Bay 12 Games Forum
Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: Golgath on August 04, 2009, 03:47:41 pm
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
The first time I've heard anything like this. For those of you who can't be bothered to read this... You're missing out on something that sounds like something out of a spy novel, rather then something actually done in real life. I never really did get the whole scientology thing, but having a past like this probably hasn't done them any favors.
-
Sounds more like LCS then DF.
-
Did you both only find out about it now? Scientology has always been crazy. They had a 'fair game' policy on people who badmouthed them. They've actually kidnapped a reporter before because she tricked them, got privy to some secrets, and was going to report them.
-
Don't forget the part where L. Ron Hubbard declared enemies of Scientology "fair game", and in exactly the sense it sounds like.
-
Bloody cult. lets hope they don't get any power. :P
(Poster was kidnapped and murdered for this post)
-
Upon reading more of the article: Holy shit. Now the entire organization seems even LESS sympathetic to me, and L. Ron's wife sounds like she was a complete harpy warlord, the female counterpart of L. Ron himself. Scary.
-
Doesn't really help that the government themselves has done this, and is still doing it.
-
Scientology is mad creepy. Case closed.
-
I remember reading something about how the foundations of scientology were laid in a bar, while L. Ron Hubbard was drinking with some writer friends. And probably high on heroin.
-
o,0
I usually laugh at Scientology, but this is just...mortifying.
-
I remember reading something about how the foundations of scientology were laid in a bar, while L. Ron Hubbard was drinking with some writer friends. And probably high on heroin.
The way I heard it, Hubbard convinced some drunkards that his Sci-Fi books were real.
-
I remember reading something about how the foundations of scientology were laid in a bar, while L. Ron Hubbard was drinking with some writer friends. And probably high on heroin.
The way I heard it, Hubbard convinced some drunkards that his Sci-Fi books were real.
No, Xenu the god-king is real! [/sarcasm]
France had the right idea when they declared Scientology a cult.
-
I remember reading something about how the foundations of scientology were laid in a bar, while L. Ron Hubbard was drinking with some writer friends. And probably high on heroin.
The way I heard it, Hubbard convinced some drunkards that his Sci-Fi books were real.
Basically.
France had the right idea when they declared Scientology a cult.
Do cults get different legal treatment than any other religion? I can only imagine they do. As creepy and bad as scientology is, the government having the authority to declare one religion legitimate and another illegitimate is far, far worse and scarier.
-
France had the right idea when they declared Scientology a cult.
Do cults get different legal treatment than any other religion? I can only imagine they do. As creepy and bad as scientology is, the government having the authority to declare one religion legitimate and another illegitimate is far, far worse and scarier.
Here
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901373,00.html
Wasn't because they were a cult, but because they were a dangerous cult whose intent is to exploit its followers.
-
To be fair, exploiting the followers is pretty much part of the definition of a "cult".
-
To be fair, exploiting the followers is pretty much part of the definition of a "cult".
To be fair I think christianity is...
NO RILDER STOP IT, DON'T START IT DON'T.. JUST DON'T...
-
Sure, believe everything you find on Wikipedia. Just because it has 70 citations doesn't mean it's true!
-
To be fair, exploiting the followers is pretty much part of the definition of a "cult".
To be fair I think christianity is...
NO RILDER STOP IT, DON'T START IT DON'T.. JUST DON'T...
Popes were more awesome back in the day, when they had armies and political affiliations, and suchlike. Can you say "Imperium of Man"?
-
To be fair, exploiting the followers is pretty much part of the definition of a "cult".
To be fair I think christianity is...
NO RILDER STOP IT, DON'T START IT DON'T.. JUST DON'T...
Popes were more awesome back in the day, when they had armies and political affiliations, and suchlike. Can you say "Imperium of Man"?
Were do you think the people who made it up got the idea from?
-
To be fair, exploiting the followers is pretty much part of the definition of a "cult".
To be fair I think christianity is...
NO RILDER STOP IT, DON'T START IT DON'T.. JUST DON'T...
Popes were more awesome back in the day, when they had armies and political affiliations, and suchlike. Can you say "Imperium of Man"?
Were do you think the people who made it up got the idea from?
Ahem.
(http://1d4chan.org/images/7/76/Tgdhcover.jpg)
There you have it. :D
Also this is really fantastically off topic, except that I imagine Scientologists who support suppression are fairly close to this.
-
I have to wonder how many Scientologists even know the history of their own religion.
It really has all the trappings of a cult:
- Doesn't clue you in on the entire belief structure (much less history) or make it open to non-members, instead indoctrinating you one step at a time
- Persuades you to cut ties with (and even persecute) those who don't belong, and practically give up your old life (I think)
- Highly, highly moralistic and divisive, to the point where the group all but declares war on its ideological opponents
- Deceptively recruits members, by doing things like misrepresenting the belief system (see the first point) and running front organizations and sucking people in with "personality tests"
- Financial extortion of its members
- Threats of physical violence against nonmembers and possibly members/former members
- The general belief that the organization is above the law (see: ... this thread)
- Dogma revealed by a single, charismatic leader (although the charisma is certainly questionable)
- Dogma claiming to be the only key to happiness, mental health, etc., discrediting actual science in the process
I could probably go on, or organize this better, but yeah.
I'm generally a tolerant guy when it comes to religion, so while I find their beliefs rather bogus (and quite silly, being stuff drafted by a cheap sci-fi author in order to make a buck or two), my main problem is the fact that, well, as an organization they're just plain evil and frighten the hell out of me.
-
- Persuades you to cut ties with (and even persecute) those who don't belong, and practically give up your old life (I think)
- Highly, highly moralistic and divisive, to the point where the group all but declares war on its ideological opponents
- The general belief that the organization is above the law (see: ... this thread)
- Dogma claiming to be the only key to happiness, mental health, etc., discrediting actual science in the process
Even discounting that Scientology seems fairly silly, they are a real and pervasive belief system that could possibly be harmful to people everywhere.
I mean, you don't see the Church of England suing Wikipedia over articles.
-
Yeah, it's just that the core belief system is still beside the point when talking about how the organization itself is screwed up. You could easily belief in all or most of the Scientologist religion itself without, you know, agreeing to any of the junk the church itself does.
-
The beliefs of the CoS inform the actions of the CoS. They go hand in hand. If one has the beliefs without the actions, that person is a hypocrite.
-
After making and losing a huge amount of money on the book - Dianetics. He decided he'd make a religion which he could permanently make money on. It was successful.
-
The beliefs of the CoS inform the actions of the CoS. They go hand in hand. If one has the beliefs without the actions, that person is a hypocrite.
Not necessarily. The BASIC religious tenets of the CoS have nothing to do with the horrible things that the organization have done. Yeah, some church directives and documents do, but you can believe essentially the same stuff Scientologists believe in without liking the organization, in theory.
-
France had the right idea when they declared Scientology a cult.
Do cults get different legal treatment than any other religion? I can only imagine they do. As creepy and bad as scientology is, the government having the authority to declare one religion legitimate and another illegitimate is far, far worse and scarier.
Here
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901373,00.html
Wasn't because they were a cult, but because they were a dangerous cult whose intent is to exploit its followers.
Still, governments shouldn't have the right to declare one religion a religion and therefore OK, and another a cult and therefore not OK. If the organization is corrupt, you punish the organization, but separately from what religion they are affiliated with. Otherwise you're eroding an essential part of the protection of individual liberty.
-
Well, France is incredibly secular.
They just don't like religion over there.
But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.
-
Well, metropolitian France and its government is very secular, its rural areas haven't changed in geography, ethnicity or culture much since the first world war.
Outside of Paris and the major cities, its pretty conservative and traditional.
-
Well, France is incredibly secular.
They just don't like religion over there.
But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.
Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.
-
France had the right idea when they declared Scientology a cult.
Do cults get different legal treatment than any other religion? I can only imagine they do. As creepy and bad as scientology is, the government having the authority to declare one religion legitimate and another illegitimate is far, far worse and scarier.
Here
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901373,00.html
Wasn't because they were a cult, but because they were a dangerous cult whose intent is to exploit its followers.
Still, governments shouldn't have the right to declare one religion a religion and therefore OK, and another a cult and therefore not OK. If the organization is corrupt, you punish the organization, but separately from what religion they are affiliated with. Otherwise you're eroding an essential part of the protection of individual liberty.
The government should determine what sort of organization an organization is, for tax purposes, but thiis need not bring religion into play directly. You can just determine if an organization is non-profit/charitable as opposed to a for-profit business or whatever.
-
(http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/19/633495158358826198-scientology.jpg)
It all makes sense now...
-
Well, France is incredibly secular.
They just don't like religion over there.
But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.
Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.
This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?
-
Despite only reading the first post, I have this to add.
xenu.net (http://xenu.net)
Aw yeah. That shit be real.
-
Well, France is incredibly secular.
They just don't like religion over there.
But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.
Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.
This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?
Not really. A lot of people believe in a lot of crazy things. It doesn't mean they're going to act upon them so harshly.
I subscribe to essentially the status quo regarding that in the US: It's legal to gather and talk and say things, even hurtful things, as long as you aren't actually inciting violence. The minute you incite people to violence, you get busted.
-
Despite only reading the first post, I have this to add.
xenu.net (http://xenu.net)
Aw yeah. That shit be real.
The "scientology illustrated" section is hilarious.
Well, France is incredibly secular.
They just don't like religion over there.
But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.
Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.
This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?
Not really. A lot of people believe in a lot of crazy things. It doesn't mean they're going to act upon them so harshly.
I subscribe to essentially the status quo regarding that in the US: It's legal to gather and talk and say things, even hurtful things, as long as you aren't actually inciting violence. The minute you incite people to violence, you get busted.
But sometimes people take too neutral a stand regarding this. There are hints of aggression and anger that go unnoticed or if noticed, aren't acted on.
Granted it's literally impossible (also unethical) to go around and police every single conversation that happens. Peacekeeping has to be reactionary. I've never seen an attempt at "preemptive peacekeeping".
-
Well, France is incredibly secular.
They just don't like religion over there.
But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.
Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.
This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?
Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.
I've never seen an attempt at "preemptive peacekeeping".
Every form of oppression can be rationalized as "preemptive peacekeeping.
also, [refrains from remark about Bush administration]
-
I've never seen an attempt at "preemptive peacekeeping".
Every form of oppression can be rationalized as "preemptive peacekeeping.
also, [refrains from remark about Bush administration]
[/quote]
I will admit, I was baiting that one.
My country had martial law declared waaaaaaay back, about thirty years ago. The dictator (Ferdinand Marcos, you may remember him) rationalized it as, exactly, preemptive peacekeeping. I've never seen anyone say that and mean it, though.
Probably because it can't happen if we mean to stay ethical.
-
I'm not quite sure where you live Vester, but wouldn't such harsh measures be rationally considered "preemptive peacekeeping" if terrible violence could break out at any moment?
/devil's advocate
-
I'm not quite sure where you live Vester, but wouldn't such harsh measures be rationally considered "preemptive peacekeeping" if terrible violence could break out at any moment?
/devil's advocate
The Philippines. Well, my fault for not explaining. ;D
The final reason he declared martial law is because his Secretary of Defense was ambushed by "rebels" who sprayed his car with bullets.
Said Secretary of Defense admitted (long after the dictator was deposed) that it was staged.
-
"preemptive peacekeeping" happens often here in Denmark.
Usaly, when a big (well, big for Denmark) football match is up, things tendt to desolve into chaos, so they police go in, arrest 100-200 persons, then let 95% go after an hour or so.
the rest will be the ones in court within 24Hours, charged with "inciting violence".
-
Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.
There is something more important - protecting other people from the maniacs who hold these views. It's never a big step from raw hatred to racist violence.
-
I want to bring into the light the fact that one of the Operation's targets was the Nation Association and World Federation for Mental Health. Think about that a moment.
-
I want to bring into the light the fact that one of the Operation's targets was the Nation Association and World Federation for Mental Health. Think about that a moment.
I can't, I'm too busy raging.
-
Ah... gov't protecting people from themselves(GPPFT) vs letting people do stupid shit(LPDSS)
A debate of the ages.
You know seat belt laws? Thats an example of GPPFT.
Driving with a cell phone? GPPFT
Current debate somewhere in the US, no clue where, but its there... GPPFT
Savvy?
Freedom of religion, I have my opinions of religion. But... if a gov't can't label religious groups cults... then WTF? We should allow idiots to join unsavory religious groups so that they can become end up becoming fanatics who would do what the 'priest' says? Yea... I rather have myself GPPFT here. I don't want any more crazy then normal religious nuts in my cereal thank you.
Especially a whole pack of em working together to either convert me or send me to hell early.
You have this one 'religious group' down in Arizona or somewhere near there where some self-appointed priest guy gets to marry and boink lil girls under 12. He actually has free reign to all the women in his 'religious group'. Its a secluded lil 'religious group' too.
And do you know why he does it? Because his diety/god/whatever the hell these people worship... voice is channeled through the priest guy. So whatever he says? It goes or you are gonna burn in hell.
That my friend is what you call a cult.
Now, lets look at Scientology. These bastards have people who are more then willing to commit all sorts of crimes to further the agenda of the Scientology 'priests'. Else, they'll probably burn in hell.
We know that these people try to seclude themselves from non-believers too.
So yea, lets look at the connections:
Seclusion of members from non-believers? Check
Voice of 'Diety' through the priests? Check
Unsavory stuff like burning in hell when you don't listen to the priests? Check
Unsavory stuff like burning in hell when you don't believe? Check (But this applies to many legit religions, so whatever...)
People stupid enough to follow the priest blindly or out of fear? Check
And here is something we have that Scientology and Islam have in common:
People stupid enough to break laws, kidnap, and commit traitorous acts in the name of their 'Diety'? Check
Disclaimer: I pulled a lot of this out of my arse. Have fun. 8)
PS: France is right, you are wrong for disagreeing. (My opinion)
-
You are one of our targets now.
Have a nice day.
Oh yeah, it's Deity, not Diety.
-
Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.
There is something more important - protecting other people from the maniacs who hold these views. It's never a big step from raw hatred to racist violence.
OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.
Also, seat belt laws are the government protecting people from themselves. Outlawing talking on a cell phone while driving (which hasn't happened yet but should, as it's more dangerous than drunk driving) is protecting everybody else from selfish idiots who endanger the lives of others. Just a little distinction.
-
"preemptive peacekeeping" happens often here in Denmark.
Usaly, when a big (well, big for Denmark) football match is up, things tendt to desolve into chaos, so they police go in, arrest 100-200 persons, then let 95% go after an hour or so.
the rest will be the ones in court within 24Hours, charged with "inciting violence".
It's a football match. Football matches don't follow the laws of the state, but some arcane pact featuring blood sacrifice and the tears of children.
-
OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.
It's obviously impossible to outlaw viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that we should listen to them and let them be indulged. The right of a black person too not be murdered outweighs the right of the KKK to hold and indulge their views.
Scientology also has a nasty habit of commiting crimes agaisnt "Fair game" targets, and is basically a massive scam, made up by a second rate science fiction writer. Again, you can't stop people from holding views. But we don't have to indulge them.
-
People stupid enough to break laws, kidnap, and commit traitorous acts in the name of their 'Diety'? Check
Actually, Islamic religion is against that sort of thing.
Every religion has that sort of believer at some time or another, no matter what the religion - more a problem with a type of person than a religion. It's just that Scientology has had that sort of behavior made officially "appropriate" (I use the term lightly) by its rules, and since they turn people into this one, fanatic, unquestioning type of person, it can become very dangerous..
-
It depends. You can find verses to fit almost any viewpoint in Christianity or Islam.
-
People stupid enough to break laws, kidnap, and commit traitorous acts in the name of their 'Diety'? Check
Actually, Islamic religion is against that sort of thing.
Every religion has that sort of believer at some time or another, no matter what the religion - more a problem with a type of person than a religion. It's just that Scientology has had that sort of behavior made officially "appropriate" (I use the term lightly) by its rules, and since they turn people into this one, fanatic, unquestioning type of person, it can become very dangerous..
Not even "appropriate". A lot of it is official policy.
-
Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.
There is something more important - protecting other people from the maniacs who hold these views. It's never a big step from raw hatred to racist violence.
OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.
Also, seat belt laws are the government protecting people from themselves. Outlawing talking on a cell phone while driving (which hasn't happened yet but should, as it's more dangerous than drunk driving) is protecting everybody else from selfish idiots who endanger the lives of others. Just a little distinction.
Your rights end where others begin. IE if your rights are being used to stomp all over the rights of others, your rights are going to have to be bent or broken. I'm really sick of strictly constitutional viewpoints where OMG EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH ALWAYS. Canada doesn't have that problem, and we're not suddenly some oppressed mindless government slaves. Plus we get to keep idiots like Reverend Fred Phelps out of the country as a very nice bonus.
The beliefs of the CoS inform the actions of the CoS. They go hand in hand. If one has the beliefs without the actions, that person is a hypocrite.
Not necessarily. The BASIC religious tenets of the CoS have nothing to do with the horrible things that the organization have done. Yeah, some church directives and documents do, but you can believe essentially the same stuff Scientologists believe in without liking the organization, in theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Free_Zone
These dudes run a non-CoS version of Scientology's teachings. They're fairly oppressed as 'squirrels' by the church proper, and are mostly ex-CoS members.
-
OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.
It's obviously impossible to outlaw viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that we should listen to them and let them be indulged.
You don't have to listen to them or indulge them. But you can't stop people from expressing them. This is a foundation of a free society. Literally, without this right, you do not have a free society, you have a totalitarian one.
The right of a black person too not be murdered outweighs the right of the KKK to hold and indulge their views.
I agree, as would anybody. However that is utterly irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that the right of a black person not to be offended or disturbed by the KKK does NOT outweigh the right of the KKK to express whatever viewpoints they want, however despicable.
Scientology also has a nasty habit of commiting crimes agaisnt "Fair game" targets, and is basically a massive scam, made up by a second rate science fiction writer. Again, you can't stop people from holding views. But we don't have to indulge them.
If by "indulge" you mean "allow the freedom of speech and press to the holders of" then you're wrong. Allowing people to express views is THE most crucial right to freedom and democracy.
I'm really sick of strictly constitutional viewpoints where OMG EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH ALWAYS
Well that sucks, because if you dont' let everyone have free speech always, then you have no business calling yourself a free society.
-
The problem being that no government has a true democracy. A true democracy would never work, the same way communism just doesn't work - people are too fickle to govern as a mass body, for which reason there are prime ministers and presidents, and on another level, the Congress and Senate, and the courts.
-
You actually don't have the right to threaten people in the U.S. You can get in big trouble for it. A viewpoint that is as good as a threat towards a group . . . tricky grounds there.
-
Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.
-
Scientology members should all quit the cult, start thinking for themselves and do something else. And Hubbard should spontaneously explode and his soul should be murdered repeatedly by the devil IN HELL.
Broken any laws?
-
It's the internet, I don't think it counts.
-
Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.
But what is their viewpoint? "All black people must die"? How is that not going to become violent?
-
Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.
But what is their viewpoint? "All black people must die"? How is that not going to become violent?
Truth.
-
I agree with freedom of speech but as for France banning Scientology I cant help but laugh. Then again the Church of Scientology is scam for the most part primarily because it uses its status as a religion to avoid tax among other things. From what I have read they didn't ban the faith as such but the organisation known as the Church of Scientology which they decided was a fraudulent and dangerous group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Dispute_of_religion_status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Dispute_of_religion_status)
-
Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.
But what is their viewpoint? "All black people must die"? How is that not going to become violent?
Truth.
Hell yes it's the truth.
-
Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.
But what is their viewpoint? "All black people must die"? How is that not going to become violent?
Truth.
Hell yes it's the truth.
Quoted for further truth.
This is why I like where I live. All the racists are too passive-aggressive to do any actual harm. The gangs, on the other hand...
Speaking of which, is Scientology a true cult, or just a multinational organization bent on financial gain? There is a difference.
-
Speaking of which, is Scientology a true cult, or just a multinational organization bent on financial gain? There is a difference.
Really there is a difference?
1. The heads of Scientology are profiting from the believers... or customers if you will...
2. Scientology sells the "Stay out of Hell Card".
3. The customers, they pay with money and their devotion to Scientology.
4. Customers are required to segregate their lives from non-customers.
5. Customers are encouraged to harass non-customers who give bad reviews for the services provided by Scientology.
6. Customers can, under the supervision of Scientology 'employees', kidnap non-customers who are deemed to be more of a nuisance then just the regular bad reviewers.
What else? I think I'm missing stuff.
-
What was of the dwarves of yonde?
-
Speaking of which, is Scientology a true cult, or just a multinational organization bent on financial gain? There is a difference.
Really there is a difference?
1. The heads of Scientology are profiting from the believers... or customers if you will...
2. Scientology sells the "Stay out of Hell Card".
3. The customers, they pay with money and their devotion to Scientology.
4. Customers are required to segregate their lives from non-customers.
5. Customers are encouraged to harass non-customers who give bad reviews for the services provided by Scientology.
6. Customers can, under the supervision of Scientology 'employees', kidnap non-customers who are deemed to be more of a nuisance then just the regular bad reviewers.
What else? I think I'm missing stuff.
Of course there's a difference. Even some of the worst multinational corporations don't do some of the stuff you're mentioning, nor do they attempt to control your ideology, per se.
-
I think the key problem is that they quite literally sell the "Stay out of hell" card. And the cure-all-diseases-at-various-prices-because-medicine-doesn't-work card. The latter can actually be fatal to the children of members. Frankly I'd be a hyperactive idiot if I were a Scientologist's son (the zealous kind, anyway).
-
The problem being that no government has a true democracy. A true democracy would never work, the same way communism just doesn't work - people are too fickle to govern as a mass body, for which reason there are prime ministers and presidents, and on another level, the Congress and Senate, and the courts.
OK well, that has nothing to do with what I said...
You actually don't have the right to threaten people in the U.S. You can get in big trouble for it. A viewpoint that is as good as a threat towards a group . . . tricky grounds there.
The KKK mostly marches around talking about white pride. If they make a real threat against a specific person then that's one thing, but you can't outlaw them saying white people are better than black people, or even that black people should leave the country/be slaves/die. That's not a threat. A threat is saying to somebody, "Leave town or we will lynch you." And they don't do that because they don't want to get arrested. And it's not illegal for them to think white people have the sun shining out their ass, so the rest of us put up with it, because it's better than giving the government the right to outlaw certain opinions.
But what is their viewpoint? "All black people must die"? How is that not going to become violent?
First of all, I don't really think that's their expressed viewpoint. Wikipedia could probably tell you more but either way it's irrelevant, because second, even if they think all black people should die, it's not illegal to think that, or to think anything, or to SAY that you think it. Once they start actually actively inciting riots or making death threats or damaging people's property or harrassing someone, then that's a crime and you can prosecute them. But you can't shut them down for voicing their opinions. Hell, there are lots of right-wing radio talk show hosts in America that make their living talking about how liberals are horrible and hate America and are all Muslim terrorists, but that doesn't even count as inciting violence and the KKK is really no different.
-
I think he means true freedom, not democracy (democracy=freedom to an extent, freedom =/= democracy), as freedom fits into that statement a bit better and is more noticeably relevant.
Somewhat off-topic thoughtfodder: Can one really rely on a wiki article about an extremist group?
-
I think he she means true freedom, not democracy (democracy=freedom to an extent, freedom =/= democracy), as freedom fits into that statement a bit better and is more noticeably relevant.
Somewhat off-topic thoughtfodder: Can one really rely on a wiki article about an extremist group?
Fixed for gender correctness. ;D
No, I really was referring to democracy. A pure democracy is the rule, literally, of the people, where the people are themselves the governing body rather than having representatives for them (like the Senate). It's a greek idea that didn't work, which is why they ended up with oligarchies multiple times.
Buuuuuuut freedom works better in the statement, yeah.
Also: I tend to take wikipedia articles with a grain of salt, especially if they're about something controversial.
-
hOW'D POLITICKIN GET IN MAH SCIENTOLIGICAL THREAD? BATSHIT CRAZY PEOPLE WORSHAPPIN HUBBARD'S PAPER-WORDY'S =/= POLITICKIN.
-
(http://i32.tinypic.com/dy8006.jpg)
-
Will you guys please not try to derail the thread with your shenanigans? Last time I checked, people here were actually trying to talk about something.
-
When you acknowledge that John Locke is actually Titus Flavius Vespasian. And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next.
-
(http://i32.tinypic.com/dy8006.jpg)
I assume thats Locke (Or whatever his name is) from lost, who looks sort of like that Roman Statue, statues looking like people from after it was made are common dude.
*Rerailing*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
The first time I've heard anything like this. For those of you who can't be bothered to read this... You're missing out on something that sounds like something out of a spy novel, rather then something actually done in real life. I never really did get the whole scientology thing, but having a past like this probably hasn't done them any favors.
Scientology and Anonymous? Damn I thought there was enough in the world with the KKK remnants and the Neo Nazis.
-
I assume thats Locke (Or whatever his name is) from lost, who looks sort of like that Roman Statue, statues looking like people from after it was made are common dude.
YOU LIE; INFIDEL
-
Scientology and Anonymous? Damn I thought there was enough in the world with the KKK remnants and the Neo Nazis.
ANON SHALL CONSUME YOU ALL [/sarcasm]
-
First of all, I don't really think that's their expressed viewpoint.
Ok, technically you're right. Their expressed viewpoint is that all black people should be slaves, and they can die if they don't want to. On the other hand, they are more than prepared to incite and perform acts of violence to further their cause.
Over here in Britain the inciting violence laws are stronger. You certainly wouldn't be allowed shock jocks or groups along the line of the KKK.
-
I think he she means true freedom, not democracy (democracy=freedom to an extent, freedom =/= democracy), as freedom fits into that statement a bit better and is more noticeably relevant.
Somewhat off-topic thoughtfodder: Can one really rely on a wiki article about an extremist group?
Fixed for gender correctness. ;D
No, I really was referring to democracy. A pure democracy is the rule, literally, of the people, where the people are themselves the governing body rather than having representatives for them (like the Senate). It's a greek idea that didn't work, which is why they ended up with oligarchies multiple times.
Pure democracy, like communism, can work great on a small scale, when an actual community is involved (hence, the name communism can be very appropriate). But once the group of people gets much larger than a small village or group of intentional community living folk, it becomes unworkable. And actually, in a small group like that, there are probably better ways to govern than pure democracy, because it's small enough that you can work on consensus-building and so forth.
Ok, technically you're right. Their expressed viewpoint is that all black people should be slaves, and they can die if they don't want to.
And they have every inalienable right to express that viewpoint if they want to.
On the other hand, they are more than prepared to incite and perform acts of violence to further their cause.
I think living in Britain, you may have a bit of an exaggerated notion of what the KKK is. They used to be a horrifying and dangerous terrorist group, now they're pretty much a social club for stupid rednecks. They're all talk. Once in a while some of them may do something criminal or threatening to minorities, but for the most part they're just sitting around and being obnoxious. And I think you're still missing the point I've been making, which is that opinions and actions are separate: even if someone's opinion leads them to certain illegal behaviors, you can't outlaw the opinion, only the behavior.
Over here in Britain the inciting violence laws are stronger. You certainly wouldn't be allowed shock jocks or groups along the line of the KKK.
As much as it seems nice not to have Ann Coulter and the KKK voicing their opinions, I'd much rather have that than have the government have the power to silence opinions just because they offend the majority. The first amendment is in my opinion the most important part of the US constitution, and unarguably defines a right that is absolutely fundamental to any free society.
-
What does anyone think about the Neo Nazis? I never really got to see any or research about them that much so I can't tell.
-
have the government have the power to silence opinions just because they offend the majority minority.
Fixed, in the case of the KKK (and other similar groups). And there is a motto, "majority rule, minority rights," which can be interpreted various ways.
Remember that the constitution is open to interpretation (talking now about the said amendments), particularly the earlier parts that use turn of phrases different from those we use today (such as the first), or were oirginally made without expecting modern developments. See Supreme Court. No part of the constitution is adamant and unbending. This is why there can actually a question over the second amendment. If that one is questionable, so are all others of the bill of rights.
-
If the majority are not horrified by the actions of the KKK then there is little hope for the country.
-
have the government have the power to silence opinions just because they offend the majority minority.
Fixed, in the case of the KKK (and other similar groups).
What's to fix? The views of the KKK offend most people (the majority).
Remember that the constitution is open to interpretation (talking now about the said amendments), particularly the earlier parts that use turn of phrases different from those we use today (such as the first), or were oirginally made without expecting modern developments. See Supreme Court. No part of the constitution is adamant and unbending. This is why there can actually a question over the second amendment. If that one is questionable, so are all others of the bill of rights.
OK, so the first amendment is questionable - as in, you can question it. But it's still THE most essential right for people to have and therefore the government's duty is to protect it. Anything but protection of free speech by a government amounts to the government having the right to choose certain opinions to censor, and that can never end well. It is simply a right that people should not be able to take from each other, via the government or any other way.
-
If the majority are not horrified by the actions of the KKK then there is little hope for the country.
Horrified? No. Rather not be associated with it, yes.
America, land of the supreme white. "We are superior to these lesser beings of different color!" (Get the connection? No? Too bad.)
-
"We are superior to these lesser beings of different color!" (Get the connection? No? Too bad.)
Is it a reference to the fate of soapmakers in DF?
-
When you acknowledge that John Locke is actually Titus Flavius Vespasian. And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next.
No. Seriously. You've pulled this shit before (I think) and it's really, really annoying seeing a thread with actual discussion getting derailed by idiocy for no reason.
-
No. Seriously.
why so serious?
You've pulled this shit before (I think)
you think? prove it.
and it's really, really annoying seeing a thread with actual discussion getting derailed by idiocy for no reason.
You dare call me an idiot :o? This matter shall be solved in the field of honor! *slap*
Actually, I'm going to be frank with you. I didnt even know that this thread had a specific topic because I saw the title and assumed that it was one of the other silly threads like "generic thread title". Given their aboundance I dont think I can be blamed for that.
-
^ So... you didn't read a thing?
-
Someone get back on topic.
So why does Scientology and Anonmyous hate eachother anyways?
-
Scientology: because Anonymous fucked with them
Anonymous: nothing better to do with their lives, so bandwagon onto a random cause
-
Anon hates repression, Scientology represses.
It's like 1 + 2 = 3, except 1 hates 2 and wants to destroy it utterly.
-
You say that like Anonymous isn't already a sething blob of hatred.
The reason Anon hates Scientology is because some time before, there was an interview with that famous celebrity (i forgot the name) that join them that was leaked out before editing, so Scientology made threats for the video to be taken down. the guys at Anon kept putting the video back up. Scientology tried to sue. It snowed balled from there.
-
Thats Tom Cruise I think.
-
Ya, that guy.
-
No. Seriously.
why so serious?
You've pulled this shit before (I think)
you think? prove it.
and it's really, really annoying seeing a thread with actual discussion getting derailed by idiocy for no reason.
You dare call me an idiot :o? This matter shall be solved in the field of honor! *slap*
Actually, I'm going to be frank with you. I didnt even know that this thread had a specific topic because I saw the title and assumed that it was one of the other silly threads like "generic thread title". Given their aboundance I dont think I can be blamed for that.
Yes, I can in fact blame you for not even reading the first post of the thread, or seemingly any of the others, before chiming in with irrelevant cruft.
-
yeah, and I can ignore your bitter complaints, but lets not be uncivil, shall we. Let's put a smile on that face :)
-
yeah, and I can ignore your bitter complaints, but lets not be uncivil, shall we. Let's put a smile on that face :)
I'd appreciate it if you two don't carry this any further in this thread. Take it to PMs if you need to, but I'd like the last mention of this in the thread to be this post.
-
yeah, and I can ignore your bitter complaints, but lets not be uncivil, shall we. Let's put a smile on that face :)
Well, it seems scones and tea are in order.
Anyone got cream?
-
(http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/images/dress-up/acc/monocle-goldthread.jpg)
I do say sir, that tea would be lovely!
-
(http://msp226.photobucket.com/albums/dd106/rickyhai/Non%20-%20Non%20CowBoy%20-Hat/Cowboy.jpg)
Someone tell me why the hell british are here?