You are correct that omissions are not lies. However, when you need to make decisions based on information you need all possible information, not half of it. So it's not presenting different interpretations, he's providing context.

If I tell you about somebody wearing a rain coat and using an umbrella on a sunny day, you might conclude that person is a nutcase. If I add the context that this person is highly sensitive to sunlight and is protecting himself, you will probably conclude differently.

Yes, this happens a lot in politics, but that doesn't mean it's ok.

I could argue that adding the fact that a lot of PhD students receive DARPA funding and trying to mingle it with corporate funding is problematic on the same grounds, as it adds context that I don't feel worthwhile, because it distracts.

The attempt to put all context into all discussions is obviously futile. Adding relevant context is a worthwhile way of debate, but not necessarily part of any particular statement. Assange doesn't see that piece of info as relevant.

Trying to turn this on the person is not a way to go in my opinion. Prove a lie before.

Interacting with his statements (and be it "I think he's overinterpreting and I won't further engage"), is the way to go.

(To add context: I live in Berlin, a person in a rain coat and an umbrella on a sunny day is nothing special.)

There is a reason that the oath of witness in U.S. court systems requires telling not only the "truth" (i.e. facts or truthful opinions), but "the whole truth" (i.e. all important contextual information/opinions relevant to the question).

The best you can say about Assange building a narrative with carefully-manipulated facts and opinions is that it's manipulative, even if not false.

After all, that's what you guys all say when the NSA does it, is it not? The NSA isn't even this bad, they generally choose to be completely silent instead of feeding manipulative facts.

Thor is the Norse god of lightning. Everyone who has been struck by lightning in the past 100 years did not worship Thor. No worshipers of Thor have been struck by lightning in the past 100 years.

Now this isn't very convincing, since you are well aware of the fact that there are few, if any living worshipers of Thor. However, if you weren't aware, it would be a highly deceitful narrative that uses only facts. Omissions with the intent to mislead are just as dishonest as lies.

This is unhelpful, following this track, no discussion can happen without taking the full context of the universe into account. This might be fun for your 2-sentence statement, when discussing an entity as large as Google in relation to an entity as large as states, I'd be impressed to see you putting all context on the the table before I die.

Also, you cannot put the whole context on the table, as some of this is secret, meaning that you will necessarily omit things.

Which means you have to rely on heuristics. Or trust.

By the way, I follow Thor and I've been struck by a lightning.

Logic != Debate

Reading my example it is obvious that the facts I state don't support the position that worshiping Thor prevents lightning strikes; reading a position where someone makes statements of fact that sound ominous without certain context, but are benign in-context, it is reasonable to assume that either:

1) They don't know what they are talking about

2) They are being deceitful

Or

3) Doesn't merit that piece of context as you do. See my other comment about adding context is an important part of debate, but not necessarily of every individual statement.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; if they don't merit that piece of context as I do then either I'm wrong or they are (the latter of which would fall under #1, and the former of which I cannot learn from their statements since they never addressed that piece of context in the first place).

That is a completely different topic, but yes I am glad Vic Gundotra was fired.