Support NeoGAF

[Elvin Atombender]

Not using a condom being a form of rape is one of the most absurd things I've heard. If she tells him she doesn't want sex full stop, condom or not, and he forces it without her consent, that's rape. But if she says she doesn't want him not to use a condom, then she has sex with him without a condom anyway (consensually) that isn't rape, that's just someone who managed to persuade a lady to have less safe, but better sex.

It's not that simple.

In one of the cases he apparently did put on a condom and later broke it so the woman thought they were having protected sex when they were not.

In the other case he "went in" without a condom while she was sleeping.

He didn't persuade them to not use a condom. He knew that they wanted condoms to be used but for some reason he was determined not to use one.

 

[Mael]

Actually Jason Raize was wrong on the wording of that post. Assange was not accused of rape and molestation rather than it was decided by the Swedish courts to detain Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape and molestation. Huge difference.

We get it, you don't trust any courts that would agree with Sweden court.

 

[Flatline]

We get it, you don't trust any courts that would agree with Sweden court.

No, I just trust facts instead of opinions being served as facts by posters like you and KHarvey. The Swedish court didn't accuse Assange of rape, the Swedish court decided to detain Assange in order to question him on suspicion of rape. All I did here was repeat that fact which you obviously didn't like.

 

[nib95]

Well, that isn't what he is accused of anyway. She demanded a condom so he refused to have sex with her and then she woke up to him fucking her without one.



Among other things




http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden



after being stripped and pinned down she eventually consented. Then she claims he deliberately ripped the condom which is probably impossible to prove but hardly the only thing he is accused of (and he clearly has a pattern of forcing unprotected sex on women)

Reading all these accounts, I don't see a single count of rape. The charges are very whimsical at best. What I see is a guy who is probably a bit too in to rough and un protected sex for his own good, and women who don't like the idea of sex without a condom but consent to it anyway.

The only questionable part (for him, but also again for her) is where she claims she woke up to him having sex with her (a very dubious claim unless she was smashed out of her face, eg incredibly drunk), when she did wake to realise he was having sex without a condom, it seems she didn't mind after being assured he didn't have HIV.

Very questionable allegations imo.

 

[KHarvey16]

No, I just trust facts instead of opinions being served as facts by posters like you and KHarvey. The Swedish court didn't accuse Assange of rape, the Swedish court decided to detain Assange in order to question him on suspicion of rape. All I did was repeat that fact which you obviously don't like.

So you believe this despite Sweden saying it isn't true and the UK agreeing that it isn't true judging by the statements and documentation provided by Seeden? You simply take the argument of Assange's lawyers as gospel despite every fact to the contrary.

Does it trouble you in any way that your definition of "legal mambo jambo" is indistinguishable from simply being any fact contrary to your position? Because it should.

 

[sangreal]

No, I just trust facts instead of opinions being served as facts by posters like you and KHarvey. The Swedish court didn't accuse Assange of rape, the Swedish court decided to detain Assange in order to question him on suspicion of rape. All I did here was repeat that fact which you obviously didn't like.

This is simply an insignificant technicality of the Swedish legal system where you aren't formally charged until the trial is ready to begin and that cannot happen until Assange returns for questioning. Every court in the UK that reviewed the case agreed that the current state of the case would be equivalent to being charged under a normal (UK) system.

 

[Mael]

No, I just trust facts instead of opinions being served as facts by posters like you and KHarvey. The Swedish court didn't accuse Assange of rape, the Swedish court decided to detain Assange in order to question him on suspicion of rape. All I did was repeat that fact which you obviously don't like.

Who is serving opinions as facts?
You're pulling the same shit in that other thread, you don't seem to understand the context or even the subject and you make sweeping statements regardless of whether or not if they're wrong or not.
You don't even care whether or not any facts that you're not aware have any impact on the arguments at hand!
So yes, we get that for you :
UK courts invent charges to extradite anyone under the shadow of their US masters who will murder the guy the day he sets foot in Sweden ever again.

In the course of this discussion (and the other in that other thread), you've provided no proofs, no facts, no sources only generalisations and sweeping statements.
If others feel like wasting their times I'll let them but excuse me if I'm getting tired of replying to a wall.

 

[Flatline]

This is simply an insignificant technicality of the Swedish legal system where you aren't formally charged until the trial is ready to begin and that cannot happen until Assange returns for questioning. Every court in the UK that reviewed the case agreed that the current state of the case would be equivalent to being charged under a normal (UK) system.

Already replied to that. He could have been questioned by Swedish authorities in UK and then formally charged (even though jorma says that they don't have to question him to actually charge him). He wasn't. I don't care about the opinion of the UK courts. Like I said they didn't extradite a mass murderer like Pinochet who was actually being officially charged and did it for Assange.

 

[Mael]

Already replied to that. He could have been questioned by Swedish authorities in UK and then formally charged (even though jorma says that they don't have to question him to actually charge him). He wasn't. I don't care about the opinion of the UK courts. Like I said they didn't extradite a mass murderer like Pinochet who was actually being officially charged and did it for Assange.

Which would be all well and good is the relationship between UK and Chile was the same as UK-Sweden.
That this very basic fact seems foreign to you is telling.

 

[KHarvey16]

Already replied to that. He could have been questioned by Swedish authorities in UK and then formally charged (even though jorma says that they don't have to question him to actually charge him). He wasn't. I don't care about the opinion of the UK courts. Like I said they didn't extradite a mass murderer like Pinochet who was actually being officially charged and did it for Assange.

Jorma says something that you think supports your initial position so you accept it unquestioningly. Multiple courts rule in a way that doesn't support your initial position so they are just talking "legal mambo jambo" and makin shit up.

 

[Jenov]

These last few pages have been so entertaining /popcorn

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

"legal mambo jambo" sounds quite festive

some law, some dance and some ham

BUT NONE OF THOSE DIRTY FACTS

 

[gutter_trash]

It's really easy to feed and take care one person. And a human being is a human being anywhere.

the poverty levels in Ecuador are abysmal FYI, I find it amusing when they decide to care for a foreigner but allow their own people to languish

 

[OriginofHysteria]

It's kind of sad that he was brought down with a scandal. There was a while there where he could have gone full blown james bond villain.

Bond would have fucked up that embassy to get him.

See - Casino Royale.