• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?

The Don said:
That's quite a claim.

Do you have any evidence to show that the Swedish justice system (which is one of the world's fairest and most impartial) can be corrupted in this way ?
Click to expand...

No

Do you have any evidence that it can`t?
 
Watanabe said:
Since Sweden did not go much after GWB despite having strong relations with the US, then there is the legitimate suspect that they are not interested in going after Assange for the sex abuse (alleged) either
Click to expand...

Why do you think that citizens in Sweden can not make charges of sexual assault?
What evidence is there that the charges are based upon pressure from the US?


Your argument appears to be:
If NOT(sweden tries GWB) then (Assange charges brought by political pressure)


How about evidence that the charges are the result of political pressure?

Your argument is like:

If a swede does not eat chocolate ice cream then they put an insect on a hamburger.
 
Watanabe said:
Yeah!

As we all know that justice works, that politicians never lie, that wars do not exist and sheep fly in the sky
Click to expand...

This is a gain the assertion of a false dichotomy and false conclusion

Politicians lie therefore the charges against Assange are false.

The null hypothesis which is part of logic runs like this:

If a situation is normative then it is the null state.

Assertions that the situation is not normative are positive assertions.


There is a base situation that the legal system is Sweden is not influenced directly by the state when charges are offered for sexual assault, this is the null hypothesis.

Therefore you are making a positive claim that the null hypothesis is not true the burden on you is to show that:

-the state commonly interferes in the pressing of charges for sexual assault

OR

_the state interfered in the pressing of charges against Assange
 
Watanabe said:
Which evidence you have that they are not?
Click to expand...

I know you have been told this before, but the null hypothesis would run like this
:

NULL = charges of sexual assault are generated by the judiciary through the actions of citizens making reports to police

therefore the burden is on you Watanabe to show that

-charges fro sexual assault are commonly created by the political side of the Swedish government not the judiciary

OR

-that charges against Assange were politically motivated.


The burden of proof is on the claimant who makes a positive claim, IE in your case 'the charges against Assange are politically motivated'

The rules of logic are that one can not prove a negative, one can show that evidence exists to support a positive or that evidence exists that counters the negative, but you can not prove an absence.

This is you again failing to understand the rules of debate and logic.

You have asked for evidence again that the charges against Assange are not politically motivated, and as explained to you before

the burden of proof rests on YOU to show that the charges against Assange are politically motivated.

So please demonstrate that you understand logic.
 
Dancing David said:
I know you have been told this before, but the null hypothesis would run like this
:

NULL = charges of sexual assault are generated by the judiciary through the actions of citizens making reports to police
Click to expand...

False.

This is a special case, something you keep failing to grasp
 
Klimax said:
On what basis this is special case? What evidence do you have this is special case?

Prove it, that this is special case!
Click to expand...

In how many cases Sweden dealt with the suspect was responsible of one of the biggest leaks in history?
 
Watanabe said:
If you do not have anything else to add..
Click to expand...

Because it's very weak. So how about presenting evidence that judicial system is controlled by politicians?
(Good example could be Czech Republic, where we extradited person back to Russia despite Asylum proceeding with particular set of conditions, which were immediately broken by Russia...)
 
Klimax said:
Because it's very weak. So how about presenting evidence that judicial system is controlled by politicians?
(Good example could be Czech Republic, where we extradited person back to Russia despite Asylum proceeding with particular set of conditions, which were immediately broken by Russia...)
Click to expand...

How presenting evidence that the judiciary system is not controlled by politicians?
 
Watanabe said:
How presenting evidence that the judiciary system is not controlled by politicians?
Click to expand...

Illogical request, because you cannot generally prove negative, because it would require to prove everything is NOT controlled, which is not possible. That's why generally claimant of positive statement must prove it because it requires only one instance to be proven. (Here, it would be a case similar to the one under discussion that was influenced by politicians - like critic of government being silenced or something)

Illustrative example:
Claim: There is pink elephant. (just one at any location needed)
Negative claim: There is no pink elephant. (Requires to show that no pink elephant exists anywhere on planet.)

So any evidence incoming?
 
Klimax said:
Illogical request, because you cannot generally prove negative, because it would require to prove everything is NOT controlled, which is not possible. That's why generally claimant of positive statement must prove it because it requires only one instance to be proven. (Here, it would be a case similar to the one under discussion that was influenced by politicians - like critic of government being silenced or something)

Illustrative example:
Claim: There is pink elephant. (just one at any location needed)
Negative claim: There is no pink elephant. (Requires to show that no pink elephant exists anywhere on planet.)
Click to expand...

Your claim: The judiciary power is independent
You are asking me to prove the negative: the judiciary power is not independent
But you cant prove a negative, as you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom