Skip to main content

View Diary: Julian Assange Says Being Anti-Choice Represents ‘Non-Violence.’ Non-Violent for Whom? (387 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry, no. (58+ / 0-)

    First of all, we are all on the left here, if you don't mind.

    Second, there is a real difference between saying "I'll work with GOPer [X] on issue [Y] because there is a common interest", and saying like Assange did that Rand Paul, foaming nutbag, is the "only hope" for this country.

    Lastly, you seem to argue that civil rights don't at a very minimum encompass being able to do whatever you damn well please with your body, or maybe that this pales next to the government reading your email.

    I tend to disagree with those ideas, because both infringe on personal rights. There is no dichotomy here.

    And by the way, I had a drink with Ned Lamont in a bar in New York the day I met him, heckled Lieberman to his face in Grand Central, and threw a book party for David, who is absolutely pro-choice, so maybe dial down the harsh tone a little bit. I don't hate you, you have no reason to hate me.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 01:28:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Assange's statment is stupid (20+ / 0-)

      But Sirota and Greenwald don't urge anyone to swallow Paulism whole. They do just what you advocate, find common ground.

      You're talking about Assange; we're not.

      •  Neither does Assange (11+ / 0-)

        Immediately after the quote cited by the diarist, he said:

        I think some of these positions that are held by Rand Paul, while I can see how they come from the same underlying libertarian principle, I think the world is often more complex. And by taking a no-doubt principled but sometimes simplistic position, you end up undermining the principle.
        Assange was simply describing how American libertarians arrive at their beliefs. The idea that all of this derives from non-violence isn't something he came up with, it's a well-known principle behind libertarianism called the "non coercion" or "non-aggression principle."

        However, as Assange pointed out, different branches of libertarianism interpret this in different ways, and a common critique of American right-wing libertarianism is that it's too simplistic (sometimes called "vulgar" or "crass libertarianism" by people being less diplomatic than JA was here).

        So all this discussion and argument around the notion that Assange and other civil libertarians are "anti choice" is itself based on a lack of understanding and therefore completely pointless, but that never stopped anyone before I guess.

    •  You still don't understand why its fallacious (20+ / 0-)
      I'm sorry, no. (1+ / 0-)

      First of all, we are all on the left here, if you don't mind.

      There is room for honest disagreement about whom is on the left, and which views represent the left. Some views "leftists" hold are not anything a real leftist would support, so we will have to disagree on the definition. I consider many here to be centrists by my metrics.
      Second, there is a real difference between saying "I'll work with GOPer [X] on issue [Y] because there is a common interest", and saying like Assange did that Rand Paul, foaming nutbag, is the "only hope" for this country.
      I'm not referring to Assange's agreement with Rand Paul, I'm referring, instead, to people on the left who agree with some of the positions held by Assange or the "Libertarian" right. Again, reading comprehension is important. Try to understand exactly what is is I'm stating. If Obama can agree with the right wing on killing of people attending weddings, and first responders to the wounded,  or people going to funerals, without being tainted by the guilt-by-association fallacy, the left can agree with "LIbertarians" in opposition to these policies without being smeared with any other view these persons might hold. To suggest that is simply illogical and is wrong-headed.
      Lastly, you seem to argue that civil rights don't at a very minimum encompass being able to do whatever you damn well please with your body, or maybe that this pales next to the government reading your email. I tend to disagree with those ideas, because both infringe on personal rights. There is no dichotomy here.
      Not at all. I never stated anywhere that the right for a woman to decide what she does with her body is NOT a personal right. In fact my father was an activist (when I was a teen) to make abortion legal (back in the days when in most states it was against the law), and thus I grew up strongly in favor of abortion rights. Dude, I was pro-choice before you were born.

      Thus, your assertion is either:

      1) A conscious, deliberate lie and attempt to smear and misrepresent my views.

      2) More indication of lack of reading comprehension.

      And by the way, I had a drink with Ned Lamont in a bar in New York the day I met him, heckled Lieberman to his face in Grand Central, and threw a book party for David, who is absolutely pro-choice, so maybe dial down the harsh tone a little bit.
      More conflation of my statements with something I didn't say. I wasn't referring to YOUR views of Lieberman, I was referring to Obama's support of his campaign.
      I don't hate you, you have no reason to hate me.
      I do feel hated on this site. I think people willfully misrepresent my views (as you have done here regarding abortion) and this type of behavior sure isn't love and respect. I think there is a great deal of hatred of people who are relatively further to the left, and who thus aren't in favor of some of the recent government policies.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 01:55:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, TFinSF, Tony Situ, lordcopper
        If Obama can agree with the right wing on killing of people attending weddings, and first responders to the wounded,  or people going to funerals, without being tainted by the guilt-by-association fallacy
        Really. Have you seen the rec list lately? This comment on it's own stinks of you slathering on the taint.
      •  And this means nothing (8+ / 0-)
        Dude, I was pro-choice before you were born.
        Because your father was an activist? Who the fck cares? Do you think I have republican street cred because my dad is a republican? WTF? This is probably one of the weakest arguments I've seen at this site.

        Quit digging.

        •  It was asserted I didn't support abortion rights (12+ / 0-)

          My upbringing by an activist father who specifically focused in large part to make abortion legal is germane to the discussion, since that is the influence I was exposed to.

          At this point I must state that the accusation is a blatant lie, a word I don't often use. These comments asserting that deserve hide rates.

          Prove, either of you, that I am against abortion rights. If you can't prove it, apologize and withdraw the statements. I find this unwarranted attack extremely offensive.  

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:23:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can understand the confusion (8+ / 0-)
            Never mind the crimes and surveillance revealed by wikileaks, Manning and Snowden, attack the messenger with ad hominem logical fallacies, and use guilt-by-association to smear anyone who worries about the war crimes, and the encroachment on civil rights.
            What is that ad hominem logical fallacy? You take a real concern about a person's view on abortion and call it an ad hominem logical fallacy.

            I see the confusion. You really owe MBNYC an apology for claiming she has an agenda other than a pro-choice agenda.

            •  More misreading (8+ / 0-)

              My god... use your head. Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

              My reference to ad hominem refers to the fallacy of asserting one view is wrong because the holder of that view (Assange) may be wrong on other views.

              That is an ad hominem. It refers to the person, rather than the facts supporting a thesis.

              If someone says (a) the sky is blue, and also says (b) the world is flat, the wrongness of (b) doesn't make (a) invalid.

              It is essentially positing the fallacious notion that you can determine the factuality or merits of an argument by who is making it.

              Closely read my comment, and you should be able to understand. I suspect the problem here is some readers don't really understand what an ad hom actually is.  

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:42:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not quite (7+ / 0-)

                you said:

                My reference to ad hominem refers to the fallacy of asserting one view is wrong because the holder of that view (Assange) may be wrong on other views.
                Almost but not quite.  That's about 45 degrees off target.  Ad hominem isn't related to the person's other views.  Simply put, ad hominem attacks are those that attack the person rather than the topic.  Most often, it's done in the form of character assassination.  
                Here's a definition that matches what I was taught:

                ad hominem  (æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm)

                — adj , — adv
                1.     directed against a person rather than against his arguments
                2.     based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason

                [literally: to the man]

                Source:  Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

                It's not a question of whether our founding fathers are rolling in their graves but rather of how many RPM they're clocking.

                by Eyesbright on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 03:52:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ad hom is more than that (6+ / 0-)

                  Ad hominem means "against the person."

                  So, what qualifies as "against the person"? Anything that characterizes the person, such as other personal views, traits, habits, deeds, people associated with the person, religious and political views, ethical views, behaviors, etc. It is not just insult.

                  Very basic to this are unsavory views the person might have. If the person thinks abortion is wrong, but also thinks overarching surveillance by the state and encroachment of 4th amendment rights is wrong, the one view doesn't invalidate the other.

                  Sorry, but you're not grasping this concept well.

                  And I have always supported abortion rights. Goddamn any asshole who claims otherwise.

                  http://www.nizkor.org/...

                   

                  Fallacy: Ad Hominem

                  Description of Ad Hominem

                  Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

                  An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

                      Person A makes claim X.
                      Person B makes an attack on person A.
                      Therefore A's claim is false.

                  The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

                  Example of Ad Hominem

                      Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
                      Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
                      Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
                      Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 04:09:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  What does Assange's view on abortion (17+ / 0-)

              have to do with the information that wikileaks released?

              What does it have to do with anything here in the US?

              How does that compare to Obama's actions when supporting Lieberman?

              Hypocrisy abounds.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:42:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  These people uprating (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dianna, kyril, Egg, cybrestrike, DeadHead

              should be ashamed of themselves. My god... the behavior in this place has gone to rot. I'd hide rate everyone of them if it was allowed.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 03:00:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Someone should reread or read the actual (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yoshimi

              definition of Ad Hominem.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 03:35:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Indeed they should. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 04:09:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Particularly this part (0+ / 0-)
                  Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. (emphasis added)

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 05:03:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yep. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dclawyer06, DeadHead, Haningchadus14

                    That's exactly what people have done here. Assange is bad because of his personal traits and character, thus his wikileaks activities are wrong.

                    And people who defend the wikileaks efforts, as well as Manning, are wrong because Assange (allegedly) doesn't support the right to have an abortion.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 05:13:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  zhen.. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ZhenRen, Choco8, DeadHead, Haningchadus14

                      You assume people here just don't get it.
                      Pssst...they're not trying to get it!

                    •  Who is reaching your (0+ / 0-)

                      conclusion "thus his wikileaks activities are wrong"?  It seems you (and most others of his fans) are reading in an argument that nobody's making.

                      His Wikileaks activities are irrelevant to the following points:
                      * Whether he committed rape
                      * Whether he needs to stand trial for rape
                      * Whether he should be given respect while running from rape charges
                      * Whether people should continue to treat him as a leader of a movement while he runs from rape charges
                      * Whether people should just let him get on with his life while running from rape charges, as though it never even happened.

                      There's seven billion people in the world, and more than one care about transparency.  Find one to head the transparency movement who's NOT a right-wing rape fugitive narcissist.

                      Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

                      by Rei on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 01:34:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Coupla things. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, tikkun

        I'm sorry that you feel hated. All I can say to that is that there is no reason for anyone to do so that I can see at least. You're angry right now, clearly, but I've seen some really insightful stuff from you, and I don't hate you by any stretch of the imagination.

        We can agree to disagree on what is left. My definition is probably broader than yours, but in reference to the population at large, I'm far left. That's my point of reference.

        I said "you seem to argue" as opposed to "you seem to believe" for a very simple reason: I don't know what you believe. What you said could be read the way I did, but that's not the only possible interpretation, and I wanted to do you the courtesy of being ambiguous.

        As far as reading skills are concerned, I read as well as I write. You be the judge if that's sufficient for the task at hand.

        Lastly, we're on different sides, sure, but I really do try to be fair. Not always successfully, and we all make mistakes, but I don't see any reason to tar you or anyone with Julian Assange's personal failings (as I see them) or your politics in consequence. That would be silly. But at the same time, I reserve the right to hold these views because they have enough evidentiary support to satisfy me. Simple as that.

        As far as Assange's own views are concerned, again, they deserve scrutiny as well. But one of my favorite pols ever is Eliot Spitzer, who is kind of a douche in person and did some stuff we don't need to talk about. He's still the most kickass AG this state has ever seen.

        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

        by MBNYC on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 04:14:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He said no such things about civil rights (8+ / 0-)

      And I'm most certain that he never would.

      You are putting words in people's mouths just like the diary has.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:39:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site