Scientology's Plan for Genocide

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
tikk
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by tikk » Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:25 pm

J. Swift wrote:It looks like Tikk is floating a Scientology PR trial balloon: The historical revisionism of Hubbard by stating that all of his violent and pyschotic words and writings were, in context, jokes. If this is the case, was Xenu and Incidents I and II a joke? Will we now learn that LRH was merely being a comedian about BT's and Teegeegack? Are we supposed to laugh now and lighten up?
I'm merely making a subtle observation on the way Hubbard spoke in support of my larger point that his 'dispose' option, properly read in context, was not intended to be a serious alternative to regging sub-2.0 individuals. Since you've failed to point to any 'disposal' examples, I'll take it that my interpretation is the one being actually followed.
J. Swift wrote:Tikk, your thesis goes against LRH's strict prohibition of joking and degrading as well as his penchant for Fair Game. Hubbard was hardly the Furby you are trying to suggest he was. LRH led the largest domestic espionage operation against the US Government in history; he approved a plan to frame Paulette Cooper for a bomb threat; he used PI's to blackmail critics; and he engaged in litigation as a way to finanically destroy his critics -- and these were activities on his good days.

LRH was a psychotic Satanist and drug user who, if he had achieved power, who knows what he would have done? He did suggest genocide as a solution. Read it in context. It was not a joke.

Scientology is not a funny cult. Everything it does is serious. Scientology plays for keeps and ruins people finanically and spiritually. Scientology destroys families by disconnection. Scientology has forced Sea Org women to have abortions. None of this is a joke and I think you are either unwilling or unable to confront the atrocities of Scientology.
I've been around long enough to be aware of your well founded gripes, and I've never suggested that that they were a funny cult.

I merely posted to suggest that the term genocide should not be tossed around so gingerly as it is here. Most of the board seems ignorant of the actual import of the term, so I tried to provide perspective. Scientology is a nasty cult indeed, but since: a) Hubbard's words have not been interpreted by Scientologists as advocating genocide (or they would practice it); b) Scientologists do not practice genocide; c) real world economic factors, by which Scientology is evidently guided, are prohibitive to the practice of genocide; and d) Scientology lacks the capacity to practice genocide, it is safe to conclude that your fear is not grounded in reality.

Hysterical claims such as these do not help any general anti-Scientology cause with regard to convincing the media as to Scientology's bad faith. Journalists realize that Scientology does not practice genocide, and will discredit someone who alleges otherwise. Genocidal intent is not so easy to discern. Your time as a critic could be more productively spent trying to spot places where Scientology infiltrates school districts, prisons, obtains govt funds in contravention of the establishment clause, etc. via their many front groups, and writing letters to the appropriate persons, than convincing the choir here that Scientology is the ultimate evil the planet has come to know.

I also see I've moved into phase one of a process where I'll probably wind up OSA. But before you out me as OSA entirely, you might want to do your homework. I don't float anyone's PR. This is my opinion, and it's sad that your critic boat isn't so large as to provide room for those who disagree with you. The sly assertion that I'm fronting for anyone is offensive but par for the course here, where a dichotomous, polarizing, factionalizing vantage has triumphed over cautioned reason. I'm done here.

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10215
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:55 pm

Since you've failed to point to any 'disposal' examples, I'll take it that my interpretation is the one being actually followed.
No, that too is a logical fallacy: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Tikk, you are a slippery one and are playing all of the dishonest intellectual tricks, including putting words in my mouth: I never said you were OSA. However, you are beginning to read like an operative and are using a lot of dishonest rhetoric. Maybe they farmed you out from CCHR? Do you write press releases over there? I ask because your style reads like a CCHR press release in reverse: It admits something and then invalidates everything. Your argument that Scientologists do not advocate genocide in the face of Hubbard advocating genocide in his writings begs the question: Why doesn't DM purge that section of LRH writings and then issue a public statement making it clear that Scientology does not advocate genocide and is in fact purging Hubbard's remarks to that effect? Tikk, you are not a Scientology authority or spokesperson and so everything you say is heresay. You do not speak for the cult.

Tikk, I do not have to meet your arbitrary standard of showing any examples of Scientology advocating genocide. All I have to do, and all I have done, is to quote Hubbard, whose words are sacred scripture in Scientology. The burden is Scientology's to repudiate Hubbard. All you are doing is verbal tech. What is needed is an official position statement from Scientology. CoS alone is the sole authority that can speak for Hubbard's writings. Your comments are simply unauthorized comments.

Hubbard is the Source of Scientology and therefore speaks for Scientology. On this basis, I showed that Hubbard offered two options to handle the planet: Raise everyone at 2.0 to >2.1, or, "dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."

Tikk, I will post the quote again to remind readers of what you are trying so desperately to deny, the bolded text are my emphases:
L. Ron Hubbard, "Method Used by Subject to Handle Others", Chapter 27, Column Y in Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behavior. Los Angeles: The American Saint Hill Organization, 1975 (originally published in 1951).

"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vincente Gomez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
ref: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/dispose.htm

Sorry. Tikk, but you are backed into a corner: Ron insisted that Scientology has to raise this group or kill them. CoS has never negated this section of Hubbard's writings and so we must conclude that it is valid as Scientology policy. I do not know if individual Scientologists would dare defy LRH and speak out against him on this point. We would need to hear from individual Scientologists on this matter. I daresay that a Scientologist would be Declared an SP were they too denounce Hubbard in a public forum such as this one.

In any case, the quote is Scientology scripture and is senior to anything any Scientologists says. In fact, Scientologists are obligated to obey Scientology scriptures and on this basis I have to conclude that they must affirm Hubbard's position to raise people above 2.0 or to dispose of such people, where "dispose" means kill. LRH also uses the phrase, "Rhe sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands...." Delete means to erase permanently as in kill.

Scientologists are Homo Novis, the new man, as LRH said. They are the master race and the master race is set on clearing the planet per LRH tech and teaching.

Okay, Tikk, your turn.



.

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10215
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:19 pm

BTW, Tikk, here is LRH as he concludes KSW:
We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.

Do them and we'll win.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
There goes your, "LRH as a jovial and joking college professor theory." BTW, Ron got D's and F's in college and dropped out after two years. He was hardly a college professor.

.

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Ladybird » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:57 pm

Hi Tikk. I know you said you were done here, but I hope you are still reading?

I think we are debating on 2 different planes here. I based my opinions on the definition of genocide in the scientology dictionary, which definition was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. You are arguing from the point of the Geneva Convention and the opinions of international lawyers.

My point is limited to acts of scientology based on Hubbards writings, and the many court documents, legal affidavits, personal stories, criminal cases, and my own experience and observations.

It seems to me that you wish to quantify scientology as "not so bad" and virtually "harmless" in comparison to the more "successful" genocides in history.

I wish to expose LRHs teachings and DMs implementation of them as being genocidal and having the intent and potential to be devastating on a wider scale, but at present still devastating and fatal to a significant number of members of the group scientology scripture declares as useless or SP or otherwise a threat to scientology.

We could argue the significance of what is significant. LRH said what he said, and it is all being stored as "holey" scripture on steel plates in titanium capsules as truth for all time. If you think it was just light hearted joking, how do you justify that? Have they asked you for your "theetie weetie" interpretations to be included as a disclaimer in the 166 million dollar vaults?

I will state that to me, from my perspective and experience, one victim of scientology tech and policy is too many. The deaths and abortions and destruction are well documented. I do not have an arbitrary number of victims before I will count scientology as a genocidal entity. Then again, I am not an expert on International law. I am just going by what Hubbard defined as genocide in his official dictionary, and the abuse of human rights Hubbard wrote as official church doctrine.

If you feel scientology is just a joke, and the victims of scientology are to blame for their own misfortune, may I humbly suggest you choose a more worthy cause to champion? North Korea looks like it might fit your criteria. But maybe not, as they are only killing and torturing their own internal dissidents. So far. Actually, I think North Korea would be a good analogy for what life would like under a DM scientology regime. It reminds me alot of the Sea Org, and especially the RPF.

I did look at your website, very well done! I would not call you OSA yet, but you might be an apologist in my opinion.

Ladybird

User avatar
secularpatriot
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by secularpatriot » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:15 pm

Tikk, you said:

c) real world economic factors, by which Scientology is evidently guided, are prohibitive to the practice of genocide; and d) Scientology lacks the capacity to practice genocide, it is safe to conclude that your fear is not grounded in reality.

Would you feel good about joining a group that wanted to lynch African-Americans, even if practical realities prevented them from actually doing so? Just because a group lacks the capacity to commit genocide doesn't make its desire to do so any less morally repugnant.

I'm deeply disturbed by the fact that, according to you, "real world economic factors." are what prevent Scientologists from practicing genocide. Is this what you meant? Or did you mean real world ethical considerations? Are you really telling us that what's stopping Scientologists from practicing genocide has something to do with economics?

chad
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 8:19 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by chad » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:19 pm

J Swift to tikk:
never said you were OSA. However, you are beginning to read like an operative and are using a lot of dishonest rhetoric. Maybe they farmed you out from CCHR? Do you write press releases over there? I ask because your style reads like a CCHR press release in reverse:
That just reaffirms my previous assessment of you as a hopelessly ignorant and uninformed 'critic of the CoS'. You're obviously a total newbie at the game, and one who is more concerned with his own self-image than researching the decades long battle against the CoS, casually and conveniently ignoring such essential lhings like just what is effective, valid and credible opposition to the CoS.

I suspect you just prefer to play to your new-found audience here, and dismiss tikk as just one of those dreaded 'butter-squashers' who decry blatant dishonesty and absurd sensationalism.

Like Arnie's posting of his grandparents' pictures under Mussolini has got something remotely to do with scientology ?

What next ? Your own grandma's pics ?

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Ladybird » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:29 pm

Is Tikk a buttersquasher? I wasn't sure. And who are you Chad? What is your position, what is your experience, what are your thoughts on scientology?

What have you done here besides critisize critics? If you think we are wrong, argue the points, don't attack the messengers.

Speaking for myself, I have 1st hand experience, as well as having done alot of research. I will listen to you about the issues, references, interpretations, history and LRH tech and admin, but I will not buy that you know anything about critics that somehow justifies scientology acting the way they do.

If you don't want people to think you are OSA, stop acting like OSA.

Debate the issues.

Ladybird

chad
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 8:19 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by chad » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:33 pm

Just a clue for the uninformed..

tikk knows more about CoS policy, LRH history, DM, front groups, etc, etc than any on OCMB could even aspire to. That is, if they wanted to, which Mr Swift isn't ieven nterested in it seems.

Spare yourselves the effort of informing him (tikk) about things he knew about and assessed for what they were worth, long, long before you any of you wised up about them.

You may have been slow on the 'uptake' but he's a decade or two in front of you. It's a 'wog' thing, okay ?

basicbasic
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 7:28 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by basicbasic » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:38 pm

TIKK
Hysterical claims such as these do not help any general anti-Scientology cause with regard to convincing the media as to Scientology's bad faith. Journalists realize that Scientology does not practice genocide, and will discredit someone who alleges otherwise.
BB
Thank you Tikk for your excellent posts. I'm in total agreement with you.
TIKK
I also see I've moved into phase one of a process where I'll probably wind up OSA.
BB
You're already down as CCHR. My thanking you for posting may well complete that cycle. :)

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10215
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:43 pm

Chad said that J. Swift was guilty of:
...casually and conveniently ignoring such essential lhings like just what is effective, valid and credible opposition to the CoS.
Chadster, I consider that my quoting LRH sacred scripture that is damaging to CoS because it is contrary to the stated humanitarian focus of Scientology constitutes, "effective, valid and credible opposition to the CoS." How is it not valid, effective, and credible for me to post LRH scripture that reveals LRH's intentions towards non-Scientologists?

Chad then offers this eval of J. Swift:
You're obviously a total newbie at the game, and one who is more concerned with his own self-image than researching the decades long battle against the CoS

Chad, the subject at hand is what LRH said about genocide and and not my credentials as a critic. I have researched the decades long battle against Scientology and own pre-1982 copies of all major LRH texts. In any case, even if J. Swift were not a critic, LRH still called for a genocide. My existence as a critic, nor the existence of any other critic, does not change the fact that Hubbard called for a genocide of people at 2.0 or lower if they could not be raised to >2.1 by Scientology processing.

Scientology would class me at 2.0 or below as I am antagonistic to the cult. Therefore, I have a vested interest in this fight as I will be one of the first ones put up against the wall and disposed of quietly and without sorrow if Scientology ever gains world power.

Chad, if I were concerned with with my self-image I would not associate with people such as you. I am instead willing to slum with trolls like you in order to discover what is out there in the gutters of the internet.

*****
secularpatriot made a great response to Tikk:
Just because a group lacks the capacity to commit genocide doesn't make its desire to do so any less morally repugnant.
This is well put. It is morally repugnant for Scientology to have Hubbard's call for a genocide in its body of scriptures. This is certainly language that DM needs to delete as he cleans up all of the trainwrecks, embarassments, and PR disasters that lie scattered across the vast Hubbardscape of Scientology.


.

User avatar
ambassador_yak
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: Klingon space
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by ambassador_yak » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:57 pm

Todays laws protect cult members no matter how crazy their religion is so it is possible the cult could infiltrate secret government defenses and use those against the public too. I think Hubbard would have found the idea of taking the government over militarily irresistable.

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Ladybird » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:03 pm

OK, Chad, I'll play. You made fun of me for saying I knew alot about scientology based on my 30 or so years of experience. Now you laud Tikk for knowing more about scientology than anyone here on OCMB.

Chad said: "tikk knows more about CoS policy, LRH history, DM, front groups, etc, etc than any on OCMB could even aspire to."

How do you know this Chad? I don't care who you are or who tikk is, I am here to expose the truth about scientology.

Are you saying my firsthand experience in scientology and 30 years of studying the tech and policy and analyzing it after getting out pales in comparison with some one who merely analyzed it from the outside?

What is your point here, Chad?

Ladybird

++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++

Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat
against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign
to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they
will be ostracized.


-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 30 may 1974

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


But what is "black PR"? The sacred scripture explains everything:


++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++

"BLACK PROPAGANDA"


"About the most involved employment of PR is its COVERT USE IN DESTROYING
THE REPUTE of individuals and groups. More correctly this is called BLACK
PROPAGANDA." - HCO PL 11 May 71 Issue III "Black PR"


"Black = bad or derogatory, propaganda = pushing out statements or ideas,
the term used to DESTROY REPUTATION or public BELIEF in persons, companies
or nations. It is a COMMON TOOL of agencies who are seeking to DESTROY
real or fancied ENEMIES or seek dominance in some field." - HCOPL 21
November 72 Issue I - "How to Handle Black Propaganda"


"The activity called BLACK PROPAGANDA consists of SPREADING LIES by HIDDEN
sources. It inevitably results in injustices being done by those who
operate without verifying the truth." - Flag OODs 17 May 71


"When PR is used for the DESTRUCTION of ideals or institutions or repute
of persons, it is called, traditionally, BLACK PR. This is USUALLY COVERT
and a DISTORTION OF TRUTH or a whole cloth FABRICATION." - HCO PL 7 August
72 - "PR and Causation"


"Black Propaganda is in its technical accuracy, a COVERT OPERATION where
unknown authors publicly effect a derogatory reaction and then remain
unknown." - HCO PL 11 May 71 Issue III - "Black PR"


"A COVERT ATTACK on the reputation of a person, company or nation USING
SLANDER or LIES in order to WEAKEN or DESTROY." - LRH - HCO PL 21 November 72
Issue 1 "How to Handle Black Propaganda"


"BLACK PR also uses IMAGINATION IN ORDER TO DEGRADE or VILLIFY or
DISCREDIT an existing or fancied image." - LRH - HCO PL 7 August 72 - "PR and
Causation"



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I wonder why all the anonymous cult shills are here, covertly
spreading lies about critics by hidden sources, trying to distort truth,
fabricate, slander, degrade, villify and discredit critics?


Because it's their sacred duty.


"Organize a black PR campaign" says the sacred scripture. And make it
rough. And don't go getting "reasonable about it":


++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++

Make it rough, rough on the attackers all the way....You can get
"reasonable about it" and lose .... so BANISH all ideas that any fair
hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never
wait. Never talk about us -- only them.


-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 25 Feb 1966

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

chad
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 8:19 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by chad » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:04 pm

Ladybird:
What have you done here besides critisize critics
This is the whole point Ladybird. There are critics and then there are 'critics'.

You do seem to be of the stereotypically OCMB clique (I couldn't dare say cult could I ?) that works on the principle that as long as the 'criticism' is against the CoS then it's good. No matter what inaccuracies, bending of the truth or downright total fabrications are used, it's still all good.

Critics that I 'attack' are those who follow that doctrine, and effectively 100% of the world think the same way as I do, and that's the reality you need to grasp.

The CoS in all its manifestations is bad stuff. Not bad stuff in the scheme of things, which is why most people don't give a damn, but when you get idiots here on OCMB trying to beat it up into something it isn't, and when you get out and out liars like Horner getting such a salivatingly sad response, well, people just have to wonder about it all, don't they ?

If you don't want 'critics' on OCMB being attacked, then I'd urge you to urge them to be honest and to back off the sensational bullshit.

Is what I'm saying in any way supportive of the CoS or any of its operatives ? I can't see how. Hell, I'm doing you a favor by getting you in touch with wog reality :)

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Ladybird » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:35 pm

I have never salivated over anybody here. In the majority of my critical posts, I have referenced LRH policy, court cases, personal experience and opinion, or factual, provable occurances.

If you disagree, and want to paint me as dishonest, or a hysterical over-reacting stereotypical ocmb critic who is somehow a detriment to the exposure of the crimes of scientology, please prove it. Find one single post where I have "salivated" over Paul Horner or any other critic. I have not. I also don't "attack, attack attack" critics like you do. I have proved that:

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:41 am Post subject:
By: Ladybird
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK Chad, enough is enough. I took a look through your 75 posts since you showed up here May 21st, 2005 and here is what I found:

0 posts exposing scientology

6 posts supporting scientologists or freezoners

All the rest containing sniping jabs at critics, your target du jour changes, but you have some favourites:

#1 with 27 slams - Tom Padgett
#2 " 23 " - Paul/Fred
#3 " 20 - Ladybird
#4 " 13 - Arnie Lerma
#5 " 6 - Lt. RichA
#6...You are just getting started on: J. Swift

You haven't been very nice to other critics either, like Lucy. In fact the general tone of all your posts is sneering, know-best and backstabbing.

I think being on your shit list is an honor! Thanks for the Birthday present!

If you think I am wrong, please defend your self. Oh, that's against your religion, isn't it? "Always attack, never defend." LRH

Ladybird

Here is an example of Chads "contributions" to this board:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept 1, 2005
Quote:
Arnie said: Dear 'chad', thank you for the opportunity to further teach ocmb's readers.


chad wrote:
Okay, you're drunk.. or something similar.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem as logical fallacy

"A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false."

this is what religious freedom watch uses, Logical Fallacy.. Ad Hominem. This is also what chad used. chad should study Logical Fallacy.. It is a subject I find very usedful deprogramming Scientologists. Thus is worth repeating, until enough people realize the importance of Logical Fallacy TECH.. which is where Hubbard stole the "DATA SERIES" in hugely abbreviated form.. and after all Hubbard did say, always goto source...

"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. "

Poisoning the well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he is about to say.

This sort of reasoning involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

The origin of the phrase comes from the belief in medieval times that outbreaks of bubonic plague were caused by Jews poisoning the water supply. Suggesting that someone was not to be trusted after accusing them of the unrelated crime of poisoning the water was effective rhetoric, but bad logic.

Examples:
Before you listen to my opponent,
may I remind you that he has been in jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.

Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem."

This is also what the Scientology Dead Agent pages use.

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association

Association fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Guilt by association)

An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association. The two types are sometimes referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by association." Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and are often based in an appeal to emotion.

Guilt by association, also known as the "bad company fallacy" or the "company that you keep fallacy," is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations who support it. Some examples are:

* Atheism must be wrong — Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists, and just look at them.
* Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, so Islam is an evil religion.
* A few Catholic priests have molested children, so Catholicism is evil.
* Anti-war activists has made statements critical of Israel. Neo-nazis have made similar statements. Therefore, opposing the war is equivalent to supporting Nazism

The logical inverse of "guilt by association" is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organisations who are related to it, or otherwise support it. For example:

* Alice is a lawyer, and Alice thinks highly of Bob. Therefore, Bob must know the law.
* Aaron will make a good race car driver, because his father was a good race car driver.

For that reason above, i felt it necessary to share the truth with Andreas, as a contrast to Scientology's lies. "

If my replies appear to you to be self aggrandizement, then perhaps the source of that fault lies elsewhere than with the person upon whome you projected the accusation..



chad wrote:
www.xenu.net is a different thing from ocmb.xenu.net.


This is making a distinction without a difference

chad wrote:
www.xenu.net is Andreas's primary creation and which he has control over, whereas ocmb.xenu.net is what he has created and left open to be abused, and IMHO, is abused by such as you and Arnie. And even by me !.


Now isnt it interesting that when I defend my views, after being attacked, made less of is the scientological programming term, by stating how things appear to me, then I am engaged in "self aggrandizement"


chad wrote:
Out of respect for Andreas, I withdraw from any further discussion with you, until you demonstrate a level of logical thought that is appropriate for the high purpose of this board..


oh cool he's done...or at least says he is done...

wait, no he isnt, was he lying above? is has this entire posting as much credibility as the RFW pages that were sent to Andreas employer?

chad wrote:
I'll leave it at this : Andreas is who Arnie wants to be but cant, so he leaches on OCMB by cutting and pasting copious amounts of oft-published texts and worse, irrelevant band-width grabbing graphics. I think it would be far better for OCMB if he didn't..


leaches, cutting and pasting, copious.. irrelevant..bandidth grabbing..


Nice array of words there, did you write this yourself or did you take it off the the latest dispatches from osa int? and 'wants to be' implies that I am somewhow uncomfortable inside my own identity.. I **really** think you should read more about me on Lermanet.com Exposing the CON

chad wrote:
Of course Andreas would never agree, he's far too nice a guy for that.


I do believe the american slang term for this is called brown-nosing, he must want something that he feels he does not deserve..

chad wrote:
Although I seem to recall him kicking Arnie of OCMB for exactly this reason ...mmmm ?.



The other thing Id like to point out, is that $cientology always accuses it's enemies of their own despicable acts..

Thank you for the opportunity to give a lesson by your example of Fallacious Argument...

Sincerely

Arnie Lerma
6045 N 26th Rd
Arlington VA 22207
703 241 1498
_________________
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
Judge Brinkema 29 Nov 1995

"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC [$cientology] in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics."

chad
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 8:19 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by chad » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:49 pm

J Swift:
Chadster, I consider that my quoting LRH sacred scripture that is damaging to CoS because it is contrary to the stated humanitarian focus of Scientology constitutes, "effective, valid and credible opposition to the CoS." How is it not valid, effective, and credible for me to post LRH scripture that reveals LRH's intentions towards non-Scientologists?
Couple of things here..

1. Your use of 'chadster' yet again reaffirms how willing you are to become part of the OCMB cult. Hell, you didn't even have to be asked to bend over, you were already in the position :)

2. That quote you make so much of, has been doing the rounds of a.r.s. and dozens of critical websites for over a decade now.

It's been doing the rounds for over a decade.

You talk about it as though it were something 'newly discovered' as only a newby, naive, eager to please, wannabee investigative journalist with utter disregard for those many of your betters that have gone before, and have extensively documented, could have come up with.

LRH would likely have killed as many people as he could, because he was that sort of weak, pathetic, cowardly bully. That's not in question.

But he's dead, right ? None of his fascistic fantansies saw the the light of day, except for those unfortunate to shuffle onto his cattle-boats and for a few others subsequently.

What tikk has been writing about, is the 'here and now'. The CoS that needs to be opposed is the CoS of 2005/2006, and what it's actually doing, right now.

It's not going totry to pull off some sort of world-wide genocide. Beat that up as much as you like for the purposes of your essays, but it's not going to happen. It was never even a remote threat of happening.

As I understand tikk, it's about being real, about being in touch with what was is going on right now. Doesn't make for such sensationalist writing that appeals to OCMBers who just just gobble it allup, but you yet might make a difference if you shifted your prespective slightly.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests