|
Why can I see this getting stupidly out of control and leading to a smaller, stupider version of Kristallnacht?
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
NihilismNow posted:How about a CoS version of the night of the long knives? Becuase I really don't believe that the CoS would kill people, but I do believe that 4channers would get so stupidly worked up that they would vandalize property for no really good reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 21:51
|
|
|
Megaspel posted:Then you're a fool. Funny, there are links with hard proof that Scientology will kill people who disagree with it? All I see is speculation and hearsay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 22:19
|
|
|
Curiouser posted:They were criminally negligent in the death of Lisa McPherson, and in the case of operation Freakout, one of the goals of their harassment was to have Paulette Cooper hospitalized. It's not at all unfair to assume they intended to drive her to a suicide attempt. Operation Freakout without a doubt existed, it's been verified by an FBI raid of the Scientology HQ. Yeah, I'm not saying they're not stupid. I'm sure they fully believe in what they believe in, but really, how are these actions any different from those religions that refuse to allow medical treatment to their kids? It's not. Let stupid people be. It's not my job to protect people from what they want to believe and do. Edit: This whole thing just smells like lazy internet people getting up in arms about something that no one should really care about. I don't care what you choose to believe, as long as you don't try to force it on my through government power. I also live near clearwater, ground zero for crazy scientologists. They've never done anything to me, and I've done nothing to them. They just walk around town in an efficient manner doing whatever it is they do. burmart fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jan 25, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 22:41
|
|
|
Curiouser posted:People who deny medical treatment for their children generally don't attempt to get their critics incarcerated as terrorists. Wait, I'm an idiot, but you're spouting stuff that makes you sound like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist "Truther?" Your argument that they "quash" free speech and abuse copyright law is simply the ramblings of someone who doesn't understand either the first amendment or copyright law. EDIT: And people wondered how I could see this turning into a stupid small scale inconsequential kristalnacht with people this worked up over unsourced allegations and innuendo?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 22:52
|
|
|
AndrewBK posted:Please explain why a "religion" should find the need to copyright their material and protect the vast majority of it from the general public? Because they're proprietary documents and they're allowed to use copyright law to protect these documents? To accuse them of abusing copyright law when they are using it for exactly what it's supposed to be used for is stupid. Copyright law is used to protect works for the organization that owns the copyright. That is what the CoS is doing. It in no way is an "abuse" of the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 22:57
|
|
|
CaptainWinky posted:They believe in free speech only up until somebody says something they don't like, then it's out with the nonstop harassment and possible slander/libel suits. Ruining people's lives to shut them up sounds a lot like quashing free speech. And how is that quashing free speech as protected by the constitution? Are the scientologists government organizations? If someone disagrees with their tactics and are harassed by them, they very well can take them to court, can't they?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 22:58
|
|
|
AndrewBK posted:In itself it is not, correct. However, to enjoy the protection of these laws and still claim to be a religion is not. Name one other religion who employs such protection against their material. Most actually establish funds to spread the word freely. Is it perhaps because the "truth" that Scientology are selling is in fact full of poo poo? I agree, they're full of poo poo with their religion (as I think most religions are on the specifics). Because no other religion has protected it's proprietary documents doesn't mean that Scientology is not allowed to do so. Again, please show me, via statute or case law, where a not-for profit organization cannot copyright it's documents. Until then, the argument that it is an "abuse of copyright" is silly. Jack Chick's pamphlets? Copyright Protected. Some may think of them as religious documents. Sure, he hands them out to people, but he's able to do whatever he pleases with the documents he owns the copyright to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 23:05
|
|
|
Curiouser posted:It's sourced, idiot. If you gave even a cursory look at the material linked throughout this thread, you'd see they site major news outlets and court decisions. In particular, the pages on Paulette Cooper have court transcripts sited, and sometimes their entire contents on the websites. They also site the news articles of the time (from newspapers like The Times) No, I don't believe in any conspiracy on anyones parts. People get worked up about things, as people are in this thread. Scientology sucks. I agree. However, to think that they are some vast conspiracy that everyone is covering up for is just ridiculous. They're just another goofy organization operating within the bounds of the law. When they don't operate within the bounds of the law, someone should take them to court and have them be punished for it. At the end of the day, I don't care how crazy any story is people choose to believe, or have their family believe. It's not my business, nor anyone elses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 23:08
|
|
|
Rotanee posted:The cult of scientology was formed and designed to be secretive, self sufficient and malicious for those against them. There are tons of links to LRH talking about how the cult should be run in this thread if you want to see this stuff. The cult believes they must firmly adhere to how LRH wanted it run to this day. They also believe they can do anything to anyone who is an SP, or who doesn't believe what they want you to. I agree. Go after the organization within all legal boundries. Don't cry, however, if they take you to court over it and you lose. Again, I don't like the church, I don't agree with their methods, but to argue that the organization is nothing but murderers and harassers is just stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2008 23:49
|
|
|
locdogg posted:It's easy, just pick some large and image conscious companies. Yeah. You're totally going to get enough people to boycott those things to really hurt their bottom line. *giggles*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2008 02:01
|
|
|
Irish Revenge posted:This is the kind of poo poo I would probably be really into and participate in if I was still in middle school. It's cute. Let them continue to think they make a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 02:11
|
|
|
Irish Revenge posted:1. I wasn't talking to you. And the best part, everyone will be embarrassed about this in four years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 02:31
|
|
|
I'll actually go and grab dinner tonight at a restaurant next to a Scientology place in St. Pete. I'll be excited to see absolutely nothing unusual going on. A hot chick standing outside might ask me if I'm interesting in seeing a movie, or taking a test, or whatever they ask. I'll just say "no thanks" and walk on down to Primi or that Indian Place. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 16:10
|
|
|
Buttered Taint posted:Still haven't found that voting bar at the bottom of the thread? Maybe you should just close your browser since this thread seems to instill so much ire and cynicism in you. Really, what is everyone expecting to accomplish? As far as I can tell, there isn't any specific goal or real organization towards meeting any special goal. Without that, there really isn't anything that anyone is going to accomplish. Also, isn't this a discussion forum, or do we simply have to absolutely agree that this is a worthwhile cause?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 16:29
|
|
|
Rudy Kadett posted:The fact that you'd rather troll this thread than troll and protest Scientologists is saying a lot. Just vote and get out. So, if I were to say "I'd yell at the building or get people to honk their horns as I walk past the scientology building" then everything would be alright?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 16:32
|
|
|
Buttered Taint posted:This is getting to be a really tired and played out response around here, but I have to question your reading comprehension. You've obviously been reading the threads as evidenced by your repeated posts of criticism. There are a lot of things going on, not just here but other places as well, that are legal and the proper things to do when you want to voice your displeasure with something in our respective democracies. This may be a cause that you deem silly but a lot of others don't and feel that by protesting, writing, and distributing factual information they are contributing to useful change. Because I question the efficacy and ultimate purpose of these actions. As of right now it seems like a bunch of silly young people raging out against something for the simple purpose of raging out against something. The drive lacks focus and a clear goal, and as such will die out within the next month (two if the movement is lucky) and everyone will look back on it and wonder why people didn't listen to them. Some will blame it on the media and others will simply say that the general public is inferior to them in terms of brain power. The truth will be, the movement lacks focus, direction and a real well defined purpose. That's the downside to this decentralized thing that anonymous seems to enjoy. Organizations need organization to be effective. There is no organization here. There are no leaders of this movement. In fact, it seems a lot of people are afraid to be recognized as leaders in this movement. If you're not willing to step up, show your face, and be held accountable for your statements, no one will, nor should they, take you seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 16:47
|
|
|
MisterEuroPride posted:If you be our leader I'll contribute And there's the rub, huh? People say they believe in the movement, but the belief must not run very deep if no one is willing to put their butts on the line for it. Social reformers need to take risks. The civil rights leaders of the 60s never thought twice about being thrown in jail or subjected to various law suits. They suffered death threats and strong arm tactics from all quarters, but their leaders still stood up and spoke out against injustice. If someone really believed in this movement, someone would do the same. Right now it doesn't seem like there is anyone willing to stand up and say that they truly believe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 16:54
|
|
to your legal fund.
|
Tomahawk posted:You now have 17 posts over the course of a week consisting of the same thing over and over again. Just stop. We get it, you're edgy and you think it's dumb and you don't care enough to post about it 17 times. Great. Actually, it's just the opposite. I'm not edgy at all. I'm all for the standard tried and true methods of enacting change. Unless you're Al Qaeda, this is not it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 16:57
|
|
|
John_Anon_Smith posted:This sounds like a good idea. I vote changing Anonymous to Al Qaeda. Well, this mysterious masked decentralized thing is always tried at protests such as the World Bank and G8 summits and such. Guess what? Other than causing traffic problems, the general population don't understand what their grievances (some legit, some not so legit) are and only see them as rebellious youths that should be ignored. After all, if they're not willing to stand behind their statements, why should we pay attention to them?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 17:15
|
|
|
Rudy Kadett posted:Myeah I get your point but these protests always end up in violence and quite a lot of those people are there for inciting riots only; plus, the scale in which this is happening is substantially smaller than say the Geneva protests. I think the February 10th protests are going to have to capitalize on the "novelty" or curiosity aspect - rather than being handicapped by something similar to the violent image a lot of these other types of movements have. Well, it seems people are trying to capitalize on that same large group masked feeling that those protests have. I can't recall if I saw it here or elsewhere, but I remember some propaganda flyer that had a picture of all those guys in the V from Vendetta masks. It was all well and good and moving in the movie, but real life doesn't work like that. But, again, that's the problem with the decentralized nature of this. No one and everyone speaks for the movement, thus there can never be an effective message made, because everyone will be speaking something different. Marketing is effective, and for any real message to get out there needs to be an organized message behind it. Creating that organized message and getting people to stay on message is difficult and requires that someone stand up and be the leader and spokesperson. Scientology succeeds in its limited scope because everyone who comes in contact with those who fall into the trap of Scientology are on message and have great discipline. The same needs to be true for any movement based on ideas. On a side note, I find it quite humorous that anyone who seems to have problems with the content of this thread is automatically assumed to be a Scientology plant. It reminds me of how everyone in every high school was always convinced that one of the kids was a NARC.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 17:31
|
|
|
Deftblade Lumis posted:We don't say you're a plant because you disagree with how it's being handled. We say you're a plant because of your absolute insistance that someone here should be willing to be held accountable for this whole plan, which, if you know ANYTHING about how Scientology deals with critics, you would understand is an absolutely horrible idea at this stage in the game. Go ahead, name any movement that has succeeded without a figurehead to keep everyone on message? Do you think that MLK didn't face things immensely more powerful than the church of scientology? Heck, Hank Aaron when he was chasing the home run record faced challenges greater than the church of Scientology. I still ask the question though, what do the people raging in this thread actually "believe" in? From what I can tell, it's a whole lot of stuff with no clarity. It just appears to be raging for ragings purposes, with no rhyme or reason to the message. Sure, Scientology is a cult, but I sure don't get that consistent message from the mass of things I've seen people create and pass out here. Focusing a message would do wonders for defining what people believe in and specifically what they are trying to accomplish. Without organization, the movement is just static background noise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 17:46
|
|
|
tonelok posted:As much as you post in this thread, you really do fail to read it. That's fine then, but realize that if the movement stays unorganized, then it won't succeed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 17:50
|
|
|
BeastUK posted:Protestantism, feminism, vegetarianism... Martin Luther, Gloria Steinem and a whole slew of others before her, vegetarianism directly flowed from a slew of major world religions. Either way, these are all core belief systems with well defined beliefs (even if there are distinctions between subgroups). I have yet to see a well defined belief or any consistent message from this thread. (Protestantism...belief of a personal relationship with god, feminism the belief that women are just as good as men, vegetarinaism...the belief that eating meat is unhealthy or unethical...anti-scientology...?)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 17:56
|
|
|
TwoSheds posted:WITH organization, the movement is an easy target for the very group we are trying to reform/dismantle. WAIT! Actions have consequences? You're just learning this? Yes, the people to be admired are those who stand up for their beliefs no matter the consequences. Those who hide behind masks for fear of retribution are nothing but cowards without the real dedication to cause change. If the outrage was great, people would be working in public to assure that the necessary changes are made. If someone isn't willing to suffer the consequences of their actions, they don't really have much of a backbone or belief in what they're doing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 17:59
|
|
|
semi semite posted:Well, there are countless unnamed people behind them. Likewise, there are a couple former church members that speak out against it (some of whom paid the price). Now they have some backup. Yes, but those unnamed people behind them weren't faceless and masked. They stood there, face to the world and said "THIS IS WRONG."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 18:02
|
|
|
BeastUK posted:The central belief of 'anti-Scientology' is surely that a religious cannot hold secret texts (media, now) and suppress discussion. Yet I haven't seen that addressed once in any of the flyers produced in this thread (I may have missed it because, really, there's just so much stuff going on in here).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 18:31
|
|
|
Slave posted:I would bet a small chocolate treat that they got this from seeing TFR and TCC. Maybe this is where we disagree and why I'm generating so much heat. This "movement" might be considered successful amongst the population of the internet. I mean, I don't call just having the documents on some sort of file sharing service "wide circulation" but obviously you do. For this to get any bigger than a bunch of internet tech oriented people, it's going to have to severely change its image from creepy internet video postings to something that any soccer mom can look at and understand. It's not going to happen with masked protests and links at the very bottom of Drudge Report. (which, the rear end in a top hat never updated his DEVELOPING "Sirius XM merger" story from last night.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 18:38
|
|
|
Habibi posted:The problem is, his posting pattern and mindless (and I mean that quite literally) concentration on one single, specific, and potentially damaging aspect of this "organization" should by rights draw criticism and suspicion. It's patently obvious that Scientology doesn't like being challenged, and much of the evidence that is available points to quick and brutal suppression of any such challenge. Yet here he is, carrying on post after post about how organizations without concrete visible leadership don't succeed, about how someone will need to be the leader, how movements don't get anywhere without leaders, how the people behind Anonymous should become anything but - his entire presence here has served no purpose other than attempting to goad someone into identifying themselves as a public figure of leadership. This would not only be a very stupid thing to do so early in the so-called "movement," it would be a stupid thing to do based on Scientology's past history of retaliation, and it would be a stupid thing to do because, as should be quite obvious, a decentralized leadership/organizational structure is far more likely to succeed in light of what is known about the CoS. And yet, functioning in this decentralized manner with no clear, publicly identified leadership figure, is apparently only something Al Qaeda would do? Generally, this guy's postings seem nothing so much as a transparent attempt to draw someone out as a "head." Dangerous? Yes. Stupid? Doubly so. Yet this is what he wants these people to do, and with little logical backing except the nebulous idea that movements do not succeed without leaders - which is not only untrue but also misapplied, since these people are less trying to accomplish something significant and tangible, and more trying to spread information to the masses. His statements are too serious, too repetitive, and too illogical to simply be a criticism of what's going on. Am I saying he is a shill for CoS with a specific goal in mind? No. His arguments and patterns of reasoning, however, place such a thing within the realm of possibility. It's funny because I'm a die hard atheist and think most religious have aspects of it that can fall under the category "cult." It's all in what you're starting point in looking at these things is. Heck, even Jesus himself said you can't follow him unless you hate your family. (Luke 14:26). But, at the end of the day, I recognize people's rights to protect their copyrighted work and run their church in whatever manner they please. Tithing, indulgences, snake handling. They're all goofy. My posts aren't necessarily defending scientology, but more along the lines of how goofy this stuff is. burmart fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 28, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 18:45
|
|
|
neogeo0823 posted:Ok then, Mr. SmartyPants. What will make it bigger? What will make it succeed? And what you seem to miss is that to effect any real change in society, people need to stand up regardless of the consequences. Yes, if you do, you're opening yourself to scientology suing you, but at the end of the day, if someone truly believes enough, they will stand up and put their money and life on the line to do what's RIGHT FOR SOCIETY, not right for the individual. Jail, Bankruptcy and smear campaigns can be no deterrant to someone who has the level of dedication needed to effect long term real change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 18:51
|
|
|
The Mash posted:Just to get this out of the way Burmart, since you seem to want to poo poo this thread at any cost. Would you prefer the Anonymous movement to succeed or disappear, if you had the choice? I'm not even sure what the anonymous movement is about. So, before I can say if I want it to succeed, I need to know, specifically, what's its trying to do. Is it to distribute copyrighted material illegally? Then no, I don't want them to succeed. If it is to raise awareness of the beliefs of Scientology? Then I don't really care because I don't differentiate between one persons beliefs and any others. Is it to cause DOS attacks on servers? No, then I don't want them to succeed. At the end of the day, I can't say I agree with them until they specifically dictate what they are trying to do and the methods they are going to use to achieve them. I am Johnny Everyman. I'm put off by people who rock the boat. I'm put off by people who hide what they are doing. When I see protests on the street, I worry about masked men roving around with no sense of accountability. I disagree with interrupting private property rights. Until these things are answered, the movement won't grow beyond its small roots today. burmart fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jan 28, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 18:59
|
|
|
Buttered Taint posted:You never address the grievances that people have brought up about this church. Irregardless to the merit of comparing it to other religions (I am completely non-religious and can't really stand any of them), you seem to miss the part about their destructive practices including but not limited to the "Fair Game" policy and their tax exempt status for basically running a pyramid scheme. They make you "disconnect" with people who might make you turn against them or make a decision on your own. There is no open flow of thought and ideas - you become just a part of the hivemind. Dissent is not tolerated. Not to mention the other aspects that include Ms. McPherson and others. Well, I'm against all tax exempt status for all religious organizations, but that's a discussion for another day. The rule of the day is that religious organizations have tax exempt status, and thus here we are, with them having tax exempt status. Have you been to a Southern Baptist church service? There is no open flow of thought and ideas in those masses either. Dissent is not tolerated. Amish people kick out dissenters and shun them, but they make really good pies so it's OK for them to do it. The religion can determine the things that are required to be a part of it. People are free to associate with whom they wish. This goes for Scientologists wanting to socialize with Scientologists and those who don't want to be connected with Scientologists because they are connected with others. quote:People should be free to practice religion as they see fit, but not if its destructive on society as a whole or the people that they bring in individually. There is plenty of evidence to back that up contained within this thread. Well then, really that isn't freedom of religion at all is it? Its easy to stand up and say "This fits in perfectly with the way our society is ordered thus it should be allowed." It's the hard questions like that of Scientologist where one finds out if their beliefs in freedom really flow as far as they think they do. quote:Much to my surprise previously and something that you haven't caught onto is that this movement has been in existence long before most of the people involved today were born. There are countless names and faces that have been fighting the fight that they feel is best for many years but they lacked a following or a mouthpiece if you will. Anonymous fills that role for them. Sure, it would be better if everyone could just sit at a table and sort out their differences but look at what they are fighting and you'll realize that this is just a step along the evolution of the movement. Faces will step out. Leaders will emerge. And that movement hasn't really become anything. At the end of the day, the Scientologists are a nutty proselytizing group that has a tithing requirement and strict social codes. While their transgressions (McPherson) have happened years and years ago and most likely continue to this day, if they don't break the law then there is no reason to condemn them. If they did break the law, their punishment will be properly determined by the courts. quote:I've stayed out of this thing for many reasons, but primarily just to see how things progress between now and the protests. I'm also not keen on attacking peoples beliefs and engaging in illegal behavior to get attention. Plus, Iu've never really wanted to support anything that the chans do for obvious reasons. However, I respect the rights of everyone on the opposition side to organize and make a difference. That's how change is affected in Democracies. It starts small and grows into something worthy. If that can be achieved, then Anonymous and the Chans should be commended for working within the law to make a difference. I agree. They are perfectly allowed to do it in whatever way they seem fit (within the bounds of the law). However, at this stage, I doubt the efficacy of their tactics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
The Mash posted:That's the whole point you douche. Because of their ridiculous lawyer machinery and at one point infiltration of various government branches, they've gotten away with most of their illegal actions. At best, some low-level grunts have been put away for a while, but nothing has happened yet to prevent them from abusing both their enemies and people trying to leave the church with methods well outside the law. So, you're telling me that if they continue to do these illegal things today, the US government can't get a bead on them and bring them to prosecution? Or, are you just relying on the actions of Scientology of 20 years ago?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2008 19:25
|
|