"The US gov't are real scumbags for risking people's lives. They claim their real purpose is to protect against threats against democracy. Isn't it interesting how they behave when they get a little bit of power - autocratic, capricious, and meglomaniacal? I wonder what sort of behavior that they could rationalize in the name of the greater good."
what if the people he releases info about are ones that risk more people's lives than he does?
part of war is about putting your life at risk in order to preserve the lives of many more. a small sacrifice for a larger one. if you don't like war, don't participate in it.
My one sentence response contains a comma. The "No" is a response to your query. The rest of the sentence does not in any way contradict what I said before.
and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts (no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool.
"Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives."
"I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."
just trying to have a conversation, not really interested in arguing (usually futile, especially on the web/forums/etc.). if i'm missing something i didn't see/understand, i'm always looking to find the error in my ways (it happens often, hence i've learned to always be eager in engaging conversation, whether on the streetcorners or the webs...).
what were the strawmen or false dichotomies?
i think all my points and questions were valid. i'm not sure if you're being disingenuous and dismissive, or just afraid to concede that your rhetoric is both unconvincing and (probably) wrong, or a combination of the two.
are all hypocrites scumbags?