Support NeoGAF

[Kayhan]

I can continue to repeat it and you can continue to make ineffectual, superficial replies based upon disingenuous mischaracterizations of other people's positions. You took the irrational position, and, if that weren't enough, you relish in it along with one of the most simpleminded, right-wing posters on GAF. You can delight in that all you want, but with each post in this thread you lose more credibility amongst sensible people.

No, Amir0x is right in referring to a tin foil hat crew, a crew you seem to be the archetypical member of. You have lost all credibility with your imagined conspiracy. Though I doubt there was many who took you seriously even before the irrational tin foil material you have produced in this thread.

Seeing a CIA conspiracy in this crazy womans rape accusations is beyond merely far-fetched. Its tin foil hat.

 

[Salazar]

disingenuous mischaracterizations of other people's positions..

To be fair, those positions that hinge on the conspiratorial involvement of US intelligence are eating it pretty hard on this page without any help from Amir0x.

 

[Amir0x]

I can continue to repeat it and you can continue to make ineffectual, superficial replies based upon disingenuous mischaracterizations of other people's positions. You took the irrational position, and, if that weren't enough, you relish in it along with one of the most simpleminded, right-wing posters on GAF. You can delight in that all you want, but with each post in this thread you lose more credibility amongst sensible people.

Speaking of superficial, "superficial" labels like right-wing and left-wing mean nothing to me and neither of them are some inherently negative commentary about a person in question. Sometimes right wingers are correct about things, and sometimes left wingers are right about things. And sometimes there's a little mix of both.

In this case, DennisK4 was right, and the kneejerk CIA tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are wrong. It really is irrelevant to me who agrees with me at all, though. If Orson Scott Card echoed my sentiment in this thread, I would still be quoting his posts and nodding in sagely agreement. The fact that he's a homphobic asstard would mean nothing to the essential truth at play here.

Hell if there was nobody at all agreeing with me, if I was sitting here barking at the moon alone, I would still not care. I argue my opinions on the strength of my own convictions, not someone else's.

 

[empty vessel]

To be fair, those positions that hinge on the conspiratorial involvement of US intelligence are eating it pretty hard on this page without any help from Amir0x.

No, they aren't, because the positions were based on an evidentiary picture at a particular point in time, and those positions remain as rational now as they were at the time they were made. Likewise, Amirox's position, also based on an evidentiary picture at a particular point in time, remains as irrational now as at the time it was made.

No, Amir0x is right in referring to a tin foil hat crew, a crew you seem to be the archetypical member of. You have lost all credibility with your imagined conspiracy. Though I doubt there was many who took you seriously even before the irrational tin foil material you have produced in this thread.

Seeing a CIA conspiracy in this crazy womans rape accusations is beyond merely far-fetched. Its tin foil hat.

Well done, Amirox. Add another right-wing simpleton that lacks basic reading comprehension skills to your roster.

 

[Amir0x]

like i said before, he isn't saying the US raped and killed a girl in 1996. Just that it's irrational to reject the idea that the US raped and killed a girl in 1996.

 

[Kayhan]

Well done, Amirox. Add another right-wing simpleton that lacks basic reading comprehension skills to your roster.

You seem adept at insulting people.

 

[Amir0x]

I just banned Dennis4k for insults, and then you go and do the same thing empty. For someone who is trying so damned hard to act like you're "rational" and above the fray, it didn't take long for you to devolve to the same level as these "simpletons."

 

[Joel Was Right]

..

It's unfortunate that you don't accept PM's

EDIT: I'm disappointed that the debate had to conclude in insults and frustration. Empty Vessel, I was going to PM you that I admired your resilience on this position even though many disagree with it. I was hesitant to say this on the public boards in fear it might undermine your position.

 

[Salazar]

No, they aren't, because the positions were based on an evidentiary picture at a particular point in time, and those positions remain as rational now as they were at the time they were made. Likewise, Amirox's position, also based on an evidentiary picture at a particular point in time, remains as irrational now as at the time it was made.

I mean that they are eating it with respect to their correspondence with the evidentiary picture of the time. Which is the more meaningful (if not the more rigorous) epistemological attribute.

 

[Kayhan]

My mind boggles that in the total absence of actual evidence of a CIA involvement, anyone could argue that the most "rational" default position would be a CIA conspiracy :lol

My philosophy professors would have butchered poor empty_vessel. And I shudder to think what my mathematician friends would do to him.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

damn. debates claiming GAF-lives. :-(

 

[Amir0x]

My mind boggles that in the total absence of actual evidence of a CIA involvement, anyone could argue that the most "rational" default position would be a CIA conspiracy :lol

My philosophy professors would have butchered poor empty_vessel. And I shudder to think what my mathematician friends would do to him.

The "evidence", as empty vessel continually asserts to back his claim that rejecting the idea of CIA involvement is irrational, is that the CIA has done shady things in the past and that there was a leaked memo from 2008 saying that they had to stop leaks getting to WIKILEAKS. Of course, that memo stated nothing about destroying this man... merely sealing up leaks, and that the nature of these potential leaks were a threat to national security.

Of course none of this even remotely provides even the most basic of logical leaps to the CIA doing it, but don't let me stop tin foil hatters.

 

[Zaptruder]

The "evidence", as empty vessel continually asserts to back his claim that rejecting the idea of CIA involvement is irrational, is that the CIA has done shady things in the past and that there was a leaked memo from 2008 saying that they had to stop leaks getting to WIKILEAKS. Of course, that memo stated nothing about destroying this man... merely sealing up leaks, and that the nature of these potential leaks were a threat to national security.

Of course none of this even remotely provides even the most basic of logical leaps to the CIA doing it, but don't let me stop tin foil hatters.

How about when you use the CIA as a short hand for government agencies and intelligence operations that have interest in stopping or defaming wikileaks?

Is it still so improbable?

 

[UFRA]

Spoiler

It's about time a certain someone got banned.

That is all.

*runs away*

 

[PantherLotus]

1. It's a shame Empty got banned, because he's one of the most rational and well-written posters in every thread I see him. Watch the insults, I guess. And to other posters, I wouldn't go about debating the ban with a trigger-happy mod right about now.

2. It's little wonder why people think this is a CIA thing. There was a post earlier in this thread that was like, "if the CIA wanted him gone, you wouldn't know he EVER TOOK A BREATH." This sort of breathless reverence to one of the most dysfunctional, corrupt, and bumbling intelligence agencies in the world is a perfect example of the effectiveness of popular media and popular narrative. You're SUPPOSED to think "they took him down!" That's what it always in the movies, right?

3. I do like the post earlier that said that anything that ever happens to this guy will forever be suspect. It's the nature of fuckin' with the beast. Heart attack, stroke, car accident, mugging, criminal charges, plane crash, house fire, bad food, whatever. It doesn't matter what happens to him now, there will always be the obvious and too-hard-to-resist temptation to wonder if it was natural. I don't like the idea that only a liberal would support this guy (though I do).

4. I think the conspiracy theorists are being a little too quick to jump the gun, and the anti-conspiracy theorists are just a little too sure of themselves. With or without evidence, we're talking about one of the most high profile characters in the world, and one in which [the United States Government] probably doesn't appreciate right now. Does that make it a conspiracy? Hell no. Is believing that this probably IS a conspiracy a dumb position to hold? Of course not. It's a natural, reasoned, and obvious reaction to something like this.

 

[jorma]

Oh so sweet. If you do a check you find out she was working for the Alpha Centurai aliens by proxy of the Galactic Intelligence Federation who owed the CIA a favor after the events of Roswell, New Mexico.

No, but her cousin is a high ranking officer currently positioned in Afghanistan.

 

[harriet the spy]

like i said before, he isn't saying the US raped and killed a girl in 1996. Just that it's irrational to reject the idea that the US raped and killed a girl in 1996.

What is this a reference to? It's too random not to be referring to something, but google doesn't give anything.

 

[mAcOdIn]

What is this a reference to? It's too random not to be referring to something, but google doesn't give anything.

It's a reference to a now old purposely fake accusation that Glen Beck raped and killed a girl in 1996 and that if he didn't disprove that then he was guilty of doing it. It was done back when he started using the chalkboard and making those ridiculous statements saying that the absence of a denial was evidence that it was true, as if the White House doesn't have better things to do than call his stupid phone on his show every night he fucks something up, which he'd rail on if it happened anyways as it'd be a waste of tax-payer's money to hire a person just to call Glen Beck each day and refute his statements.

 

[Solaros]

The "evidence", as empty vessel continually asserts to back his claim that rejecting the idea of CIA involvement is irrational, is that the CIA has done shady things in the past and that there was a leaked memo from 2008 saying that they had to stop leaks getting to WIKILEAKS. Of course, that memo stated nothing about destroying this man... merely sealing up leaks, and that the nature of these potential leaks were a threat to national security.

Of course none of this even remotely provides even the most basic of logical leaps to the CIA doing it, but don't let me stop tin foil hatters.

It is not plausible or even technologically approachable to "seal up the leaks," as the only whistle blower who got caught was one that has no one to blame but himself. So what would the next course of action be? Well since they can't shut down the internet, it would be to defame the one person who has publicly represented Wikleaks. That would hurt the organization as a whole, since the moral ground that Wikileaks stands on would be gone if its supporters were involved with a morally questionable individual. That means that there is intent for any intelligence organization that is doing shady dealings to have Wikileaks' public image hurt (intent that has a memo to back it up). With the aforementioned in mind, it would be irrational to dismiss the involvement of any intelligence agency. I am not saying the CIA did it, just that it would be irrational to completely dismiss their involvement. If you won't concede that you are just being dense.

My mind boggles that in the total absence of actual evidence of a CIA involvement, anyone could argue that the most "rational" default position would be a CIA conspiracy

My philosophy professors would have butchered poor empty_vessel. And I shudder to think what my mathematician friends would do to him.

That isn't what he was saying at all. He was simply stating it was irrational to dismiss their involvement, but you take it to the extreme and call it the most "rational default position" in an attempt to discredit him. You had philosophy professors that taught you philosophy and yet you can't even comprehend what his argument was about? :lol And what would your math friends do? Show him some equations? Get the fuck out of here :lol

 

[harriet the spy]

It's a reference to a now old purposely fake accusation that Glen Beck raped and killed a girl in 1996 and that if he didn't disprove that then he was guilty of doing it. It was done back when he started using the chalkboard and making those ridiculous statements saying that the absence of a denial was evidence that it was true, as if the White House doesn't have better things to do than call his stupid phone on his show every night he fucks something up, which he'd rail on if it happened anyways as it'd be a waste of tax-payer's money to hire a person just to call Glen Beck each day and refute his statements.

I see.

Spoiler

The analogy would work better if Glenn Beck was a known criminal or had any interest in that particular 'girl', but whatever.

 

[Dude Abides]

What is this a reference to? It's too random not to be referring to something, but google doesn't give anything.

There is a meme about Glenn Beck raping and murdering a girl. The idea is that Glenn Beck employs a rhetorical technique of suggesting something sinister about Obama while stopping short of asserting it outright as something he thinks is actually true. Instead, Beck will say he's just raising a question, and then ask "why won't Obama address this" to create the perception that there must be something to the notion. So Obama fans/Beck detractors turn it around by similarly suggesting, without actually claiming, that Beck murdered/raped someone.

If you think that the hypotheses that Glenn Beck murdered and raped someone or that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya are as plausible as the hypothesis that the CIA or another department of the United States may have been involved in creating legal and PR trouble for the Wikileaks guy then you may find this Beck reference clever.

Edit: I see you already figured out why it's kind of dumb.

 

[Salazar]

That isn't what he was saying at all. He was simply stating it was irrational to dismiss their involvement, but you take it to the extreme and call it the most "rational default position" in an attempt to discredit him. You had philosophy professors that taught you philosophy and yet you can't even comprehend what his argument was about? :lol And what would your math friends do? Show him some equations? Get the fuck out of here :lol

Vessel should have known that empiricists usually win these skirmishes.

 

[Kikujiro]

Wow, can't believe empty got banned, better not saying anything against CIA in this thread. And the majority of you just attacked him and didn't even get what he was trying to say.

 

[Salazar]

Wow, can't believe empty got banned, better not saying anything against CIA in this thread. And the majority of you just attacked him and didn't even get what he was trying to say.

Well, he got banned for an argument that really wasn't worth making. The rationality and irrationality of opposed positions aside, the idea that the CIA set this up dropped markedly in credibility when we learned about the plaintiff - at which point it became silly to defend the prior coherence of a pretty-much exploded idea.

 

[A Link to the Past]

There doesn't have to be evidence, man. It's the CIA - they don't leave evidence.

Conspiracy established

 

[jorma]

Vessel should have known that empiricists usually win these skirmishes.

I dont really see how anyone won anything.

Or maybe tin foil just does not mean what i think it does. To me tin foil behaviour is seeing a completely outlandish conspiracy where there is no real motive or anything else that points in the direction of whoever the tin foil person is accusing. If this is tin foil, then every single honeytrap ever executed would be as well, and i have a hard time thinking this is true.

Because when you call something a tin foil conspiracy you are completely and utterly discarding the idea that the conspiracy has any grounding in reality. Can we agree on this, or is this me misunderstanding what "tin foil" means?

Now, i do not think that this woman was remote controlled by CIA. But i'm not completely discarding the idea that this is a honeytrap either. Although my main guess at the moment is that this is just a "radical feminist meets someone with douchebag behaviour in bed" sort of thing.

 

[Kayhan]

it would be irrational to dismiss the involvement of any intelligence agency. I am not saying the CIA did it, just that it would be irrational to completely dismiss their involvement. If you won't concede that you are just being dense.



That isn't what he was saying at all. He was simply stating it was irrational to dismiss their involvement, but you take it to the extreme and call it the most "rational default position" in an attempt to discredit him. You had philosophy professors that taught you philosophy and yet you can't even comprehend what his argument was about? :lol And what would your math friends do? Show him some equations? Get the fuck out of here :lol

You are almost as tin foil as empty_vessel. There is no evidence of CIA involvement. Of all the endless posibilities, you are biased towards the one that must involve the CIA. That is not rational when there is no evidence.

And you seem to have as much problem as empty_vessel with elementary logic. When you latch on to one explanation - CIA angle - of the endless explanations (crazy, publicity etc.), when there is no actual evidence is not the most logic conclusion.

The logical fallacy is that prior CIA plots somehow makes this completely stupid chain of events the most rational of possibilties. empty_vessel didn't say the CIA involvement was just one of an endless possible explanations, no, no its was his entire tin foil hat obsession.

Ironically, you accuse me of trying to discredit empty_vessel when

a) he did a fine job of discrediting himself
b) discredit others with non-sensical arguments is what empty_vessel does in every thread he enters. Like calling me and others right-wing. I am not right-wing at all. I am just not a tin foil hatter like empty and perhaps you.

 

[Salazar]

Now, i do not think that this woman was remote controlled by CIA. But i'm not completely discarding the idea that this is a honeytrap either. Although my main guess at the moment is that this is just a "radical feminist meets someone with douchebag behaviour in bed" sort of thing.

The bolded is the only part of it that interests me. The rationality of an allegation of CIA involvement is something I can grant. Its plausibility is a grittier issue, and it's one that falls short; I prefer your suggestion. Relegating CIA nefariousness to a vanishingly small degree of probability seems like a course of action with evidence as well as rationality on its side.

For Vessel to have been banned getting agitated over the peripheral issue of whether or not it was defensible to allege or suggest CIA involvement (it was, and then it ceased to be), strikes me as ridiculous. Comical if it's a short-term ban (likely, unless Amir0x is much more of a git than I think he is) and depressing if it's a prolonged one.

It wasn't tinfoil to suggest CIA involvement. It is verging on tinfoil to do so now. It was verging on tinfoil to assert that the CIA were definitely involved.

 

[Amir0x]

Wow, can't believe empty got banned, better not saying anything against CIA in this thread. And the majority of you just attacked him and didn't even get what he was trying to say.

but I banned Dennis4K ITT before I banned empty vessel for the same thing: insults.

Does that mean you better not say FOR OR AGAINST the CIA? omg Like the tin foil hatters, your logic is so rock solid that it is impossible to argue against!

For Vessel to have been banned getting agitated over the peripheral issue of whether or not it was defensible to allege or suggest CIA involvement (it was, and then it ceased to be), strikes me as ridiculous. Comical if it's a short-term ban (likely, unless Amir0x is much more of a git than I think he is) and depressing if it's a prolonged one.

Motive is not considered when discussing insults. If you allow yourself to devolve into a series of petty personal attacks against someone, then you're going to be banned for a prolonged period of time. Just like Dennis4k (against conspiracy theories) and empty vessel (for them). It's a position neutral action. Insults = ban.

It's like you people don't read the TOS and then get angry at those who do.

 

[Salazar]

Motive is not considered when discussing insults. If you allow yourself to devolve into a series of petty personal attacks against someone, then you're going to be banned for a prolonged period of time. Just like Dennis4k (against conspiracy theories) and empty vessel (for them).

It's like you people don't read the TOS and then get angry at those who do.

OK. I'm not angry at anyone (except Amazon, who have delayed shipment of my Walking Dead compendium).

I will try to adequately distribute and dilute my petty personal attacks.

 

[Amir0x]

Annoyed, angry... my only point is that people who break the rules have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

well here's another source of the story and another picture of the girl.

Woman in Wikileaks 'smear campaign' speaks out

A woman at the centre of an alleged smear campaign against the founder of the WikiLeaks whistleblower website said she had supported a rape claim because she had experienced unwelcome sexual advances from him, according to reports.

rape eyeS

the girl that went with the rape girl and said she had experienced 'unwelcome sexual advances'

what's the deal these days, you take a run at a girl and get denied and that's an unwelcome sexual advance... that's not a crime right? If it was, we probably wouldn't have many babies, since the rate of getting shot down to scoring probably makes every dude ever a rapist.

 

[kamorra]

Is calling someone a tin foil hatter a insult?

 

[jorma]

well here's another source of the story and another picture of the girl.

Woman in Wikileaks 'smear campaign' speaks out

the girl that went with the rape girl and said she had experienced 'unwelcome sexual advances'


what's the deal these days, you take a run at a girl and get denied and that's an unwelcome sexual advance... that's not a crime right? If it was, we probably wouldn't have many babies, since the rate of getting shot down to scoring probably makes every dude ever a rapist.

He had sex with AA and presumably also with the rape charge girl.

The very unconfirmed but never the less persistent rumour at the moment is that JA came in her mouth (or possibly gave her a facial) despite the fact that AA had told him not to. The other woman who is still anonymous experienced something similar, according to yesterdays interview with AA.

 

[devilhawk]

She has a twitter account that mentions him, though I can't make sense of it as shorthand doesn't translate well.

 

[JGS]

I wouldnt say that wikileaks or Assange is anti-US at all. The US is very anti-wikileaks though

Sorry missed this.

That was my way of saying he's fairly neutral.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

He had sex with AA and presumably also with the rape charge girl.

The very unconfirmed but never the less persistent rumour at the moment is that JA came in her mouth (or possibly gave her a facial) despite the fact that AA had told him not to. The other woman who is still anonymous experienced something similar, according to yesterdays interview with AA.

WTF that's not rape, it's just kind of rude. Do you have some sources for that?

 

[jorma]

WTF that's not rape, it's just kind of rude. Do you have some sources for that?

No, i wasnt even going to share it originally, but these are very persistent rumours all over the swedish internetz. We will know for sure soon though - JA is now lawyered up, he has one of the most infamous laywers available in Sweden. His reputation is that "he gets guilty people off"

The two girls are also lawyered up now, their lawyer is also famous. He is known as a radical feminist and is a pretty big name in the social democrat machinery. AA is electable and on one the social democrat lists submitted prior to the upcoming election in september. She is not well known, but will be pretty soon.

This will be fun! popcorn.gif etc etc.

 

[News Bot]

He had sex with AA and presumably also with the rape charge girl.

The very unconfirmed but never the less persistent rumour at the moment is that JA came in her mouth (or possibly gave her a facial) despite the fact that AA had told him not to. The other woman who is still anonymous experienced something similar, according to yesterdays interview with AA.

Are you fucking serious? That's a Friday night.

Fucking people these days.

 

[PantherLotus]

Is calling someone a tin foil hatter a insult?

Of course it is. In the very least, it's demeaning. A more insecure person would view it as slightly harrassing, inaccurate, and/or defamatory, all of which are covered under Section II, Part A of the Terms of Service. Does it matter, though?

The larger issue is that there are certain (and numerous) times where personal insults are OK, once the GAF collective (or a mod) has cleared the way. See the My Girlfriend is Missing thread for several examples of how leadership can change the mood of the mob. That said, expecting strict consistency isn't realistic, nor would it be fun.

Regardless, the problem with going this direction of conversation is that IT TOO is against the TOS.

 

[afternoon delight]

Gotta remember not to come in radical feminists' mouths when they say not to. :lol

If that was it though, hell, best case and publicity ever.

 

[Deku]

The Swedes also defended their prosecution or aborted prosecution of the case.

Believers will claim CIA interference, intimidation, the usual litany of recycled tin foil hat theories.

This seems like the case of Julian Assange's libido getting the better of him.

But it's nice when you can pawn off responsibility to the CIA or the pentagon for smearing you after the bungling of the leaks which effectively sentenced mutiple people to death by Taliban and having your personal issues come up as a result.

 

[Kayhan]

I wonder if people who posted in this thread wll reflect on their tendency to judge in the face of a complete lack of evidence?

Who am I kidding, putting on a tin foil hat is much more fun than taking a wait-and-see attitude.

 

[Zaptruder]

Of course it is. In the very least, it's demeaning. A more insecure person would view it as slightly harrassing, inaccurate, and/or defamatory, all of which are covered under Section II, Part A of the Terms of Service. Does it matter, though?

The larger issue is that there are certain (and numerous) times where personal insults are OK, once the GAF collective (or a mod) has cleared the way. See the My Girlfriend is Missing thread for several examples of how leadership can change the mood of the mob. That said, expecting strict consistency isn't realistic, nor would it be fun.

Regardless, the problem with going this direction of conversation is that IT TOO is against the TOS.

GAF mods are the greek gods of the foruming world. What else can be said?

 

[jorma]

I guess she ought to have known that JA does not care about permission when he releases.

 

[Zenith]

The fact is - and this is a fucking fact, which you'd know if you weren't so busy posting outdated stories about how the CIA was during the fucking Cold War - is that the CIA operates differently based on the threat, the time period and the people in charge.

This is ridiculous, unsupported tripe that no historian or anybody remotely familiar with the actual record of covert government activities would take seriously for a second.

Uh, even an amateur historian would recognise that the CIA isn't nearly as active as it once was. It'd be like saying the DDR hasn't changed since its Stasi days.

 

[Trurl]

GAF mods are the greek gods of the foruming world. What else can be said?

Who's the Prometheus? I like Hitokage a lot, but I don't see Evilore ever tying him to a boulder and having birds feast on his liver.

 

[Byakuya769]

Isn't tin-foilers being used as an insult in this thread itself?

 

[Chittagong]

He had sex with AA and presumably also with the rape charge girl.

The very unconfirmed but never the less persistent rumour at the moment is that JA came in her mouth (or possibly gave her a facial) despite the fact that AA had told him not to. The other woman who is still anonymous experienced something similar, according to yesterdays interview with AA.

I was going to speculate that at worst he might have slipped it by accident to the pooper but suing someone over something this is just petty.

 

[RustyNails]

well here's another source of the story and another picture of the girl.

Woman in Wikileaks 'smear campaign' speaks out



rape eyeS
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1282634728/617/4057617.jpg[IMG]

the girl that went with the rape girl and said she had experienced 'unwelcome sexual advances'
[IMG]http://static.stuff.co.nz/1282634807/671/4057671.jpg[IMG]

what's the deal these days, you take a run at a girl and get denied and that's an unwelcome sexual advance... that's not a crime right? If it was, we probably wouldn't have many babies, since the rate of getting shot down to scoring probably makes every dude ever a rapist.[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? I thought Assange was homosexual, and that Swedish prosecutors backed off the rape charges as soon as they found out about his sexual orientation. Off to Wiki-mobile!
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange"]Edit: I'm totally wrong.[/URL]
[QUOTE]In 1989, Assange started living with his girlfriend and soon they had a son. She left him after the 1991 police raid and took their son.[87] They engaged in a lengthy custody struggle as he felt that her new partner was not to his approval.[/QUOTE]