I don't see the value of getting into ideological discussions when it comes to fighting the abuse in scientology. At the core of that is the fact that there is no scientific evidence that it is scientology's ideology that makes some scientologists abuse others.
Those discussions are valuable to me. I agree that there is no scientific study that I know of anyway that has examined scientology in this way. There seems to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence from former members, however. In any event, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, FWIW to you, as I understand it the Stanford Prison Test conditions were not devoid of ideology, it was that the ideology was supported by the institutional system. It remains to be seen what the Indie scientologists will do with their ideology outside the institutional system of Cos. I wish them nothing but the best, but I believe the ideology itself is problematic.
If you search my previous posts, not only will you find that I see it as one of many steps which must be taken, you will find that I have never challenged anyone on this point. If you look at where I stand on the issue, I see many steps as important if not even more important than removing DM. Steps such as completely deleting the suppressive Sea Organization from existence. Steps such as reforming all abusive policies and practices out of scientology. Don't be lazy and do your homework and find out who you are talking to before you write.
A lazy person like me would have just answered yes. Seriously, I'm supposed to read all 1300+ posts you've made before I can ask you a question? Whoops, I did it again.
It does look like Karen altered the document, but I still wouldn't be so presumptuous as to accuse her of it. I'd simply ask her where she got that version from or did she re-write it herself. No, that would not be harassment, it would be asking an actual fair question as opposed to presuming guilt, finding guilt without evidence and public hanging.
Is one really "genuinely interested" when they have already made up their mind about something? It seems logical to me that you'd have some additional motive beyond simply genuine interest.
Yes, one is. I suppose that if you are used to dealing with people who routinely hide their true motivations, or are such a person yourself, you would think otherwise. But that reflects on your motivations, not mine. I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt until they show me it's undeserved. Sometimes that happens, most times not.
Demented LRH said:
What you call “willingness, deliberation and premeditation” are references to certain events such as verbally expressed desire to commit murder, posting Internet data showing that the defendant was planning to kill the victim, etc -- this is how you get a first degree murder conviction.
No, no, no. Willfullness, deliberation and premeditation are not events. They are states of mind, that can be proven by or inferred from the events you mention. The events are EVIDENCE of the underlying state of mind.
It is conceivable that the defendant was contemplating to kill the victim for a long time, but did not share his intentions with anyone. In this case you cannot charge him with the first degree murder, the best you could do is to prove that it was a second degree murder. He may have what you might call a mindset corresponding to the first degree murder, but you cannot prove that.
Yes, you are correct. If you cannot prove the elements of premeditation, willfullness and deliberation you cannot get a first degree conviction. But that is a evidentiary problem, and as you recognize the mental state can be there even if it can't be proven.
Regarding the definitions from the law dictionary -- some may find them useful, but I do not because they contain phrases such as “mental attitude”, “mental state” etc.
OK. I only commented on this after you brought it up in the context of mental state not being admissible in court.
People who wrote them are apparently unaware of the fact that “mind” itself is an artificial construct because it cannot be measured directly. The word “mind” is nothing more than a reference to a conglomerate of events that took place in a material world.
Can't comment on what the authors were aware of or not. It's not that complicated in a legal sense, however, and knowing what the "mind" is doesn't really matter. Using our degrees of homicide example the state of mind questions boil down to "did you kill intentionally (as opposed to accidentally); and if so, was it heat of the moment or did you have a plan? Obviously that is an oversimplification, but you see what I mean.
A question could right or wrong or meaningless. Meaningless question is represented by a phrase that has no meaning. My logic analysis shows that the OPs question is meaningless. In order to prove that the OPs question is either right or wrong, one must find mistakes in my logic analysis.
Well, I'm just a country boy not a logician, but in my world it's answers that are right or wrong, not questions. I will grant you that the original question posed in this thread could have been phrased more artfully, or tactfully, whatever. But I didn't find it meaningless, or wrong. Nor, I am sorry to say, did your logical analysis render it meaningless or wrong to me. I accept that this may mean I am incapable of following your analysis, but there it is.
In my opinion Karen is being treated badly by the OP not because she is an Indy but because the OP is a vindictive person. I tasted its venom too, although I am anything but a Scientologist. Unlike me, Karen is a gentle person who does not want to enter this fray. I have a habit of kicking the opponents asses. I do not mean you, I mean the ones who are rude to me.
That is too bad. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Nobody's ass need be kicked. I certainly applaud Karen and all the other Indie activists for their courage and work in opposing DM. I remain, as always, skeptical of scientology claims and practices.
I am not interested in the Indies and their views on the Tech because I cannot save them by criticizing the Tech. I do feel sorry for them because their minds are altered to such degree that they cannot realize that the Tech does not work. But this is not their fault and I, certainly, do not hate them for that. I blame their misfortune mostly on Miscavige because majority of them joined CoS after Hubbard’s death. Besides, Hubbard is dead, so hating him is kind of weird. But I think that the Founder had a mild mental retardation.
I am interested in the views on the "tech". I find accounts of the "wins" etc. fascinating. I am always trying to figure out what it is that a person gets from scientology that allows the willing (maybe unwilling?) suspension of disbelief that has to occur to continue up the Bridge. I don't hate anyone, except my grade school music teacher, but that's another story.
Be well, have a good weekend all.