposedly runs WikiLeaks in an extremely non-transparent manner. (For example, he expects people to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.) Looks a bit hypocritical to me.

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/

You have an individual who, when some in-redacted WikiLeaks data was given to a Putin ally (which was used to target dissidents), failed to investigate. Plus the organization published information giving the names of Afghan citizens and sexual assault victims in Saudi Arabia, which put their lives in risk. This shows a general lack of empathy to those harmed by the actions of WikiLeaks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7206901.html

And, just to remind you, the main reason he is in the embassy is because Assange didn't respect the wishes of some of the women he was having sex with.

All this does not paint a portrait of someone who is "direct and honest". Instead, it paints a portrait of a egotistical narcissist who believes that the rules of society do not apply to him. Now, perhaps a case could be made for the need for organizations like WikiLeaks. But that doesn't mean that Assange should be seen as a decent individual.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 12:59 AM   #722
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
And, let's not forget, convinced a load of mates to put up his bail money because he was such an honest bloke and then did a bunk.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:50 AM   #723
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Uhhh... no, he doesn't.

In Assange you have an individual who promised he would avoid commenting about the political affairs of other countries while at the embassy... then broke that promise by posting about Catalyn independence. That shows that either he was lying, or that his 'promises' don't really mean anything.

From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-separatists
...he (Assange) had breached an agreement at the end of last year not to issue messages that might interfere with other states.

You have an individual who, as a "houseguest" of the Ecuadorian embassy, was accessing things that he did not have the right to access. (It got to the point where embassy staff had to keep their personal information in a locked safe because they couldn't trust Assange.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nwelcome-guest

You have an individual who (in theory) wants to open up the world and get rid of secrets, yet supposedly runs WikiLeaks in an extremely non-transparent manner. (For example, he expects people to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.) Looks a bit hypocritical to me.

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/

You have an individual who, when some in-redacted WikiLeaks data was given to a Putin ally (which was used to target dissidents), failed to investigate. Plus the organization published information giving the names of Afghan citizens and sexual assault victims in Saudi Arabia, which put their lives in risk. This shows a general lack of empathy to those harmed by the actions of WikiLeaks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7206901.html

And, just to remind you, the main reason he is in the embassy is because Assange didn't respect the wishes of some of the women he was having sex with.

All this does not paint a portrait of someone who is "direct and honest". Instead, it paints a portrait of a egotistical narcissist who believes that the rules of society do not apply to him.
From your first example to the last, you are spinning the facts again, but I suppose we could do this endlessly. I hope we can agree to disagree.

Quote:
Now, perhaps a case could be made for the need for organizations like WikiLeaks. But that doesn't mean that Assange should be seen as a decent individual.
This is my only real reason in supporting Assange. We do need WL, or at least an alternative. The declared mission of Wikileaks is too potentially valuable to be disabled by this sideshow.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:20 AM   #724
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
And, let's not forget, convinced a load of mates to put up his bail money because he was such an honest bloke and then did a bunk.
And yet they still support him. I recall reading that WL cleared the plan to jump bail and the backers agreed.

FWIW, I agree that he kind of sucks as a person, contrived narratives aside.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:49 AM   #725
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
And yet they still support him. I recall reading that WL cleared the plan to jump bail and the backers agreed.

FWIW, I agree that he kind of sucks as a person, contrived narratives aside.
Well, you might need to link to that as I recall at least a couple of them expressing surprise that he'd done a runner.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 07:47 AM   #726
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Well, you might need to link to that as I recall at least a couple of them expressing surprise that he'd done a runner.
You're right, the article I read said that the backers were advised that the surety was in jeapordy when they guaranteed it, but that is boilerplate language. Some backers presented themselves to the court, ready to pay, and others contested and requested reductions.

Yeah, I'll concede that Assange is cowardly, playing games to avoid facing the Swedish charges (though I do think they are trumped up to some degree). He should face Swedish courts and state his defense, in the interests of all involved, including the rights of the women. If the US pulled a fast one while in Sweden, that's a battle he should face on its own time.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 09:16 AM   #727
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,043
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
From your first example to the last, you are spinning the facts again, but I suppose we could do this endlessly.
I stated the facts.

Do you have any proof that what I posted is wrong? That WikiLeaks (the organization that wants to end secrecy) requires draconian non-disclosure agreements? Do you have any proof that WikiLeaks didn't post personal details of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia? That Assange didn't break an agreement he made to stop interfering with other countries?

And assuming everything I wrote is correct, do you think those activities can be considered the actions of someone who is "direct and honest"?

Or are we going to be subjected to some mighty hand-wave to dismiss any and all evidence that perhaps Assange isn't really "direct and honest"?
Quote:
Re: The need for WikiLeaks

This is my only real reason in supporting Assange.
Except of course you made the statement that Assange was "direct and honest". Which, as I have pointed out, is definitely not the case.

Had you said earlier "Assange is probably a liar and scumbag but he provides a net benefit" then you might have a leg to stand on. But YOU made the claim that he was likely "direct and honest".
Quote:
We do need WL, or at least an alternative.
Actually we do have alternatives... There are other similar services that publish leaked documents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Spin-offs

We also have, you know, the media (Newspapers, Television, etc.). You know, the people that have released things like the Panama papers (initially from a German Newspaper). And it should be pointed out that Snowden released his information through outlets like the Guardian. So if WikiLeaks did not exist, much/most of the information would probably end up being made public anyways through other channels.

Of course, the problem is, the mainstream media is less likely to release information that will get innocent people killed (you know, like WikiLeaks does). But you have no moral problem with innocent people getting killed, right? After all, it doesn't seem to bother "direct and honest" Assange.
Quote:
The declared mission of WikiLeaks...
That's the issue now, isn't it...

The 'declared' mission is to get rid of secrets. The ACTUAL mission seems to be "try to harm the U.S. and cozy up to Russia". Unfortunately you seem to hand-wave that away.
Quote:
...is too potentially valuable to be disabled by this sideshow.
Keep in mind that the "sideshow" is basically because WikiLeaks has turned into the Julian Assange show. And when you build an organization around an individual with such a shaky moral foundation and such a YUGE amount of ego, you're going to run into problems.

Also, Keep in mind that I'm not the only one stating that there are problems with the way WikiLeaks is being run. A lot of former insiders are saying the same thing. Daniel Domscheit-Berg had been involved with WikiLeaks for several years but left because, well, Assange was making everything about him and the U.S. "This one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do". And supposedly over a dozen people have left WikiLeaks for various reasons, including a lack of Transparency, and an infatuation with the U.S. to the point where other stories are getting ignored. (And remember, that's from INSIDERS within WikiLeaks, not from me just stating my own personal opinion.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-2115637.html
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 09:50 AM   #728
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,911
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's fair. But isn't it also, how did you put it, 'talking about his thoughts and feelings as if they weren't a fiction you created'?
The way I see it, he's made claims about his thoughts and feelings. As you put it, "communications he has put out to establish his state of mind".

You've accepted these claims and internalized them as a construct that you believe truthfully describes his thoughts and feelings. Then you use this construct as evidence to explain his actions.

I think a more rational approach is to take the claims as claims, and take the observed actions as evidence that does or does not support the claims.

You say his flight to the UK makes sense if we assume his claims about his state of mind are true.

I say his flight to the UK gives us insight into what his true state of mind really is.

tl,dr; Actions speak louder than words.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 10:10 PM   #729
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,488
I guess we're not going to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I stated the facts.

Do you have any proof that what I posted is wrong?
I didn't say you were wrong. I said you were spinning the facts. Asking (in bold) for proof that you were wrong is a great example of spin. But whatever. One by one:

Quote:
That WikiLeaks (the organization that wants to end secrecy) requires draconian non-disclosure agreements?
The link you supplied to support this does not have this 'draconian' agreement attached (goes 404). Thanks, that was helpful. Based on the $20mil penalty, I assume the actual agreement was the well-publicized 12mil pounds sterling penalty-carrying non-disclosure agreement (the exchange rate for the time seems about right) that Wikileaks staff had to sign. Why? So a staffer wouldn't grab a juicy leak and run with it themselves. You find that unreasonable, given the potentially world-altering information they are dealing with? I think it is a reasonable condition to require. Strike one.

Quote:
Do you have any proof that WikiLeaks didn't post personal details of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?
Homosexuals, plural? No, they failed to redact the personal info of one man who had been arrested in Saudi Arabia for being gay. And two rape victims, and a bunch of other less dramatic un-redacteds. That is sloppy redacting on the part of WL staff, even out of hundreds of thousands of docs. That does not indicate anything but the occasional mistake that can happen, unfortunately. Strike two.

Quote:
That Assange didn't break an agreement he made to stop interfering with other countries?
The Ecuadorian Embassy and Assange agreed that he would not issue comments that would interfere with other states. The horrifically dishonest tweet you refer to is in full as follows, from your own link:

"What is occurring in Catalonia is the redefinition of the relationship between people and state. The most disciplined Ghandian project since Ghandi. It's results will spread everywhere."

That is 'interfering with other countries' (your words, above)? Strike three.

Quote:
And assuming everything I wrote is correct, do you think those activities can be considered the actions of someone who is "direct and honest"?

Or are we going to be subjected to some mighty hand-wave to dismiss any and all evidence that perhaps Assange isn't really "direct and honest"?

Except of course you made the statement that Assange was "direct and honest". Which, as I have pointed out, is definitely not the case.

Had you said earlier "Assange is probably a liar and scumbag but he provides a net benefit" then you might have a leg to stand on. But YOU made the claim that he was likely "direct and honest".
As you may note, you have not demonstrated indirectness or dishonesty. Not even in the Catalonia tweet. Also, I said he was generally at least direct and honest. That does not mean he is not narcissistic, or wrong, or paranoid, or anything else. His work with Wikileaks I do find to be generally direct and honest, if currently misguided. WL has a stellar track record for not having to issue retractions for giving out false information, for example. Better than any other major publisher.

Quote:
Actually we do have alternatives... There are other similar services that publish leaked documents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Spin-offs
Yes. I know. Heard anything substantial from any of these alternatives? Didn't think so. An alternative needs to actually, you know, deliver something. I actually had high hopes for OpenLeaks. Danny D-S has done squat.

Quote:
We also have, you know, the media (Newspapers, Television, etc.). You know, the people that have released things like the Panama papers (initially from a German Newspaper). And it should be pointed out that Snowden released his information through outlets like the Guardian. So if WikiLeaks did not exist, much/most of the information would probably end up being made public anyways through other channels.
Yes. Obviously. But a WL platform is (in theory) unique in not being owned by a corporation who might exercise a little editorial control, or have a bias. Yes, Assange has created a bias within. I am also concerned about an additional, and uncontrollable, bias from without, such as a parent company with a vested interest in leaked material.

Quote:
Of course, the problem is, the mainstream media is less likely to release information that will get innocent people killed (you know, like WikiLeaks does). But you have no moral problem with innocent people getting killed, right? After all, it doesn't seem to bother "direct and honest" Assange.
Not only a dead lie, but an unnecessarily personal one.

Quote:
That's the issue now, isn't it...

The 'declared' mission is to get rid of secrets. The ACTUAL mission seems to be "try to harm the U.S. and cozy up to Russia". Unfortunately you seem to hand-wave that away.
Ignore your personal opinion? Yeah, after the last one you just ventured I am quite comfortable with that.

Quote:
Keep in mind that the "sideshow" is basically because WikiLeaks has turned into the Julian Assange show. And when you build an organization around an individual with such a shaky moral foundation and such a YUGE amount of ego, you're going to run into problems.

Also, Keep in mind that I'm not the only one stating that there are problems with the way WikiLeaks is being run. A lot of former insiders are saying the same thing. Daniel Domscheit-Berg had been involved with WikiLeaks for several years but left because, well, Assange was making everything about him and the U.S. "This one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do". And supposedly over a dozen people have left WikiLeaks for various reasons, including a lack of Transparency, and an infatuation with the U.S. to the point where other stories are getting ignored. (And remember, that's from INSIDERS within WikiLeaks, not from me just stating my own personal opinion.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-2115637.html
Yes. I know. As I said earlier, I had high hopes for D D-S and OpenLeaks. But they, and the other wondrous alternatives, are doing nothing. Much like my country, the USA, has a ton of problems, large and small, and I still want to see it succeed because of the promise it holds. Kind of a Trump/Assange US/WL analogy. You could argue that another country would do what the US does. But they are not, currently. For better or worse, they are both what is on the table, and I want badly to see them sort out their issues and get to work.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907

Last edited by Thermal; 14th June 2018 at 10:54 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 10:35 PM   #730
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The way I see it, he's made claims about his thoughts and feelings. As you put it, "communications he has put out to establish his state of mind".

You've accepted these claims and internalized them as a construct that you believe truthfully describes his thoughts and feelings. Then you use this construct as evidence to explain his actions.

I think a more rational approach is to take the claims as claims, and take the observed actions as evidence that does or does not support the claims.

You say his flight to the UK makes sense if we assume his claims about his state of mind are true.

I say his flight to the UK gives us insight into what his true state of mind really is.

tl,dr; Actions speak louder than words.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I am doing. His claims are, I think, supported by evidence.

Take for example his 'flight' from Sweden. He had his lawyer inquire in writing if Assange was free to leave the country, per his plans. Sweden affirmed, in writing, that he was free to go. Assange first tried to arrange the secondary interview with Ny (the prosecutor) before he departed (she said at this time that he was 'not a wanted man'). Ny didn't feel well, then there was a Sunday, and after Sweden got around to scheduling the questioning, Assange's lawyer couldn't get a hold of him (he led a kind of nomadic life at the time) and the EAW was issued almost immediately.

I think the claim that he did not 'flee' Sweden is supported by the evidence. I am again linking the Agreed Facts from the UK Supreme Court as the source of these facts. I trust you find that credible?

You, on the other hand, decide he fled in advance and interpret the narrative from there. Why?

https://www.scribd.com/document/8091...s-Assange-Case

eta: or did you mean 'flight' in terms of taking an airplane?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907

Last edited by Thermal; 14th June 2018 at 10:51 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 03:02 PM   #731
JihadJane
not a camel
 
JihadJane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 64,975
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Uhhh... no, he doesn't.

In Assange you have an individual who promised he would avoid commenting about the political affairs of other countries while at the embassy... then broke that promise by posting about Catalyn independence. That shows that either he was lying, or that his 'promises' don't really mean anything.

From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-separatists
...he (Assange) had breached an agreement at the end of last year not to issue messages that might interfere with other states.

You have an individual who, as a "houseguest" of the Ecuadorian embassy, was accessing things that he did not have the right to access. (It got to the point where embassy staff had to keep their personal information in a locked safe because they couldn't trust Assange.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nwelcome-guest

You have an individual who (in theory) wants to open up the world and get rid of secrets, yet supposedly runs WikiLeaks in an extremely non-transparent manner. (For example, he expects people to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.) Looks a bit hypocritical to me.

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/

You have an individual who, when some in-redacted WikiLeaks data was given to a Putin ally (which was used to target dissidents), failed to investigate. Plus the organization published information giving the names of Afghan citizens and sexual assault victims in Saudi Arabia, which put their lives in risk. This shows a general lack of empathy to those harmed by the actions of WikiLeaks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7206901.html

And, just to remind you, the main reason he is in the embassy is because Assange didn't respect the wishes of some of the women he was having sex with.

All this does not paint a portrait of someone who is "direct and honest". Instead, it paints a portrait of a egotistical narcissist who believes that the rules of society do not apply to him. Now, perhaps a case could be made for the need for organizations like WikiLeaks. But that doesn't mean that Assange should be seen as a decent individual.
Who looks to The Guardian newspaper for reliable, unbiased information about Wikileaks and Julian Assange?
__________________
"Jealousy makes you think the same thing over and over and the more you do that, the less reality-testing you do. Emotions all have an illusion of certainty, and jealousy makes you certain of your perception of the world.
JihadJane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 12:37 PM   #732
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,043
A few more updates on the Assange/WikiLeaks front...

Pamela Anderson (friend to Assange) supposedly doesn't quite understand comedy and satire, and actually asked Alec Baldwin (who has played Trump in several Saturday Night Live skits) if he's on good enough terms with Trump to get Assange pardoned. (She has also complained about people being 'anti-Russia'... Hmmm... wonder why that might be?

From: https://www.thewrap.com/pamela-ander...ulian-assange/
“I saw Alec Baldwin the other day at ‘Match Game’ and asked him, ‘How do you get along with Trump?’ and he’s like, ‘Ah, not great,'” Anderson said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I said, ‘Well, if you get Julian a pardon maybe he could host ‘Saturday Night Live!’–because Julian is really funny and not a lot of people know that.”

On a more serious note:

Looks like there are some negotiations between Ecuador and the U.K. to have Assange evicted from the embassy.

https://www.news.com.au/world/britai...373fc2cced25b9

And finally, looks like WikiLeaks may have been tied into the Mueller investigations:

From: https://globalnews.ca/news/4332154/r...cking-denials/
Charges against 12 Russian military intelligence officers for U.S. election hacking undermine denials by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that the Russian government was the source of stolen Democratic emails published by the anti-secrecy organization.... if the charges in the indictment are proved true, it would show that WikiLeaks – referred to as “Organization 1” in the indictment – received the material from a persona directly controlled by Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate, and even gave the Russian hackers advice on how to disseminate it.

So, WikiLeaks/Assange are not under indictment (although I do have to wonder if Mueller might end up charging them after all is said and done.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 01:51 PM   #733
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,043
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Quote:
I stated the facts.

Do you have any proof that what I posted is wrong?
I didn't say you were wrong. I said you were spinning the facts.
Yet I actually DO have the facts on my side.

Quote:
Re: WikiLeaks nondisclosure agreement

The link you supplied to support this does not have this 'draconian' agreement attached (goes 404).
Not sure why you're getting a 404... link works in 2 different browsers on my computer. Here's another: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...julian-assange

Quote:
Based on the $20mil penalty, I assume the actual agreement was the well-publicized 12mil pounds sterling penalty-carrying non-disclosure agreement (the exchange rate for the time seems about right) that Wikileaks staff had to sign. Why? So a staffer wouldn't grab a juicy leak and run with it themselves. You find that unreasonable, given the potentially world-altering information they are dealing with?
Then what's the point of WikiLeaks? If the point is to "get rid of secrets" then why should it matter if WikiLeaks or some other organization releases the information?

Quote:
Quote:
Do you have any proof that WikiLeaks didn't post personal details of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?
Homosexuals, plural? No, they failed to redact the personal info of one man who had been arrested in Saudi Arabia for being gay. And two rape victims, and a bunch of other less dramatic un-redacteds.
I find your rather cavalier attitude amazing. WikiLeaks invades the privacy (and perhaps even causes the deaths!) of people through their carelessness and you shrug it off as "Errrr... no big deal". Nice. Really friggin' nice.

(Oh, and by the way, those weren't the only people who have been affected... I just picked some of the more publicized ones. There are others. (Like data given to pro-trump politicians in Eastern Europe so that they can be targeted.) But I assume you will similarly wave those away too with a mighty wave of your hand.

From: http://theweek.com/speedreads/644474...ren-gay-saudis
...WikiLeaks has published medical and detailed sensitive information on hundreds of rape survivors, ill children, gay Saudi men, and other private citizens... Some information, like the disclosure of dozens of Social Security and credit card numbers in the Democratic National Committee leaks, mostly put people at risk of identity theft and other crimes, as do the more than 500 passport, academic, employment, and identity files in a cache of Saudi documents.

Or how about: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikilea...an-informants/
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports...in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort. One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

But hey, no big deal, eh? I bet those people DESERVED to have their private information revealed!
Quote:
That is sloppy redacting on the part of WL staff, even out of hundreds of thousands of docs. That does not indicate anything but the occasional mistake that can happen, unfortunately.
Strangely enough, when actual news organizations release data they tend not to, you know, release damaging information. At one point WikiLeaks was actually working with news organizations to properly redact files, but Assange didn't like the interference. So goodbye privacy, hello identity theft!
Quote:
Quote:
That Assange didn't break an agreement he made to stop interfering with other countries?
The Ecuadorian Embassy and Assange agreed that he would not issue comments that would interfere with other states. The horrifically dishonest tweet you refer to is in full as follows, from your own link:

"What is occurring in Catalonia is the redefinition of the relationship between people and state. The most disciplined Ghandian project since Ghandi. It's results will spread everywhere."

That is 'interfering with other countries' (your words, above)?
No in other words, he's not interfering with other states... he's just... interfering with other states.

Oh, and by the way, that's not the only thing he has done to interfere with Spain/Catalina. He's referred to Spain as a "banana monarchy", labelled the government as an "occupying power". The one tweet you mentioned is just one in a long list of things he has done to cause dissent in the area.
Quote:
As you may note, you have not demonstrated indirectness or dishonesty. Not even in the Catalonia tweet.
Actually I have. You just hand-waved it away with a mighty wave of your hands. You might consider that a valid response. I do not.

Quote:
His work with Wikileaks I do find to be generally direct and honest, if currently misguided. WL has a stellar track record for not having to issue retractions for giving out false information, for example.
So direct and honest that they invade the privacy of hundreds of homosexuals, rape survivors, political dissidents, and innocent civilians.

Oh by the way, that's a bit of a red herring. I never criticized WikiLeaks for publishing false information. I criticized them for 1) pro-Russian/anti-US bias, 2) not doing enough to protect innocent people. 3) Assange himself being an asshat.

Quote:
Re: other leak sites...

Yes. I know. Heard anything substantial from any of these alternatives?
Other sites do exist and do leak data.

True, they don't get anywhere near the traffic or attention WikiLeaks does, but then WikiLeaks does tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room. If WikiLeaks were to vanish, an alternative would take its place, much like Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Quote:
Re: Mainstream media...

Yes. Obviously. But a WL platform is (in theory) unique in not being owned by a corporation who might exercise a little editorial control...
The media is a competitive business... if one company doesn't publish something significant, another company will.
Quote:
...or have a bias.
Assange has a bias. Yet you seem to be very very happy with him.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course, the problem is, the mainstream media is less likely to release information that will get innocent people killed (you know, like WikiLeaks does). But you have no moral problem with innocent people getting killed, right? After all, it doesn't seem to bother "direct and honest" Assange.
Not only a dead lie, but an unnecessarily personal one.
Yet I posted about people who would have been put at risk of physical harm by WikiLeaks revelations (Homosexuals in Muslim countries, pro-American sources in Afghanistan, dissidents in putin-influenced countries) yet you waved away the risk with a mighty wave of your hand. Why is that?

Quote:
Quote:
That's the issue now, isn't it...

The 'declared' mission is to get rid of secrets. The ACTUAL mission seems to be "try to harm the U.S. and cozy up to Russia". Unfortunately you seem to hand-wave that away.
Ignore your personal opinion? Yeah, after the last one you just ventured I am quite comfortable with that.
You know who you remind me of? The pro-Trump supporters. You know the type that claim "No evidence of collusion" like a brain damaged parrot. "What about the financial ties between Trump and Russia? What about the secret meetings and the lies to cover up the meetings? What about the email from Trump Jr. about his eagerness to get Russian help?" Squack: No evidence of collusion.

Except with you, its: "No evidence of pro-Russian bias from Assange/WikiLeaks". "What about the financial support Russia gave Assange? What about Assange not publishing material critical of Russia? What about people who actually worked WITH Assange who have complained that he is focused primarily on harming the U.S.?" You: "Sqwuack!! No evidence of bias".

At this point I rather suspect that if we saw a live video feed of Assange urinating on an amercian flag while looking lovingly at a picture of Putin while muttering "Americans must die" under his breath, you'd still say that that was no evidence of Assange having an anti-American bias. (Heck, you'd probably even try to make up some conspiracy theory about how its the American's fault that he has such a weak bladder.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 17th July 2018 at 01:59 PM.
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 06:48 PM   #734
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,132
Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
Who looks to The Guardian newspaper for reliable, unbiased information about Wikileaks and Julian Assange?
People who don't have their heads rammed up Julian Assange's ass?
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:34 AM   #735
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yet I actually DO have the facts on my side.
A month later and you kick out '...and another thing'? I thought this was done.

Quote:
Not sure why you're getting a 404... link works in 2 different browsers on my computer. Here's another: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...julian-assange
I said the 'draconian agreement' attachment within the article goes 404, not the article itself.

Quote:
Then what's the point of WikiLeaks? If the point is to "get rid of secrets" then why should it matter if WikiLeaks or some other organization releases the information?
Really? WL wants to remain in operation, so as a publisher of leaked documents, they don't want their internal operations publicized. If they were publicized, they could be compromised and crippled. It doesn't make sense to you that a strict NDA would be required?

Quote:
I find your rather cavalier attitude amazing. WikiLeaks invades the privacy (and perhaps even causes the deaths!) of people through their carelessness and you shrug it off as "Errrr... no big deal". Nice. Really friggin' nice.

(Oh, and by the way, those weren't the only people who have been affected... I just picked some of the more publicized ones. There are others. (Like data given to pro-trump politicians in Eastern Europe so that they can be targeted.) But I assume you will similarly wave those away too with a mighty wave of your hand.

From: http://theweek.com/speedreads/644474...ren-gay-saudis
...WikiLeaks has published medical and detailed sensitive information on hundreds of rape survivors, ill children, gay Saudi men, and other private citizens... Some information, like the disclosure of dozens of Social Security and credit card numbers in the Democratic National Committee leaks, mostly put people at risk of identity theft and other crimes, as do the more than 500 passport, academic, employment, and identity files in a cache of Saudi documents.

Or how about: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikilea...an-informants/
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports...in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort. One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

But hey, no big deal, eh? I bet those people DESERVED to have their private information revealed!

Strangely enough, when actual news organizations release data they tend not to, you know, release damaging information. At one point WikiLeaks was actually working with news organizations to properly redact files, but Assange didn't like the interference. So goodbye privacy, hello identity theft!
You were challenging a passing comment I made that Assange seems generally direct and honest. Your above arguments incorporate argumentative and logical fallacies. Can you name them? I bet you can.

Quote:
No in other words, he's not interfering with other states... he's just... interfering with other states.

Oh, and by the way, that's not the only thing he has done to interfere with Spain/Catalina. He's referred to Spain as a "banana monarchy", labelled the government as an "occupying power". The one tweet you mentioned is just one in a long list of things he has done to cause dissent in the area.
If you think Assange's personal opinions in his flipping tweets alters the course of nations, you think he has more power than I do.

Quote:
Actually I have. You just hand-waved it away with a mighty wave of your hands. You might consider that a valid response. I do not.


So direct and honest that they invade the privacy of hundreds of homosexuals, rape survivors, political dissidents, and innocent civilians.

Oh by the way, that's a bit of a red herring. I never criticized WikiLeaks for publishing false information. I criticized them for 1) pro-Russian/anti-US bias, 2) not doing enough to protect innocent people. 3) Assange himself being an asshat.
You directly and repeatedly challenged my passing comment that I thought that Assange, as a person, was generally direct and honest, as opposed to evasive and deceptive. By that, I mean that he believes in the righteousness of what he is doing and is forthcoming about it. You trying to move the goalposts and turn it into JA actually redacting the information himself and willingly leaving personal information there is disingenuous.

Quote:
Other sites do exist and do leak data.

True, they don't get anywhere near the traffic or attention WikiLeaks does, but then WikiLeaks does tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room. If WikiLeaks were to vanish, an alternative would take its place, much like Facebook supplanted Myspace.
Probably. Right now, there is only one significant publisher, Wikileaks. As I sais earlier, I had high hopes for Openleaks' model, but even Daniel D-S can't make it happen (and if anyone could, I thought it would be him).

Quote:
The media is a competitive business... if one company doesn't publish something significant, another company will.

Assange has a bias. Yet you seem to be very very happy with him.

Yet I posted about people who would have been put at risk of physical harm by WikiLeaks revelations (Homosexuals in Muslim countries, pro-American sources in Afghanistan, dissidents in putin-influenced countries) yet you waved away the risk with a mighty wave of your hand. Why is that?

You know who you remind me of? The pro-Trump supporters. You know the type that claim "No evidence of collusion" like a brain damaged parrot. "What about the financial ties between Trump and Russia? What about the secret meetings and the lies to cover up the meetings? What about the email from Trump Jr. about his eagerness to get Russian help?" Squack: No evidence of collusion.

Except with you, its: "No evidence of pro-Russian bias from Assange/WikiLeaks". "What about the financial support Russia gave Assange? What about Assange not publishing material critical of Russia? What about people who actually worked WITH Assange who have complained that he is focused primarily on harming the U.S.?" You: "Sqwuack!! No evidence of bias".

At this point I rather suspect that if we saw a live video feed of Assange urinating on an amercian flag while looking lovingly at a picture of Putin while muttering "Americans must die" under his breath, you'd still say that that was no evidence of Assange having an anti-American bias. (Heck, you'd probably even try to make up some conspiracy theory about how its the American's fault that he has such a weak bladder.)
Posting random insults seems to be kind of your thing, I take it?

As I have commented, I think WL (or something like it) is vitally necessary. I would be perfectly happy with Openleaks or any other model that works. Right now, Wikileaks is the only significant game in town, and I want to see them survive and expand. No, I am not interested in the Julian Assange Show. I have only argued here that other posters seem to let their dislike of him color their view of the overall situation. As I have said, I don't like him either. But from Manning to Sessions to Mueller and everywhere in between, the US has been openly gunning for Wikileaks, so Assange appears to have been more or less right all along. My argument is not pro-JA. It's option three: he's an insufferable douche canoe, but he is down-low wanted by the US. And that's how it appears to be playing out. I don't think he is exactly anti-US; I think he is anti-certain powerful factions within the US. He certainly does not like the Clintons in particular, and the military in general. And I agree that the timed release of emails during the election was intended to interfere with voters, which pissed me off royally, then and now. But since you want to drag this down to personal (and untrue) insults, I'll ask again: can we agree to disagree?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:17 AM   #736
ohms
Graduate Poster
 
ohms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,029
There's a report that Assange may be turned over to UK authorities quite soon:

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/...at-comes-next/

No idea how reliable that website is.
__________________
Long time lurker
ohms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.