Scientology?
- Thread starter xdarkyrex
- Start date
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
Looks like they had fun, kinda funny that the CoS goon tried to get the police to disperse the crowd 
In other news: slaughtering Hubologists in Fallout 2 brought a smile to my face.
Let's see what Tom Cruise has to say about Scientology : [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0[/youtube]
No wonder !xdarkyrex said:
I mean i just listened to the first few minutes and couldn't listen to the rest !
Vault 13 said:No wonder !xdarkyrex said:
I mean i just listened to the first few minutes and couldn't listen to the rest !
Well, no.
It's because the CoS used the DMCA laws to get it removed from the web, and Anon got pissed off and started hitting them online. And then anon thought their reaction was funny, so anon decided that this is its current raid (they raid all sorts of things, genereally wreaking havoc and causing mischief of a cruel variety).
Anon then declared it would refuse to be victim to the legal machine that is the CoS and decided to take it on full force, up to and including mobilizing thousands of people irl who had nothing to do with anon before into a force to protest, raid, and generally disrupt the CoS. One CoS was evicted by the landlord in Santa Cruz following the protests on 2/10. Anon is just getting started, too, now that they intend to use public opinion as a weapon and so far it is goign well.
xdarkyrex said:
Anon is not an organization. Anon is a loose affiliation of attention starved kids whose life goal is to annoy other people.
Let's not paint it as anything better than that. It's all it is. Most of these kids will get bored, and they will move on. There's nothing heroic or even mildly positive about this kind of pedantic plebiscite. What the fuck do you think this is, the people's court against freedom of religion?
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
*shrug* I just find Raptor Jesus a humorous play on religion personally.
True it is protests that can potentially be equated to being against freedom of religion, however at the same time Tom Cruise used to make some sense, nowadays just look at him, he's crazier than a Doberman eating a 5 alarm jalapeño pepper!
If that doesn't say there's something wrong with Scientology, I don't know what does...
True it is protests that can potentially be equated to being against freedom of religion, however at the same time Tom Cruise used to make some sense, nowadays just look at him, he's crazier than a Doberman eating a 5 alarm jalapeño pepper!
If that doesn't say there's something wrong with Scientology, I don't know what does...
Mord_Sith said:
This makes for a popular thinking error, but go figure here: no matter how much you dislike an organization, that does not condone violation of its rights.
The only reason we're all nodding and grinning on the sidelines is because we hate Scientology. So do I, but this kind of popular rejection of a religion stinks too much of populist politics to me, and I'd rather be stuck with Scientology than with frikkin' Anon determining what religion is ok and what isn't.
Is protesting ok? Sure it is. Is categorically being against a religion as a whole ok? No it isn't. Is using any means you like to fight against it a good thing? Oh hell no.
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
Brother None said:
Even when they use their freedom to suppress the freedom of others?
What about the Scientologists charging people money? Threatening those that leave the organization with death? Forcing the government to declare them tax-free when other religions have to do it legally?
I'm sure you'd think differently if you attended the rally where the CoS positioned a modified ice-cream selling truck with surveillance equpment near the crowd to take pictures of them no doubt to later ascertain their identity and threaten them.
On a lighter note...
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
Touché
Mind you my outlook is that all religions are crazy methods of population control, however even though it is a popular thinking deal, (at least for myself) I don't think my view is significantly influenced so much by the propaganda/anti-propaganda getting thrown around as Scientology is actually counterproductive to the population control structure that Religion is supposed to create and/or support.
It's a terrible thing to say, and I prefer to keep this opinion to myself, but that is why I dislike Scientology, because instead of enforcing population control through doctrine and faith, they're instilling it through forced brainwashing and artificial poverty, they're too poor to do anything, and not only that but the thought that there is no 'god' per say then there is no judgment for their actions, not to mention the psychosis that gets instilled in their followers makes for a volatile mix that will not end well if it isn't quashed soon.
Mind you my outlook is that all religions are crazy methods of population control, however even though it is a popular thinking deal, (at least for myself) I don't think my view is significantly influenced so much by the propaganda/anti-propaganda getting thrown around as Scientology is actually counterproductive to the population control structure that Religion is supposed to create and/or support.
It's a terrible thing to say, and I prefer to keep this opinion to myself, but that is why I dislike Scientology, because instead of enforcing population control through doctrine and faith, they're instilling it through forced brainwashing and artificial poverty, they're too poor to do anything, and not only that but the thought that there is no 'god' per say then there is no judgment for their actions, not to mention the psychosis that gets instilled in their followers makes for a volatile mix that will not end well if it isn't quashed soon.
Brother None said:
I don't beleive I ever said it was an organization. I never thought it was an organization, its a flash mob of loosely affiliated people with revolving common interests.
And fyi, the larger majority of longstanding "anon" generally don't care whether the CoS is moral or not, they fight it because it pissed them off and they are getting vengeance. Anon is not generally a moral collective so much as a flash mob that typically operates online for the purpose of harrasment and personal amusement. What you also must consider is that the public IS a weapon, and to get the public on their side anon had to pretend to be somewhat moral, get the 'newfags' to take over, and then let those moral newfags battle scientology so that anon doesnt have to. It was largely orchewstrated with this plan in mind from the beginning, anon doesnt intend to kill the CoS, they intend to manipulate the general public into doing it for them.
Take that how you will, but I agree 100% that they will get bored of this, many already have, although fyi it is fun as hell to harass the scientology, the way they react makes it great.
Mord_Sith said:
Same, and I support removing tax exempt status from ALL religions with the exception of very specifically their charity spending. the millions they spend on a megachurch should NOT be tax exempt.
I believe you are mistaken, my dear None.
Freedom of Religion guarantees the right to hold any beliefs you chose to. It does not guarantee that you won't be ridiculed if your religion is an obvious scam or that you can use your religion as a means to gain money and control by brainwashing your followers and persecuting defectors -- at least not without the risk of being harassed for it like any other criminal.
That most religions are no less ridiculous than Scientology says more about the other religions than Scientology itself. If I can make up a belief system that compares less or more favourably to other established such systems, that doesn't legitimate the system I made up but rather raises doubts about the existing systems -- and if it doesn't and can't because it would be considered a Strawman, that obviously negates the possibility of any claim to legitimacy for the made up system anyway, so your reasoning fails.
tl;dr: if a blatant fake is considered legitimate, the established criteria for legitimacy are bad; if it is NOT considered so, there's no reason it can't be pointed out as a blatant fake. Either way, defending it would be pointless and futile.
Freedom of Religion guarantees the right to hold any beliefs you chose to. It does not guarantee that you won't be ridiculed if your religion is an obvious scam or that you can use your religion as a means to gain money and control by brainwashing your followers and persecuting defectors -- at least not without the risk of being harassed for it like any other criminal.
That most religions are no less ridiculous than Scientology says more about the other religions than Scientology itself. If I can make up a belief system that compares less or more favourably to other established such systems, that doesn't legitimate the system I made up but rather raises doubts about the existing systems -- and if it doesn't and can't because it would be considered a Strawman, that obviously negates the possibility of any claim to legitimacy for the made up system anyway, so your reasoning fails.
tl;dr: if a blatant fake is considered legitimate, the established criteria for legitimacy are bad; if it is NOT considered so, there's no reason it can't be pointed out as a blatant fake. Either way, defending it would be pointless and futile.
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
They all need pocket watches to do that, that way they could just swing them towards the CoS members and watch them panic
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=xCqTlmdznXg
This is the retro-fitted ice cream truck with the obvious one-way mirror to monitor the crowd.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
This is the retro-fitted ice cream truck with the obvious one-way mirror to monitor the crowd.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
The Vault Dweller said:
No I wouldn't. You, darky and Ashmo all delightfully sailed past the point and straight off a cliff.
This isn't about what Scientology does, if they defraud their members, oppress other's beliefs or are generally an evil organization.
Let me rewind a little bit and note something here. People with less grasp of political and legal science often attempt to define the modern notion of our "legal state" as "you shall not be convicted unless you're guilty."
Well...wrong.
The pillars the legal state rest on and the whole reason you can go to bed without having to fear that the Scientologist dictator-for-life wakes you up to point a gun at your head are these:
- No one is above the law
- No one shall be convicted without due process
Guilt?
Guilt doesn't actually factor into it.
So what's the point here and why am I objecting?
Well, ask yourself this. Who the fuck made Anon judge and jury of anyone? Why should a bunch of bored assholes from the internet have the right to manipulate a church out of existence? Who are they to determine who is to be convicted and who isn't?
There's a term for that and I believe it is "popular justice". There's also a reason popular justice doesn't exist anymore because it leads to bad things. To pre-invoke Godwin's Law, what if it were the 30's and it were Jews that pissed off Anon?
You all seem to be stuck on the thinking that it's ok what Anon is doing because we all really hate Scientology. What? Who the fuck gave us the right to point our fingers at others and say "what you are doing is wrong, I deny your right to exist"?
In that sense, Scientology's methods all operate within the framework of legality (and where they don't it's up to investigative journalists to find out) and they have the moral high ground here.
Because it doesn't take a lot of figuring to see that this is a slippery slope, and that question here really shouldn't be "does Scientology deserve to be the subject of popular justice", but rather "should popular justice exist." Who are we to determine who's guilty and isn't, why should popular hysteria be a measure of what organizations have the right to exist?
No. Oh...hell no.
(also, I realise this is slightly different in the US because law and politics are more intertwined in your system of semi-separation of powers, however even Americans should be able to agree that plebiscites are no way to determine guilt)
Ashmo said:
This paragraph is meaningless postmodernism and summarily dismissed.