LockeColeMA wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, now the next question is, do you believe that the U.S have Secret intel on other countries, such as N. Korea?
By secret do you mean "Not known to the public"? Yes. And this conversation is taking a looong time - do me a favor and get to a point!
I did get to the point and you didn't understand it, so I'm breaking it down for you, but I'll speed it up some. Yes, by secret, I mean "not known to the public". That was a typo on my part on capitalizing secret. Force of habit.
So, you agree that there is no country that wouldn't be upset about their secrets being exposed to the public.
You agree that there exists countries who would kill foreigners who would release their secrets.
You also agree that the U.S has secret intel on other countries.
So, it is safe to say that dumping thousands of U.S classified information may very well contain secrets from other countries of which would kill foreigners for releasing their secrets (such as N. Korea).
That fact substantiates my statement that he can very well be offed out of jail with no U.S. involvement.
Now, since you agree that there are multiple countries that would use illegal actions such as murder to solve their problems with no regards to politics, let there exist a country whose secrets were exposed in wikileaks.
What would probably be the only reason why this capable country wouldn't wish violence upon Mr. Assange if they have no remorse for doing such activities?
I'll help you if you don't know.
The only reason would be is if they didn't care, but you already agreed that there wouldn't be any country who wouldn't be upset from their secrets being released.
So by saying that no country wouldn't be upset that their secrets would be released, you are also including the countries that have no problem killing people they disagree with. So, from there you can't attack my statement as if it represents me or the U.S. Furthermore, that my statement, while was just a joke, represents the truth.
Kachi wrote:
You're right. It is subjective, but the subjectivity of humor is embedded in specific psychological and social contexts which are not subjective. Elementary school boys think saying the word "barf" is humorous. If a standup comic tried it in front of a crowd of adults, they'd flounder. And I've seen a lot of comedy in my life, enough to get a general sense of what other people find funny.
Sometimes people will laugh at something to be polite. I really doubt anybody found your statement genuinely humorous, to the point that I'm more inclined to believe that you're lying about other people finding it funny.
It wasn't my statement. People found it funny and you don't. Stop trying to prove that other people don't find things that they laugh at as funny. You can argue that certain subject matters are typically not or should not be taken as funny, but you're trying to prove that something is inherently not funny and that is just silly.
Everyone at my job thinks he should be punished with incarceration being the most polite form of punishment. So, again, this is obviously not a coincidence that everyone who thinks he should be punished(some including death) laughs at that comment and the ones who think he's some "Freedom fighter" don't think it's funny.
Kachi wrote:
You never gave me the benefit of the doubt. You said in that very post that I picked the wrong side and that I was already in on the "laugh at Alma" "nonsense". You couldn't identify my reservation for passing judgment, and instead interpreted my perfectly reasonable skepticism as being rallied against you. Your inability to pick up on things like this that were not even subtle suggest to me that you're argumentative and not especially intelligent. And honestly, that's just the start. Half the things you've said since I've addressed you are not the kinds of things a respectably intelligent person would respond with.
I do believe I gave you a benefit without a doubt because I'm me and I know what I was thinking. You said in that very post that you didn't give it much thought, which means that you just picked a side for the sake of picking a side and if you gave it more thought, it's possible that your opinion would change.
So, after reading that, I thought ok, maybe this person isn't a complete idiot and just is just going with the flow. That is what I meant by you picking the wrong side. That wrong side is the "laugh/disagree at Alma." When you replied with simply "You're an idiot" with no substance, then I realized that you are just a mindless idiot.
Kachi wrote:
The fact that you think I'm following some fad rather than genuinely thinking you're thick is really evidence enough. I have never cared what anyone on this forum thinks of me or anyone else. I don't particularly value their opinions. I don't feel any sense of belonging to the people who post here nor do I care to. Frankly, I think I'm probably the smartest person here, and I'm sure there are others who think the same of themselves. Maybe I'm not (though that I am very intelligent and well-educated is simply a fact), but I certainly don't place my faith in their opinions or intelligence. When I agree with someone, it's because I think they're right. When I disagree with someone, it's because I think they're wrong. And when I think someone's an idiot, it's because they can't articulate an argument in a way that makes logical sense or present themselves as something other than a raving lunatic.
Further, if you thought I was in some way trying to be productive, you misunderstand the reason I post here-- my personal amusement.
And I think we're going to have some fun.
So where is this substance again? You talked a lot but you haven't explained how my response on the differences between me and Varus logically resulted in your conclusion of me being an idiot. At this point, either you're following a fad or you're just coincidentally just as stupid as the fad. Once again, I gave you the benefit without a doubt that it was the former, but if you insist it's the latter, then oh well.
Ugly wrote:
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, twit. I was jsut ******** around. Not surprisingly, you're the only one who missed that fact.
Dude, it was a two person conversation. You weren't fooling anyone except that other poster who clearly was lost. I do recall you explaining to him that you weren't talking to him but me. Soooooooo I'm not quite sure how I'm the only one who missed that fact.. Looks like you're just making stuff up.. Man, you're really failing at this trolling business. Where's BT at when you need him? Maybe you can get some pointers.