[dannyb]

Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives. He claims his real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how he behaves when he gets a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that he could rationalize in the name of the greater good.

[babeKnuth]

does this also apply (my simple sanity check test):

"The US gov't are real scumbags for risking people's lives. They claim their real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how they behave when they get a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that they could rationalize in the name of the greater good."

[babeKnuth]

so are all people that risk people's lives scumbags?

what if the people he releases info about are ones that risk more people's lives than he does?

part of war is about putting your life at risk in order to preserve the lives of many more. a small sacrifice for a larger one. if you don't like war, don't participate in it.

[dannyb]

No, I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite.

[babeKnuth]

ummmm, you realize that's not what you said in your post?

[dannyb]

Are you really that literal?

My one sentence response contains a comma. The "No" is a response to your query. The rest of the sentence does not in any way contradict what I said before.

[babeKnuth]

literal about what? your explanation was poorly phrased, how was i to interpolate what you really meant if you didn't clarify it fully? my parsing of your sentence is valid, as is yours.

and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts (no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool.

"Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives."

"I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."

[dannyb]

Let's see: false dichotomy - check. Overly argumentative - check. Strawman argument - check. Yup, I'm on the internet...

[babeKnuth]

again, same type of question:

are all hypocrites scumbags?

[Adam503]

Got any links to any evidence whatsoever? No? Didn't think so.