User Controls
Posts by inert_observer
-
2019-04-10 at 8:53 PM UTC in So I got a new nekoOHIO GOZAIMUS OAKA-SAN LMRAO
-
2019-04-10 at 5:10 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 4:08 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Pretty sure treason is just as illegal as murder.
And "but you agreed to it when you signed up, goy" isn't a very persuasive argument.
It is to me. When it comes down to it, they voluntarily agreed to do something they knew or should have known was immoral/illegal. Also you said treason LOL. -
2019-04-10 at 3:56 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAMAlso this, which you never responded to except to claim that I "don't have a response."
I mean you agree that the Iraq war was bullshit, right? Doesn't that logically make the entire war an undue risk to all those who participate (and are in the general vicinity)? And you could make a pretty strong argument that by exposing the details of an unjust war that's being fought with shady/illegal tactics and bringing attention to it, you could help prevent similar situations from happening in the future, which would save a hell of a lot of people from undue risk.
-
2019-04-10 at 3:52 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I.e. you don't have a response.
I've already pointed out the fact that soldiers go into war knowing they will engage in direct combat and violence, while a chocolate maker doesn't. That alone is enough to kill the analogy. Exposing details about military operations is not even close to taking a deliberate action to kill someone who is just trying to make some candy. It's not the same, at all, not analogous, nothing. They are two totally different scenarios. -
2019-04-10 at 3:48 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What if it could lead to soldiers who are currently active and on the field being exposed, hurt or killed?
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Wikileaks is already committed to releasing documents in a way that minimises harm, including risk to active military personnel. In fact that is the understanding with which whistleblowers provide them leaks in the first place: you don't need to expose people to active risk in order to expose the shady goings-on of governments.
I would do the facepalm emoji here but I know that's what you want so you can just say you're trolling. -
2019-04-10 at 1:33 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAMI mean you agree that the Iraq war was bullshit, right? Doesn't that logically make the entire war an undue risk to all those who participate (and are in the general vicinity)? And you could make a pretty strong argument that by exposing the details of an unjust war that's being fought with shady/illegal tactics and bringing attention to it, you could help prevent similar situations from happening in the future, which would save a hell of a lot of people from undue risk.
-
2019-04-10 at 1:25 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Common De-mominator It's a perfectly good analogy. They signed up for risk but that doesn't justify putting them at risk where they wouldn't otherwise be. This is not complex logic here.
It's not a good analogy. I was going to reply with every reason why but like I said it's a waste of time because you already know why it's a shitty analogy. -
2019-04-10 at 1:14 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by aldra are you actually intellectually disabled or something?
I responded to lanny's post.
you came in spouting logical fallacies like a reddit-tier fedora enthusiast.
I clarified what I meant.
you're still apparently having a hard time understanding.
just saying something is reality doesn't make it so. -
2019-04-10 at 1:10 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 1:04 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 12:51 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What a retarded answer. "You signed a waiver accepting the occupational hazard of falling into a vat of boiling chocolate, therefore it's not wrong for me to push you into a vat of boiling chocolate".
That's not a comparable analogy at all and once again, you are intelligent enough for me to know that it's a waste of my time explaining why. -
2019-04-10 at 12:50 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by aldra wut
You said that it's dangerous to undermine military operations for political goals. But the point is not that people should be able to do that. Even if Assange was doing it for personal or political motivations, he still exposed a bunch of illegal shit that shouldn't have been happening in the first place, which (should have been) embarrassing for them and (should) cause them to not do it anymore. The world wanted war to have rules, that's why we have the geneva conventions etc. People support Assange and wikileaks because they don't think someone should go to jail for being a whistleblower on something that the entire world (yes i know not literally, doesn't change my point) decided should be illegal.
You ignored all that and just assumed the goal was to normalize undermining the military and attacked that. That's called a strawman argument.
Originally posted by aldra The people who are capable of changing public opinion to make it acceptable to undermine the military will not do that because they know they're likely to be in power again someday and don't want to not have that tool at their disposal.
This is obvious to anyone. That's why people are supporting him and other whistleblowers. -
2019-04-10 at 12:32 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by aldra it's dangerous to normalise undermining military operations for political goals - it would severely damage morale and enlistment rates, and would make the military an unreliable tool in general.
it might make sense if these 'anti war' groups sought complete disarmament and disbandment of the military, but for the most part they still want the military to be a useful tool/institution when they eventually take power.
Strawman argument, the problem is with the US military committing war crimes and doing illegal/shady shit that they shouldn't have been doing to win a war they shouldn't have been fighting in the first place. You are intelligent enough to know this. -
2019-04-10 at 12:08 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What if it could lead to soldiers who are currently active and on the field being exposed, hurt or killed?
That’s what they signed up for, that’s why they’re getting combat pay. Half of them just sign up because they want an excuse to kill brown people legally anyways. If I go outside and start a fight with someone I’m accepting that there’s a possibility I’ll lose or maybe even die, which is why I don’t do it. People who enlist know what to expect and accept the risks (or don’t, but that’s they’re personal problem) -
2019-04-05 at 2:23 AM UTC in Hello, I am Francisco Lopez(561) 932-5713. Hello, I am Francisco Lopez, Director of Messenger. This message informs all of our users that we have only 530 available accounts and that our servers have recently been overloaded, so we ask for your help in solving this problem. We need our active users to forward this message to each person in their contact list to confirm that our active users are using. If you do not send this message to all your contacts, your account will remain inactive, which will result in the loss of all your contacts. An automatic update symbol on your smartphone will appear along with the transfer of this message. Your smartphone will be updated within 24 hours, it will have a new design, a new chat color, and its icon will change from green to blue. You will go to the payment level if you are not a frequent user. The logo will turn red to indicate that you are a frequent user. Tomorrow they will start charging messages at 0.37 cents. Forward this message to more than 25 people from your contacts, and it will be free for life. Look at it, and the little ball will turn blue, do it, we will see! Confirm ☑® Send it to all your contacts so that the application is updated. ✅ Messenger allocates 3000 MB of INTERNET and 25.00 BSF CREDIT. Send this message to 25 contacts and make sure that your balance will have free calls over the Internet, and it will be free for life, if you send this message to 35 people, you will be activated.
-
2019-04-05 at 12:41 AM UTC in Julian Assange to be expelled within hours to dayshe should have sex with chelsea manning
-
2019-04-05 at 12:30 AM UTC in CandyRein never is able to adequately explain...the DH whores remind me of these middle aged alcoholic women i used to work with that would be shitfaced at 12:30 pm on a tuesday afternoon drunkenly belting out "just a smalltown girl..." along with the radio right before they start having a meltdown about their failed marriages and try to lock themselves in the walk in freezer
-
2019-04-04 at 10:56 PM UTC in Killing myself tonightsee ya later OP
-
2019-04-01 at 2:35 AM UTC in Drunk AMAhow much money do you have
