Posts by Christiaan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
180 Seconds with Craig Ranapia - 12 December, in reply to Boganette,
Weird how people trot out the 'you don't know him/you weren't there/he's innocent' lines about Assange but feel they can presume the ALLEGED rape victims are lying whores (despite not knowing them or being there).
Even weirder how people can project these arguments onto others when they said nothing of the sort.
-
180 Seconds with Craig Ranapia - 12 December, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I don’t actually believe you because five weasel words were followed by several hundred of textbook passive-aggressive rape bingo.
That makes two of us then. I don't believe your hollow introduction because it was followed by a classic Freudian slip.
1) 'You don’t qualify every reference to the complainants with “alleged”, so you’ve made your mind up etc.' Guess I still have a little more faith in the intelligence and attention span of my listeners than you do, but they can make up their own minds. They always do.
You can pass the buck by appealing to the greatness of your audience or you could just take more care when apparently trying to make a point about someone's presumed innocence.
2) And I’ve got to admire the epic reasoning fail in this gem: “If he’s presumed innocent they’re not rape victims. Plain and simple.”
Sorry, where's the fail? Perhaps you could explain to your audience why there's no difference between 'alleged rape victim' and 'rape victim'?
Perhaps we can extend the presumption to the complainants that they aren’t malicious liars?
Of course. Where the hell did that come from? Perhaps if you attempted to address the criticism instead of skirting around it you wouldn't be projecting other people's arguments onto me?
3) 'You’ve denied the accused the right to a fair trial.' Well, apart from when I explicitly said otherwise, but moving right along…
I said nothing of the sort.
4) 'You’re not talking about the “real issues”.' There’s several threads here on PAS where you can chunter on to your heart’s content about “the implications of Assange being captured by the U.S.” or what a ghastly Yank-fellating hellhole the United Kingdom is. I’m not going to, and if you don’t like it – tough.
Fine, but you seem strangely offended that I might comment on this. My point was his denial of bail appears to be politically motivated. As Katrin Axelsson points out 'there is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety.' I think that's something you should consider more seriously if you're going to comment on this.
Assange may well have done something wrong to these women, but that doesn't mean we should allow the U.S. to use it against him for political reasons, intimidating other journalists and chilling a new form of journalism in the process.
5) 'You don’t know the accused, therefore have no basis to form an opinion on matters in the public arena.' Why not go the whole hog and trot out 'You weren’t there, how do you know?' No; just no.
I didn't say you have no basis to form an opinion. I just think your opinion is naive.
-
You know something, Christiaan, I don't believe the first clause
Lovely. I may be many things Craig but I'm not a liar so you can stick that blithe comment where the sun don't shine.
It seems I'm being condemned for not talking about what you think I should, go on to attack me for saying things I didn't
I'm not condemning you for anything, I was simply offering mild criticism of your comments. Shesh.
, and topped off the bullshit bingo by launching into some paranoid fantasy in total defiance of reality. (You do realise Sarah Palin doesn't hold elected office anywhere, let alone Sweden. Right?)
I don't know what pink polkadotted fairy world you live in but the one I live in is one where the U.S. routinely tortures people and routinely flouts international law.
I do have one question though: What part of this was too fucking subtle for you: "Let’s make one thing perfectly clear from the start. As this is being recorded, Assange is remanded to custody in England, awaiting possible extradition to Sweden to face multiple sexual assault charges. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial and a vigourous defence — no matter who or where you are." ... I actually assume my listeners are moderately intelligent, and can hold that in their minds for a couple of minutes without every third word being "alleged". In your case, I'm willing to make an exception unless you're just trolling.
This is a cope out. My point was you said one thing but didn't but didn't follow through with it. If he's presumed innocent they're not rape victims. Plain and simple. Seems to me you made a Freudian slip and now you're overly defensive about it.
You seem to have a confidence in authority that I don't come close to sharing and you've clearly made judgements about Assange, someone you've never met. I've never met any of these people and I don't see these rape allegations as anything more than coincidental, and while I don't trust the U.S. for a second I suspect he's probably better off in Sweden under Swedish law than he is in the UK (power brokers here are particularly deluded about something they call their "special relationship" with the U.S.).
You have a legitimate gripe with some of the bullshit that has passed for comment on these rape allegations but it seems to me you could do with a dash of scepticism with regard to the implications of Assange being captured by the U.S.
-
Hard News: The Wellington Cables, in reply to Russell Brown,
The IV programme may not be a secret but the U.S. view of it as a "exceptionally influential" propaganda tool was.
-
I agree with your sentiment Craig but you should practice what you preach. First you point out that Assange is entitled to the presumption of innocence but then throw this out the window and go on to call them rape victims instead of alleged rape victims.
Secondly, it seems that so far he is not receiving a fair trial. No comment from you on that. Do you not find it concerning that he wasn't remanded on bail while the U.S. blathers about indicting him so they can kidnap and torture him? As Katrin Axelsson of Women Against Rape notes, bail following rape allegations is routine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech
-
I'm genuinely interested to know what you think about Article 51 Russell. Do you see it as invalid? A mistake? An inconvenience maybe?
Tony Blair, our favourite liberal interventionist, has certainly been arguing as much: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/tony-blair-military-intervention-necessary
What do you think about the lessons of WWI and WWII? Are we to sweep them under the carpet and go back to a world where powerful states unilaterally invade others without any threat of accountability?
How do you imagine we will avoid WWIII in such a scenario?
-
Ha, you had me going until the "public loves a politician" bit.
-
Sorry the Fall of Man, is a biblical fantasy. We are the way we are because of our lowly origins, we are monkeys. Not because of we did something wrong somewhere and fell out of favour with some celestial dictator.
Not sure what the apology is for. Both Daniel Quinn and I would surely agree with you.
The urban/rural divide has been the bane of humanity since foreva.
Ur, no it just hasn't. Agriculture was only invented 10000 years ago. Humans have been around for a bit longer than that.
Reading metaphors into biblical narratives is a mugs game. The whole Daniel Quinn/Ishmael thing just looks dodgy.
Well whatever. He's actually arguing that the conventional reading of Genesis is a chinese whispers developed metaphor.
Regardless of what you think of religion, the bible and Daniel Quinn, his theory on The Fall of Man story is worth a read.
-
I don't have the time or energy to debate that, but what you're effectively saying is that there are no absolute human rights. No amount of moral relativism is going to get you past the savage, and unique, element of gender in what the Taliban did, and would do again.
Not at all, in fact I'm a big fan of Sam Harris' work on neurology and morality. What I was alluding to (in saying we aren't all that different from the Taliban) is Daniel Quinn's argument that since the Agricultural Revolution (and hence the ability of some to control who eats and who doesn't) one culture has emerged (the Takers) and pretty much annihilated the rest (the Leavers, or hunter-gatherers). The main trait that we all share is the idea that we have the right way to live and everybody else should live like us. This didn't exist, his argument goes, before Takers emerged as part of the Agricultural Revolution.
As an aside you might be interested to read his alternative theory on The Fall of Man, Cain and Abel, and the knowledge of good and evil:
http://ishmael.org/interaction/qanda/Detail.CFM?Record=619You seem to have you skirted responding to any of my arguments that these wars are not only designed to deal with other matters but that they actually pose a threat to pretty much everything, potentially even human existence. There may be practical matters to deal with now that occupation is a reality but it seems to me you use this to avoid actually stating a position on the legitimacy of these invasions in the first place (bearing in mind future ones are surely to come). Do you actually condemn the invasion of Afghanistan or do you somehow see it as largely "humanitarian intervention"?
In other words, do you think the lessons of WWI and WWII in the form of Article 51 are valid or are you of the pro-war liberal and American-right position that says powerful states should sweep it under the carpet?
-
And yet … you have the world being blown to oblivion by 'diseased' western imperialist force who is no better than the Taliban
Putting aside your inability to accurately restate my position, are you seriously suggesting that humans can merrily continue to war with each other without having to worry about a nuclear or biological disaster?
I don't really give a shit, because allowing the persecution of any group of people on religious, gender or cultural grounds is no better than driving past a road accident without stopping.
Let's get one thing straight, the people who prosecute America's wars do not invade, occupy and pillage other countries because they feel obligated to help persecuted women. Sheesh.
I thought there was a legal obligation for the first on the scene to stop at road accidents, but can't find link to substantiate it.
Actually there is a legal obligation for states to use violence only in self-defence. That came out of the lessons of WWI and II I mentioned above. It's called Article 51 and I have a link right here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
By the way, you might also enjoy Ken's Hardtalk interview:
http://last-straw.net/hardtalk-ken-okeefe-on-the-gaza-freedom-flotilla/