EVIL - I don't get it

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Auditor's Toad, Jan 10, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron


    By the way...Otto was neither wuss nor weenie...he coulda turned Hisself's headlights out in a heart beat.:coolwink:

    Face:)
     
  2. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud

    I was talking about the old man, not Otto. I know Otto was not a weenie.

    dM is more like a mini me of hiself than anything else.
     
  3. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    Oh, by the way...as long we're at it re: "Otto's chops incident"::whistling:

    That was the last time anyone tried to use the full quiver of "Standard Tech" on El Ron until Mayo was rushed to Hisself's bedside.:melodramatic:

    El Ron "handled" the L1 R/Ses Otto was gonna handle in Hisself's case by the KNOTS "Tech" breakthrough re: R/Ses and OT's.:coolwink:

    With stroke of Hisself's Majick Wand El Ron was, yet again, off one of the "hooks" El Ron had created to catch whomever of us Hisself wished to, whenever he pleased.:yes:

    Face:)
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  4. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    This sort of comment gives me the creeps. I will explain why.

    First, Scientology is a "body of data". Some PART of it can be used in as many ways as there are people using some apsect of it. I know some very nice people, who don't harm anybody, and who use some part(s) of Scientology in their lives and with others. That is OBSERVABLY TRUE (unless you choose to wear self-inflicted blinders just like Church of Scientology members do). Scientology is a "subject", and while it most surely contains SOME "data" that when applied DOES most surely cause harm, it also contains more than a tiny amount of "data" that when applied does not cause harm and actually causes some good.

    A body of data, in a very real sense, is "neutral", like a pistol. It depends entirely on what you DO with it.

    Second, the statement is an incredible generality. Scientology as the "church"? Scientology as the "subject"? Scientology as a wonderful little essay such as "Personal Integrity"? Scientology as a horrible "policy" such as "attack all critics"? Those statements above are exactly the type that come out of the mouths of complete totalitarian lunatics. Such as "Jews themselves are the real evil", or "Christianity itself is the real evil". Just fill in the blank:

    (_____________) is the real evil.

    Third, the view is entirely unfounded, being based on an extremely one-sided view. This IS a major problem with the CHURCH of Scientology, and with the KSW policies that create and foreward this nutty attitude:

    The attitude that WE are right and good, and that anyone who views us as anything other than that is wrong and bad.

    That is the prevailing attitude demanded of anyone who remains active in the Church of Scientology. Of course, it is not at all an attitude demanded of or held by many folks outside of the Church who choose to practice some selected parts of or some water-down version of Scientology. You do THOSE nice and decent people a great disservice making the above wide-sweeping (stupid) statement.

    All totalitarian regimes take the view that THEY HOLD THE ONLY TRUE PATH (whether that be political or religious). It is THAT aspect of the Church of Scientology that first began to disgust me with how they behave, and that is a very REAL aspect to what is very wrong with the Church. They take the view that all else is evil in some sweeping generality, just as the above post also does.

    I am not willing to tolerate such one-sided fanatical attitudes from the Church of Scientology, and I am not willing to tolerate it here by some "critic". And, I think I have more than earned my credentials as a legitimate "critic" of both the Church of Scientology and of various aspects of the subject of Scientology.

    The statement "Scientology itself is the real evil" is just so absurd. It takes a real lazy mind to make such a statement (it being such a glaringly obvious generality of the highest order). And like all generalities it completely misses and ignores any details that contradict the statement.

    There is a VERY GREAT deal wrong with the Church of Scientology, and with the subject materials that Hubbard created. There is so much of that in fact that intelligent people could talk about just THOSE THINGS for many months and years. But the "devil" is in the details.

    Making statements like the above make some aspect of ESMB appear, at least to any slightly intelligent person, as fanatical and one-sided itself, exactly like the Church of Scientology.

    Who or what might want ESMB to appear in that way? :omg:

    I reiterate, do always expose the MANY unsavory aspects of the behavior of the Church of Scientology and the subject of Scientology, but leave the positive aspects alone (there ARE some), and allow those who choose to involve themselves with it in some way OUTSIDE of the Church framework alone.

    And, differentiate. For God's sake DIFFERENTIATE!

    There is nothing that is wholly "evil", just as there is nothing that is wholly "good". At least not outside of a lazy, uncritical mind.

    +
     
  5. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud


    And look at the gratitude each got from hisself.

    Fried is a reward...........right?
     
  6. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    I gotcha straightaway...sorry I wasn't clear...I was just lettin' folks that may not have known or been around Otto that he was one tough customer...and El Ron knew it and Hisself's fear of "The Tech" and others, and Otto's complete resolve in applying it as written, made the Old Frog jump.

    Face:)
     
  7. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    Let me get this straight. Blip states that $cientology is evil. Gad, you state that his statement is a broad generality of intellectual laziness. So every statement made on ESMB is to have an in depth analysis because a generality will miss some good in a stated evil? And this generality is a poor reflection of ESMB? Are you for real?
     
  8. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    I think it was the "scientology itself is the real evil" that did it.
    Gadfly is correct in saying that it is, oddly enough, almost exactly how scientologists think and talk about "them".
    Scientologists routinely say simplistic things like "The Reactive Mind is the real evil", "Psychs are the real evil", "non-scientologists are..." oh, OK, they don't usually say that! LOL :D
     
  9. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud

    I really get what you are saying, and, you are in essence right.

    Perhaps I should retire from posting all together. I am absolutely not going to split every last hair in the universe - or even in the topic of scn.

    I do not have the time or inclination to write at least a chapter of a book with every post. I have no desire to type a book and my attention and priorities extend well beyond a chatboard.

    And I do not feel on a chatboard the same level of preciseness and exactness of words as is required under oath on the witness stand in a federal court.

    Ya'll that have the time to disect a wing off a gnat..go for it... swatting 'em in the air is good enough for me . And do NOT forget the dox on the death of the gnat !

    This has become to precise a game to be worth playing.

    Find new players, I'm played out.
     
  10. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    Ok, gotcha.
     
  11. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud

    generalities

    yes, scientologists speak in the broadest generalities ( like "wogs" ) and act as if ehat they are saying is a proclamarion of universal truth ( mildly arrogant? ) but anyone else who says anything that fit for the preciseness and exactness of an expert witness on the stand in a federal trial? Shoot that bastard for speaking in generalities !

    Nothing bugs a scientologist more than generalities !
    Why, they speak generalities ( and think you don't notice ).
     
  12. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Yes Panda, it WAS the one line that got me and gets me on this and other boards (whether for or against).

    I will add that generalities serve no purpose, other than possibly playing into the hands of the other side. You will never convice a jury to find "Scientology guilty" because "Scientology is evil".

    You will only find the Church of Scientolgy of some Church member guilty of any actual specific and real crime (an action in the physical universe).

    In fact, if anyone cares to take the time to examine the use of "slogans" and generalities as used by control groups of all sorts (religions, political parties, Madison Avenue advertizing firms), the generality is almost always used to elicit some emotional response. And that is does indeed.

    Talk about what the C of S REALLY does do that causes harm. There is enough of that to fill one or many books.

    Also, I don't spend much time writing these things. I do it off the top of my head, I use a spell-checker and Google as needed, and I am well-organized in my thougths. I in no way "compose" my posts. They just flow out of me quite quickly. I also have many other interests and involvements. :yes:

    +
     
  13. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    That is SO very true. They are very much the pot calling the kettle black.

    "All psychs are evil". (not true if you take the time to look)

    "Anyone criticising us MUST have crimes". (not true if you take the time to look)

    My suggestion to Church members is, don't throw stones when you live in a very fragile glass house.

    +
     
  14. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud

    chatboard = courtroom.

    :: yawn :: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
  15. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

    Fair enuff - to clarify my position: the practise of Scientology is evil.

    You seem to have conflated my position in regard to Scientolgy with my position on ScientologISTS. For the record, and once again:

    This is what makes the practise of Scientology evil. It robs society of the potential for good that these people might otherwise be able to contribute and it makes fine people do evil things by exploiting their inherent goodness.

    First the cult . . . then KSW. After that, who knows? Perhaps some good might come but, by then and by its own definition it will no longer be Scientology. Yippeeee!!
     
  16. anonymous1312

    anonymous1312 Patron with Honors

    The question is flawed because it presumes that one "snaps" in to being evil when in fact this does not happen.


    No, this is scientology thought stopping in action; thought stopping is designed to stop you asking the question you have, you are meant to accept that someone "snaps" in to being "evil" without question because in scientology doubt is bad and requires ethics handling so you are not meant to question this concept.

    You are partially out of the "thought trap" in so much as you have asked for help understanding it (you expressed doubt), however the fact you have asked is testament to how far you're are still in.

    Understand this, no one "snaps" in to being "evil" as described therefore to ask how one does is illogical. The whole concept is bollocks (a construct of scientology doctrine).

    We could have a lengthy debate about the nature of evil and how one might "snap" in to it but understand this: your doubt is rational, so keep doubting - keep asking questions, never accept any concept on face value unless you can fully understand properly (i.e. by cross reference, confirmation with independent sources, experimentation or satisfying your own scepticism and definitely not by word clearing alone - another thought stopping mechanism).
     
  17. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    It seems that you missed Toady's point. Maybe I did too. But it seems to me what he was indicating is just how weird it is that all of these very many people, who YOU may have thought to be "good", "decent", "upstat" or "all right people", continually are discovered to be "SPs" in the Church.

    Or, even that the Church itself trains and audits so many people, people who pay lots of money, people who work tirelessly for the Church, people who get out products day after day, and then suddenly, WHAM, the slick and non-stop "SP detection machinery" of the Church of Scientology suddenly and quite amazingly (because SPs are SO SLICK and have such amazing abilities to remain hidden) detects and labels another one! How can anyone watch that year after year and stay affiliated with the crazy organization? :confused2:

    The point is that the whole charade of "discovering SP after SP", in the especially wonderful way that Miscavige's Church does, is a BIG PRETENSE. These people weren't actually "evil" all along, and it is only the LABEL of "evil" that is new.

    Basically, anytime a person begins to question any aspect of Hubbard or the C of S, they eventually get tossed out (declared as an SP). That is the REAL mechanics of it all. The whole program is a joke!

    +
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2011
  18. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud

    Yep. The whole mechanism of an SP declare is keeping the sheep in the flock.
     
  19. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Yep, this is how they look:

    [​IMG]

    And, after a few years they turn into this (lemmings):

    [​IMG]

    +
     
  20. bts2free

    bts2free Patron with Honors

    Scientology the buffet

    To start, sorry for TL,DR. I feel this is important for me to say on this valuable and interesting thread, but also in light of some of the opinions of late being stated on this forum. Seems there has been recent upset for people stating their opinions about Scientology. Please allow me to state my opinion, which is not meant to upset anyone, but that I feel is relevant.

    In Scientology, behind every non-optimum situation you'll discover a Why and a WHO. That's ingrained into the system.

    It's also an essential duty of the Ethics Officer or MAA to locate SP's on the org's lines and remove them to protect the "good guys."

    As well, every Scientologist is required to write up reports on people considered to be involved in what's deemed by Scientology to be out-ethics, which includes anyone talking negatively about Scientology, the Church, it's Founder or it's members.

    People who are deemed to have other-intentions or counter-intentions are the targets for handling or removal.

    Yes, Scientology is a broad subject. To say there is nothing good in it is a broad stroke. However, there are some people who look at Scientology as a whole package (which is what the Founder himself intended it to be). Scientology was not and never was intended to be a buffet. It is an 8 course dinner served with the intention that you eat and savor every bite, and you can't be excused from the table until you're done (yet there really seems to be no end...) Those who don't like their veggies, leave scraps or put bones aside are scorned and either leave the table or are forced to. To boot, adding your own condiments to the meal is definitely an insult to the entire kitchen, especially the chef.

    For those of you spending your time trying to cherry pick truths or data, or pulling raisins out of a turd, I wish you the best of luck. But I would hope someday, some will wake up and realize that those raisins were intentionally put there to cover up and hide the bad taste so that you would eat the entire piece.

    Hundreds if not thousands of lives over the years have been damaged or destroyed because of Scientology (the whole package). If someone feels that knowing about and using ARC is helpful to them. Fine. If people want to audit themselves or others and find benefit in that, great. But realize, these "truthiness" aspects of Scientology are only there as hooks to lure you into the system of Scientology and get you trapped in the mouse wheel.

    I applaud anyone who only allowed them self to go so far and get away without getting fully trapped like so many of us did.

    For me, and I'm sure there are others like me, I can't look at Scientology without looking at the entire package as it was intended by the Founder. We couldn't do that while we were IN, so why should we do that while we're OUT? Especially those of us who were on staff or in the Sea Org and lived the entire thing? My family was nearly ruined because of it, and I lost some of the most important years of my life. It astonishes me that there are still true believers who went through the entire system and left, who still believe that Scientology is pure greatness (but was turned black). That's a fallacy.

    I really do understand when someone says that "Scientology is EVIL" because I recognize that that person is referring to the entire structure and package, not particular raisins. The raisin picking is the job of the Independents and Freezoners IMO - quite a task if you ask me.

    What is IS. You are already a part of life right NOW. You don't need to pay any amount of money or give up your life to be a part of the universal evolution of consciousness that is already playing out and happening right NOW. Just BE, because we're all making it with, or without Scientology.

    The one valuable truth that Scientology ever got right IMO, was that you are eternal (not your body). Scientology lied to your face from the beginning that there was something wrong with you and that you were already in a trap. That's the big lie IMO. Essentially, you're paying $$$ to get out of a fabricated trap that was never there in the first place.

    Again, these are my opinions, but maybe it will be understood that when some of us condemn Scientology, it's the whole package being referred to for the most part, unless someone is trying to explain how a piece of Tech like a Type III handling (Introspection Rundown) is destructive. We really don't care if you've decided on an personal basis to apply Tech to your life if it benefits you. That's not something I think anyone here is even remotely concerned about.

    Cheers,
    John
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2011