General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A shout out to "social issues" [View all]Maedhros
(10,007 posts)In my case, I'm speaking of a candidate for office or an elected official that has participated in or supports government action that is exceptionally problematic. When considering the fitness or unfitness of said candidate/official, it's prudent to consider all of their policy positions and determine if, on the whole, those positions merit support of the politician.
I assume you are referring to Julian Assange, which presents an entirely different question. Assange is not a candidate or official, he is simply a person who obtained leaked information and made it available to the media. The central question is: is the availability of this information a good thing or a bad thing? Unrelated criminal charges against the person who obtained and presented the information is irrelevant to answering the question.
If a poster suggests that the Wikileaks information is erroneous or unimportant, and uses the rape charges against Assange as the reason, then it is simply logical to respond with "that doesn't matter - the information should stand or fall on its own merits." What often occurs in these exchanges is a diversion of the central argument from "the Wikileaks information is important" to "Julian Assange is a rapist." Both arguments can be true, but one is not related to the other.
Posters that argue that bringing up Assange's criminal charges as a refutation of Wikileaks information is irrelevant and illogical are correct, and it does not follow that they defend Assange's actions.