Because that's the appropriate value to assign to statements that one doesn't intend to judge further. Not sure where you think the conflict is, there. They say they were raped, he says otherwise, I respect the prerogative of the appropriate court to decide, and in the meantime take the various statements at face value.
It would be a lot funnier if there weren't so many people working relentlessly to publicly shame these women - including yourself, right here.
What would that matter? There's plenty of people on his side, who are more than willing to publicly slander and shame these women. You're doing it yourself, right now. The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
Good for them.
False dichotomy - there's nobody taking these women's words as gospel, and you have no knowledge of the motives or thoughts of the women you cite.
You just tried that strawman in your last post. You suck at arguing.
Another false dichotomy - this isn't a zero-sum game. It's very much possible that Assange gets burned, and the rape accusers also get burned. Even in clear-cut cases of brutal rape that result in easy conviction, accusers are put in a vulnerable position of exposing their victimization to the public and being judged by insensitive, agenda'd pricks like yourself. That's why so few come forward at all, even in very clear-cut cases.
Noting that something isn't relevant to the present topic isn't the same thing as "delegitimizing" it. You're really treading water here - if I were you, I'd just give up now before you embarass yourself any further.
Last I checked, the USA is still serious about capturing and prosecuting Polanski, and in fact that very (over-) zealousness is what created the technical pretexts that have allowed him to escape extradition all these years. Meanwhile, your precedents of rape prosecution are from the UK, which has nothing to do with Polanski. He committed his crimes in the US, and then fled to France and eventually Switzerland. He hasn't set foot in the UK since then, as he would immediately be arrested and extradited.
Moreover, it is difficult to credibly argue that Assange is not a flight risk.
Very well I can take his statements at face value as opposed to their claims which don't seem to mesh very well. Especially when one decides not to cooperate with those who are willing to prosecute him.
Publicly shame the women? Please one shame oneself when one says they are raped by some man they just met and then goes back to see the person only to then claim their sexuality was again violated. Its bullshit. You take the stance that crying rape actually means that there should be no room for doubt, in other words you seem to believe that a cry of rape is somehow proof that one occurred. I disagree with that. The only person who is being publicly shamed at the moment is Assange. As a matter of fact I have seen little evidence that these women are being shamed worldwide in any meaningful way. The only support that is being offered to Assange has to do with the way Wikileaks is being treated in general, and the way Assange is being treated in a court of law. Don't you find it strange that he isn't being allowed bail? Don't you find it strange that rape charges that were dropped mysteriously resurface? Don't you find it strange that the allegations are being treated with the utmost urgency when there are worse cases of abuse and rape that are not warranted this heavy handed reaction?
Quad: I tend to bear in mind that 90% of rape victims never come forward at all. It's not the kind of thing that people like having publicized about themselves, even if the perpetrator is widely reviled.
Aha, so you see, you have decided that there is a good possibility that Assange is a wild rapist. You are not unbiased my friend so don't accuse me being biased.
Good for them? Don't you find it ironic that a rape victims advocacy group would find these allegations odd? Or are they also just a biased bunch rallying to support Assange?
I don't need prior knowledge of what these feminists think when they are stating what they think out in the open for all to read. To say that the women in afghanistan is the reason why we went to war is as erroneous as saying Assange is being hounded because he is a 'rapist'.
Quad: You just tried that strawman in your last post. You suck at arguing.
Not a strawman at all to cite evidence that women do on occasion lie about rape. And if you think I 'suck at arguing' then I don't see why you are bothering to take the precious minutes out of your life to argue with me at all.
Quad: Another false dichotomy - this isn't a zero-sum game. It's very much possible that Assange gets burned, and the rape accusers also get burned. Even in clear-cut cases of brutal rape that result in easy conviction, accusers are put in a vulnerable position of exposing their victimization to the public and being judged by insensitive, agenda'd pricks like yourself. That's why so few come forward at all, even in very clear-cut cases.
Oh please. Here you are pretending that its the law that should decide and then you go on to refer to the accusers as being victims before knowing that they actually are victims. I would say that in this day and age rape victims are not held to up to an insensitive public, the opposite is true where we are more ready to believe the accuser and label the man as an animal.
'Agenda'd pricks'? You can call me an agenda's cunt if you like but not a prick since I lack one. You on the other hand are very much showing yourself to be just as 'agenda'd' and yes also a 'prick'. I mean if you are such a master of argument you wouldn't feel the need to rely on ad hom's. I mean its easy to discredit an idiot who cannot argue without them is it not. Why don't you go and tell Tiassa that his arguments 'suck' and he's just a fucking agenda'd prick because of his assessment in post #437, you poltroon.
Quad: Noting that something isn't relevant to the present topic isn't the same thing as "delegitimizing" it. You're really treading water here - if I were you, I'd just give up now before you embarass yourself any further.
Why? I'm not embarrassed. I do find it ironic that someone can leave the States right before trial for 'violating the sexual integrity' of a minor and live for years outside the States without it hindering his life one bit but a man who is accused of a weak rape case is hounded as if they were Bin Laden.
Quad: Last I checked, the USA is still serious about capturing and prosecuting Polanski, and in fact that very (over-) zealousness is what created the technical pretexts that have allowed him to escape extradition all these years. Meanwhile, your precedents of rape prosecution are from the UK, which has nothing to do with Polanski. He committed his crimes in the US, and then fled to France and eventually Switzerland. He hasn't set foot in the UK since then, as he would immediately be arrested and extradited.
Moreover, it is difficult to credibly argue that Assange is not a flight risk.
Bullshit! They can take hold his passport, something they never did with Polanski as he awaited trial.
Monsieur Polanski, he was living under house arrest in Switzerland, after he left his home in France to attend the Zurich Film Festival in September 2009. In July, the Swiss authorities decided not to ship him back to the U.S. for trial on the grounds that American authorities had failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure. As a result, he was declared a "free man" and he returned to his home in Paris (albeit with an outstanding Interpol arrest warrant in 188 countries).
In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges, but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of five of the initial charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.
Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, and it was expected that he would only receive probation at his sentencing. However, upon learning that he would likely face imprisonment and deportation, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. Since then Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him to the United States.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he traveled to Europe to complete filming. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. Polanski's lawyers had the expectation that Polanski would get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, with the probation officer, examining psychiatrist, and the victim all recommending against jail time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case
Doesn't look as if the US were over-zealous in regards to Polanski at all!! The same site says:
"The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities."
Well why didn't they then? Also he went to the UK before leaving for France and no one attempted to arrest him at the behest of the US government.
Polanski fled, Assange was ALLOWED to leave as the charges against him were dropped and he made no attempt to avoid arrest.
Assange isn't being hounded because he's a rapist, he's being hounded because of what he's disclosed about various worldwide governments the US in particular.
