• 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:
You assume that there is a universal and objective definition of proper behaviour.
Click to expand...

Yeah!
Maybe killing children is good.
Raping babies also.
The maybe sending Assange to prison even if he did not assault anyone is also good.
 
Watanabe said:
Yeah!
Maybe killing children is good.
Click to expand...

Under certain circumstances this has shown to be the case.

When the Black Death swept across Europe in the 1340s different places took different approaches to containing the disease. In the case of Milan, as soon as anyone in a family showed symptoms, the whole family was walled into their house and effectively starved to death. If they attempted to leave their house they were summarily killed.

This brutal approach resulted in a death rate half of that of surrounding communities, thousands of lives were saved by killing children and their parents.

Watanabe said:
Raping babies also.
Click to expand...

I agree that IMO raping babies is always wrong but if the full extent of right/wrong absolutism is a prohibition on raping babies, it's not useful.
 
The Don said:
Under certain circumstances this has shown to be the case.

When the Black Death swept across Europe in the 1340s different places took different approaches to containing the disease. In the case of Milan, as soon as anyone in a family showed symptoms, the whole family was walled into their house and effectively starved to death. If they attempted to leave their house they were summarily killed.

This brutal approach resulted in a death rate half of that of surrounding communities, thousands of lives were saved by killing children and their parents.



I agree that IMO raping babies is always wrong but if the full extent of right/wrong absolutism is a prohibition on raping babies, it's not useful.
Click to expand...

Yawn..
 
Watanabe said:
Yawn..
Click to expand...

Thank you for your latest contribution to this topic. I was attempting to show that even with some apparently unambiguous positions (killing children) regarding right and wrong, there can be circumstances which blur the distinction.

Unless you've changed your mind, the reason why you suppose that Julian Assange will not receive a fair trial is because the United States has applied political pressure to have false charges laid against him. You evidence for this is that Sweden must be susceptible to United States political pressure because they have been insufficiently critical of a previous president of the United States for doing a bad thing.

That GWB United States did a bad thing is based upon your own morally absolute view or right and wrong and your criticism of Sweden is again based on your own view of how critical they should have been of GWB's actions.
 
Watanabe, you're not doing your argument any favors by playing the childish "question for a question" game. When someone asks you a question, answer it. Don't pose your own question in reply.
 
The Don said:
Thank you for your latest contribution to this topic. I was attempting to show that even with some apparently unambiguous positions (killing children) regarding right and wrong, there can be circumstances which blur the distinction.
Click to expand...

Surely there are.

zooterkin said:
Try to concentrate on one thing at a time. What possible connection is there between that and your misattribution of the label 'right wing' to the New Statesman and Jack of Kent?
Click to expand...

Misattribution?
Evidence?

erwinl said:
You're really not going to answer this question, aren't you?
Just wanting to know.
Click to expand...

I did.
Maybe you did not like my answer as it shows your responsibilities..
 
Last edited:
Watanabe said:
Surely there are.



Misattribution?
Evidence?



I did. Maybe you did not like my answer as it shows your responsibilities..
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You never wrote down what you would do if it were in your power.
And I believe you never will.
You, sir, are no gentleman. Good day!
 
erwinl said:
No you didn't. You never wrote down what you would do if it were in your power.
And I believe you never will.
You, sir, are no gentleman. Good day!
Click to expand...

You are failing to grasp that the world does not run this way and least from the last 400 years.
Like a little child that asks his father what he needs to do.
There is no person in power who can change things.
We the people are or should be the person in power.
The right question wold be what should we do to make sure trials are fair?

And who the person in charge should be? (and in charge of what?)
The judge?
The prosecutor?
The Prime Minister of Sweden?
Barack Obama?
 
Last edited:
Watanabe said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

may be and probably is
Click to expand...

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

You originally claimed the Assange prosecution was certainly political. With no evidence at all.

Now you're under the impression The New Statesman is a right wing publication.

In all honesty, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Watanabe said:
The right question wold be what should we do to make sure trials are fair?
Click to expand...

How about operating in a society where:

  • The Judiciary is politically independent
  • The Judiciary is demonstrably independent of political influence through past performance
  • Where there is a presumption of innocence in the Judicial System
  • Where freedom of information is enshired in legislation and demonstrated in deeds
  • Where the Judiciary adheres to international standards and treaties

Which rather nicely describes the situation in Sweden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom