Asking me to read 23 times after I already did does not help your argument at all.
Your points as I stated are off topic, irrelevant, and nonsensical.
If you want to turn this into a list a fallacies that’s fine. Ad Nauseam clearly applies here friend. You’re literally just repeating your poor logic and nonsense.
Furthermore cite your own bullshit before pulling classic reddit garbage and requesting that of others.
This latest line is my favorite in terms of your flawed and ridiculous stupidity. Your replies are literally insufferable. Half this stuff could be written by Assange himself. Because your both obviously fond of sniffing your own farts.
Moreover, if you're not sure he can be trusted, how in the hell can he deserve a pardon?
This reveals a couple of things.
It cuts through your layers of bullshit and shows this is simply a favor for fucking over Hillary. You could clearly care less about all the other garbage you’re spewing.
To better explain above it’s clear you think trust is a factor in terms of a pardon. Why? Is this a quid pro quo? Which leads to...
Pardons are about injustice. It’s now clear your approach here here has nothing to do with that.
Blocked, your stupid argument via quantity rather than quality is European style politics at its finest. America left that behind over 200 years ago.
Reading this the arguments here are pretty bad. I can see why someone might be frustrated with you.
Why are you asking for citations when you don’t cite your own stuff?
Assange is just about free info. That’s really it. I’m not a Snowden fan but the idea Assange as a targeted defender against fuckery is a funny idea. You really should cite that.
“Unmatched record” unmatched record of what? That’s very vague. I would guess you mean the reputation as always being legitimate.
Yes, that’s good. But his reputation for that is really unrelated to the discussion.
If it was it’s still no better or worse than Snowden’s reputation for accuracy either way.
u/Spicemustflow was also right about NSA leaks not being cover. Your comeback for that is a limited hangout? What? Do you even know what that is or what the word limited even means there. The idea is to admit a partial truth. Kind of like what the FBI has done to string along the public in the Russia investigation.
Snowden revealed almost the entirety of the NSA’s structure along with operational descriptions of its most sensitive programs. Even if you took your idea of this as a distraction seriously (nobody should), there’s no way that was limited.
Going to the next point pretending to be ignorant as to why targeting Hillary reveals a lack of principle is kind of a shithead trick also.
Asking someone to read all that stuff 2 extra times when it’s just all really really terrible argument is very much a textbook case of ad nauseam fallacy as was mentioned.
It is kind of upsetting just how bad your defense is here. It’s sad you projected many of your own failures later on.
I’ll try to make this as short as I can but this is definitely something you deserve to hear.
Your problem is really fairly simple. You project your own failures.
Personally I think it’s likely due to a fragile and insecure ego which simply can’t handle any type of reasonable discourse.
Looking through your commentary it really hinges on projection of 4 things.
Requests for citation. You’ve clearly made several claims in regard to Assange, Snowden, intelligence agencies, and methods. This is all while refusing to independently cite a single one of those claims. Clear projection.
Claims of fallacies. I don’t think I need to get too far into this as you’ve already established your main strategy is one of ad nauseam attacks which have no sourcing and largely have no basis in reality. Ad hominem attacks are present all over your commentary as well. I could go further but why waste more of my time when the remaining points are better to stress. Clear projection.
Attacks on reading. If nothing else you should consider your methods if you truly feel people are taking issues with your descriptions. That being said your inability to correctly define, and then further ignore the exact definition of limited hangout not once, but twice really says it all. You’re literally refusing to accept the simple definitions of the word limited and then you go on to quote the definition which clearly references partial release. It would be sad if I didn’t suspect it was on purpose. I don’t think you’ve read or taken anything presented to you with any sincerity whatsoever. More Projection.
Name calling. I ignored this until now as name calling is really the most common fallacy out there. I don’t want to make too many bold claims here but based on your commentary and obvious projection regarding every major topic I would find it hard to believe you don’t routinely prefer the company of men.
Here’s a small sampling of the things you have said.
Assange’s “principle” is all I do should be free.
It’s like playing a game of cards and having your buddy’s weird friend show up and say everyone should have everything face up on the table.
Both the weird guy and Assange are principled and both are self serving idiots for suggesting such a thing.
You’re straight projecting anyway.
No one is going to leak the entirety of NSAs work to cover for a grudge. There’s plenty ty of better ways to cover for something.
However Assange definitely was interested in fucking over Hillary. Everyone knows that.
Snowden is the correct choice here.
Or you could answer any one of my points.
I don’t think a single one of any of those comebacks made logical sense.
Like the whole Wikileaks unmatched record. What?!? What does that have to do with the argument at all.
Wikileaks will literally publish anything. It’s not just fuckery. It’s your moms bank records.
At some point that position does become indefensible.
The problem is one of ethics and trust.
Snowden is ethical at least. I don’t know if he can be trusted.
Assange has no ethics and has always shown that no one can trust him.
I think Assange is getting fucked by the system but if I’m being honest it’s an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem.
Because Glenn Greenwood is deep state.
Go to the new conspiracies site if you want to spout off obvious mockingbird type stuff. I see right through it.
Asking me to read 23 times after I already did does not help your argument at all.
Your points as I stated are off topic, irrelevant, and nonsensical.
If you want to turn this into a list a fallacies that’s fine. Ad Nauseam clearly applies here friend. You’re literally just repeating your poor logic and nonsense.
Furthermore cite your own bullshit before pulling classic reddit garbage and requesting that of others.
This latest line is my favorite in terms of your flawed and ridiculous stupidity. Your replies are literally insufferable. Half this stuff could be written by Assange himself. Because your both obviously fond of sniffing your own farts.
This reveals a couple of things.
It cuts through your layers of bullshit and shows this is simply a favor for fucking over Hillary. You could clearly care less about all the other garbage you’re spewing.
To better explain above it’s clear you think trust is a factor in terms of a pardon. Why? Is this a quid pro quo? Which leads to...
Pardons are about injustice. It’s now clear your approach here here has nothing to do with that.
Blocked, your stupid argument via quantity rather than quality is European style politics at its finest. America left that behind over 200 years ago.
Reading this the arguments here are pretty bad. I can see why someone might be frustrated with you.
Why are you asking for citations when you don’t cite your own stuff?
Assange is just about free info. That’s really it. I’m not a Snowden fan but the idea Assange as a targeted defender against fuckery is a funny idea. You really should cite that.
“Unmatched record” unmatched record of what? That’s very vague. I would guess you mean the reputation as always being legitimate.
Yes, that’s good. But his reputation for that is really unrelated to the discussion.
If it was it’s still no better or worse than Snowden’s reputation for accuracy either way.
u/Spicemustflow was also right about NSA leaks not being cover. Your comeback for that is a limited hangout? What? Do you even know what that is or what the word limited even means there. The idea is to admit a partial truth. Kind of like what the FBI has done to string along the public in the Russia investigation.
Here’s the wiki definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
Snowden revealed almost the entirety of the NSA’s structure along with operational descriptions of its most sensitive programs. Even if you took your idea of this as a distraction seriously (nobody should), there’s no way that was limited.
Going to the next point pretending to be ignorant as to why targeting Hillary reveals a lack of principle is kind of a shithead trick also.
Asking someone to read all that stuff 2 extra times when it’s just all really really terrible argument is very much a textbook case of ad nauseam fallacy as was mentioned.
It is kind of upsetting just how bad your defense is here. It’s sad you projected many of your own failures later on.
I’ll try to make this as short as I can but this is definitely something you deserve to hear.
Your problem is really fairly simple. You project your own failures.
Personally I think it’s likely due to a fragile and insecure ego which simply can’t handle any type of reasonable discourse.
Looking through your commentary it really hinges on projection of 4 things.
Requests for citation. You’ve clearly made several claims in regard to Assange, Snowden, intelligence agencies, and methods. This is all while refusing to independently cite a single one of those claims. Clear projection.
Claims of fallacies. I don’t think I need to get too far into this as you’ve already established your main strategy is one of ad nauseam attacks which have no sourcing and largely have no basis in reality. Ad hominem attacks are present all over your commentary as well. I could go further but why waste more of my time when the remaining points are better to stress. Clear projection.
Attacks on reading. If nothing else you should consider your methods if you truly feel people are taking issues with your descriptions. That being said your inability to correctly define, and then further ignore the exact definition of limited hangout not once, but twice really says it all. You’re literally refusing to accept the simple definitions of the word limited and then you go on to quote the definition which clearly references partial release. It would be sad if I didn’t suspect it was on purpose. I don’t think you’ve read or taken anything presented to you with any sincerity whatsoever. More Projection.
Name calling. I ignored this until now as name calling is really the most common fallacy out there. I don’t want to make too many bold claims here but based on your commentary and obvious projection regarding every major topic I would find it hard to believe you don’t routinely prefer the company of men.
Here’s a small sampling of the things you have said.
https://thedonald.win/p/11RNjzDIvR/x/c/4DrvFrFRwRF
https://thedonald.win/p/11RNfGHGgl/x/c/4DruwV3ysQb
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4ufrzij/x/c/4DrudMzwOBf
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4XJ3yiY/x/c/4DqeGht5ppd
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4SWk8V4/x/c/4Dqdx7bMWJM
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4J9Ooxk/x/c/4DqddXLy8Mm
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlTq2P6G/x/c/4DqchT1EzhM
https://thedonald.win/p/11QSH5JZno/x/c/4DpLi0ryldL
https://thedonald.win/p/11QSH5J1VM/x/c/4DpLPBZjNi5
And my personal favorite.
https://thedonald.win/p/11Qld7gdq3/x/c/4Dqd17rgVaT
Is that enough citations for you?
This is simply who you are. The projection here can’t be any more clear.