Tribalism within Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Mimsey Borogrove, Oct 13, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Alright, here is the grok.

    You posted a commentary about the 2 internal aspects of a tribe...the 2 tribes within a tribe. One is hawkish and the other is nurturing and they are diametrically opposed but both are necessary for survival.

    You ascribe this as to being conservative and liberal.

    I posted that that assessment is way off base...whether or not these two aspects exist or not it is not that anti government solution conservatives are hawkish, warlike and non nurturing. That's not it. However, this is a consistent strain in yours and liberal's thoughts. I say this because when I've been critical of something you've gone up in arms over how can I be so callous and uncaring, etc. This thought pattern goes right in line with these two aspects of hawkish vs nurturing.

    But this is not what conservatives are or what conservatism is. The problem possibly lay with government choice of words. For instance: The Affordable Care Act, "welfare", Planned Parenthood, etc. This means being critical of a government program such as welfare equates to you that a person is critical of actual welfare instead of a government program. I've seen this in shanic where criticism of Black Lives Matter equals to shanic that a person doesn't think black lives matter.

    So this went round and round with you where I'm saying that conservatives aren't anti nurturing.

    Conservatives are against government as a solution. They are against setting up a bureaucracy to handle something. They are against taxes and expenditure by bureaucrats to resolve an issue because of enantiodromia or whatever you want to call it but it's a disease where the government, not caring or tied to personal outcome or results because of lack of private property ownership, is the trustee of some echelon of society and they're against this because of the dismal failure of results every single time when this is done.

    Whenever these views get stated liberals immediately start in with these accusations that conservatives are against nurturing or protecting or helping or assisting. Lately this has gone to the extreme that if a conservative states that minimum wage has been proven over and over to be destructive to the poor then they are immediately accused of racism, sexism, bigotry, anti gay phobia. Crazy shit.

    The point is not between those hawkish non caring warmongerers and the nurturing aspect of welfare and help. The point is between an effective solution that demonstrably works and a proven ineffectual solution that worsens the problem.

    If I believed, personally, that bloodletting cured people of ailments and then my kid got sick and I started in with the bloodletting and you tried to reason with me that I was worsening the child's health by bloodletting and I started screaming at you that you don't care, you're greedy, you're a racist with privilege, you're sexist, you're a bigot and anti-gay would you grok that then?

    This is what myself and others have been posting for years now on the Trump thread and others.

    This latest book I know nothing about but the video discussion from 59:00 to 1:08 specifically talks about these two factions making each other out to be a threat to democracy. This discussion assumes that these two factions, which they consider to be conservative and liberal, are mistaken.

    I don't believe that that is true as a premise. I personally believe that the progressive liberal agenda is a direct threat to democracy. I believe this for multiple reasons but one of the clearest, starkest examples is Antifa rioting over LEGAL elections. Where does that ever happen but to subvert a country into despotic rule? Tiananmen Square is exactly the opposite of this. The U.S. and French revolutions were exactly the opposite of this.

    Not a single liberal media outlet considers these riots, intimidations and violence to be threatening to democracy but they howl incessantly about Russian interference.

    I don't know how else to state this. I've used umpteen examples and postings, etc. and it always comes back with you not getting it. Even with your post where you're talking about unbridled corporate wrecking of the environment for profit. Having the government minimized is not the same as no government. Reducing government growth and keeping it limited is not the same as no government. The private sector should be allowed to handle social problems.

    My personal belief is that social programs are used to bribe for votes for a duplicitous party that wishes to subvert the government for despotic purposes.
     
  2. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased


    Try this:

    Progressive
    1)An epitaph for a radical-liberal or socialist.​
    2)Someone whose pneumatic demagoguery tends to cloud their judgment.​
    3)Someone who makes acyrologia of the words "logic" and "science."​
    4)Someone who believes all Scandinavian propaganda on how great socialism is, yet fails to realize how authoritarian things have become there.​
    5)People who ignore the +100 million who have died under socialist rule.​
    6)People who protest the killing and eating of animals while they vacuum out a human fetus from their/their girlfriends uterus.​
    7)Have lived off their parents until their late 20's early 30's.​
    8)Someone who thinks the government can fix everything by forcing people to be good at gun point.​
    9)A plague of dogmatism.​
    "Those Nazis' sure were progressive."​

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Progressive

    Conservative: I believe in personal responsibility and smaller government

    Progressive: You racist hate-monger

    Conservative: You said you believed in equal rights for everybody

    Progressive: Racist! You should die!
     
  3. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor

    ..
    Okay, Mimsey.

    Out of the charity of holiday season, I'll try to help you with a clue. . .

    CUT TO: TV TALK SHOW IN PROGRESS

    PAULETTE COOPER
    ..and then Scientology tried to frame me for bomb threats so
    that I would be convicted of terrorism and sent to federal prison.
    At the same time Scientology tried to drive me insane so that
    I would be committed to an insane asylum if they failed to
    drive me to commit suicide! Scientology is a criminally
    insane cult that defrauds, damages & destroys!

    OSA THUG
    That's an outrageous lie! Right here I have a dictionary that
    defines the word "Scientology". It states right here in black and white that:
    "Scientology is the only game in the universe where everyone wins!"
    What exactly is the problem with the definition I looked up?
    .
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  4. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Mimsey,
    These are good points. The problem with definitions (and built-in assumptions) has to do with who is making the definition, as I pointed out. Technically, if you want to know how a conservative thinks, one should understand what their definition of conservatism is.

    As a disclaimer, I am not a conservative, liberal, progressive, democrat, republican, libertarian, green, etc., etc. I agree with bits of just about every group, and disagree with most of their drivel. OK, that being said, what is wrong with your definitions -- or any definitions?

    Progressive, as defined by progressives is as you quoted:
    Note the nice sounding parts: "advocating progress", "improvement". Who could object?

    And this nice bit about the difference between progressives and liberals:
    Here we have two assumptions: Liberals want to use taxpayer money to "help better society" and progressives want to use government power to "make large institutions play by a set of rules". Doesn't that sound great?

    And conservatives, your assumption seems to be that conservatives oppose "clean air, un-polluted rivers, environmentally sound treatment of toxic waste", want an unregulated building industry so "buildings collapse" and even desire "anarchy".

    All these definitions are from one viewpoint (leftish). And that illogic is called "begging the question". The premises (definitions) presuppose the conclusion that progressives/liberals are good and conservatives are bad. The conclusion is built in -- conservatives are bad.

    Let's modify the definitions:
    Liberals focus on using taxpayer money to help better society force society to change in the way liberals want it changed.
    Progressives want to use government to make large institutions force everyone to play by a set rules that progressives define.

    Note that these are neutral. I don't pass judgement on the goals liberals and progressives are working for, I just note that they are the ones defining "better" and they are the ones defining which "rules" must be followed.

    Then perhaps a too-short definition:
    Conservatives want less government and a more originalist interpretation of the US Constitution. This doesn't preclude government regulations but desires a "light touch" approach.

    To make it, perhaps, too simple: Conservatives trust the average person, hence people should be left alone as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Progressives and liberals don't trust the average person, hence we need strong government control so that everyone behaves "correctly". How a person votes depends on how they view the average person.
     
  5. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Here's a must see for liberals. The choir will enjoy this sermon, too.



    Great comments:

    So socialism in a nutshell: get rid of the rich so everybody can be poor​
     
  6. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased



    Yuri Besmenov
     
  7. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Bill - thank you for taking the time to explain. Where I have a problem, is that we live in an industrial age, that can have very bad things happen. When the constitution was written, it was a horse and buggy country. True, men could wreck the environment, but not on the scale we do.

    Italy was once covered with great oak trees. They were cut down to build Roman galleys. England much the same with their need for the lumber for their ships of the line. We slaughtered how many tribes in north and south America, Africa, etc.? There's a vast number of similar examples on that smaller scale.

    A vast portion of the Gulf of Mexico is dead due to fertilizer run off, because we abandoned crop rotation. Toxic tailings ponds from industrial waste failing. The flint water was so polluted it burned. The rain forest is being decimated. On and on.

    I think history has proven we need regulations to keep things in check.

    I agree with this: "To make it, perhaps, too simple: Conservatives trust the average person, hence people should be left alone as long as they aren't hurting anyone. " However, I do not extend that same trust to the large corporations. Their past track record is evidence enough, they need laws to check their worst impulses, and those laws need to be enforced.

    Mimsey
     
  8. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I 100% agree. When a corporation, a company or an individual has harmed others they must be stopped and there must be consequences. No argument.

    But I also believe in the corollary: When a corporation, a company or an individual has not harmed others, the government must not impose penalties just because some other corporation, company or individual did cause harm.

    Today's government doesn't operate like that. Many, many, many companies are burdened with onerous regulations, forms, requirements and rules just because a few companies caused harm or just because. Anyone who owns or has owned a business knows the useless regulations are a major cost and a terrible burden.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    This is statutory law vs common law. Someone shoots someone and a statute is passed that makes possession of a firearm illegal for everyone. Everyone is punished for the infraction.

    Statutes can't think...they can't reason. A perfect example was the Scientology one of pairing up to watch films. If you read the HCOPL he's yapping about not tying up the film room for a single student...meaning that other paying students are delayed while a single film is shown so the films are supposed to be rotated with the entire student body watching them in rotation, etc. That means if a film is on your checksheet you go watch it when it's rotated with all the other students that have it on their checksheets.

    The problem arises where you have only 1 single student. First of all, with no students there's no films being shown equals there's no rotation. In this scenario there's no reason for not allowing a single student to watch their film because no one else is bumped and there's no hogging the film room. But, because the rule is that you can't tie up the film room because of a single student I've spent weeks waiting for a twin to watch a film. The entire time the film room was empty with no films playing.

    It's that stupid. The statute may make sense in a crowded academy but is entirely stupid in an empty one and the very condition it was supposed to prevent is created by following it...mainly that students have to wait an inordinate delay to watch a film.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
  10. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    This is because the larger the group the lower the ethics. This is a known principle and you can run across it in the Prager video I posted.

    This is why I'm not happy with corporations being recognized legally as people because they have no conscience. It's also why you don't want big central government involved because of the same thing.
     
  11. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Law enforcement on a case by case basis. A good idea. I took a layman law course once - the teacher discussed the intent of the law VS. the letter of the law. It is a difficult concept for many to understand or apply. Example:

    Dallas Officer Detains NFL Player Rushing to Dying Mother-in-Law's Bedside

    DALLAS – A police officer was placed on administrative leave Thursday over a traffic stop involving an NFL player whom he kept in a hospital parking lot and threatened to arrest while his mother-in-law died inside the building.
    Officer Robert Powell also drew his gun during the March 18 incident involving Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats in the Dallas suburb of Plano, police said.
    "I can screw you over," he said at one point in the videotaped incident. When another officer came with word that Moats' mother-in-law was indeed dying, Powell's response was: "All right. I'm almost done.

    https://www.foxnews.com/story/dalla...layer-rushing-to-dying-mother-in-laws-bedside

    It seems to me, it would be tough to enforce, as many would try to use chicanery to do an end-run around it. But it is a good ideal - in a way it is much like the concept of looking at a criminal's record - is he / she a first time offender or has a long rap sheet.

    But, here I have a question: Let's say there is a law that has stiff fines, requirements to 100% clean up the damage at the company's own expense. etc. for any company that pollutes a river. As long as a company doesn't pollute any rivers, the company hasn't broken any laws, isn't that company achieving the result you envision?

    And when they hire a new guy who dumps tons of toxic waste into the river shouldn't the company pay the price whether it's a first offence or a continuing repeat offender?

    I can see getting rid of stupid, useless, hampering regulations however isn't what you propose in effect being done by existing laws? If you never run a red light, you never get a ticket, right? Or am I being simplistic?

    In our airports we see exactly the behavior you protest - law enforcement against the many because of trying to apprehend the lowest common denominator. Prior to the current system I took a mounted deer head on a cross the country flight in coach. I carried it on board with me. Good luck with trying that now.

    Mimsey
     
  12. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  13. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Of course, how else would you handle it?
    You appear to be arguing both sides, which is good. That's a good way to explore an idea.

    You've got the basic idea I was talking about: As the government tries to control every possibility of harm before it can happen, it burdens everyone, especially businesses with more and more and more requirements, rules, forms, regulations and who knows what. This is punishment on people and companies that have done no harm -- much like the TSA treating everyone like a terrorist.

    In theory, stopping any possibility of harm before it can happen is a good thing. In practice, it creates a huge burden on the economy with useless requirements "just in case". I've seen and heard many stories of companies that were actually put out of business due to rules and regulations that, in truth, didn't even apply to that business.

    The concept is simple, if people are harmed, deal with that company, situation, person who caused the harm. Otherwise, be nice to the good companies and people who do no harm. Of course, in practice, is isn't necessarily that simple.
     
  14. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    This goes hand in hand with Common Law and innocent until proven guilty. Common Law assumes that man is basically good and innocent and has to have something occur before it gets involved. Then you have to have a victim as an accuser who must demonstrate a loss of something in order to establish guilt. Only then do you have an issue.

    Statutory Law assumes that man is basically bad and not innocent and must maintain statutes in order to ensure or preserve or establish innocence. Here one doesn't have to have anything occur...no loss need be established. All we have to have is a statute violation and a punishment is rendered. There exists no victim. This is "inspection before the fact". If you don't wear your seat belt then you pay a fine.

    The Founding Fathers were death on victimless crimes. They hated them and felt these were one of the greatest threats to Liberty. And, today, we stock our prisons full of dope smokers. Where's the victim? If they're selling to minors that's a different story but consenting adults then it's on them. The same goes for prostitution, gambling, etc.
     
  15. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

  16. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    It's a business masquerading as a religion.

    It's controversial because, to an outsider (and eventually to most scientologists) it's clearly a con and because it is so vicious, controlling and nasty in general.

    I could never have answered those questions a scientologist but it's very easy to do so now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  17. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor

    A "Loyal Officer" (severely indoctrinated cult zombie) posted the following answer.


    That is a perfect showcase of how the modern science of mental health turns ordinary people into mentally ill cult members.

    The guy can't actually answer the question. He can only "quote Source".

    Because he doesn't want to give verbal data, LOL

    And because he wants to "connect other beings to Source".

    That's why Scientology is so controversial----because Scientology is a massive mythed withhold. When Scientologists are dangerously on the verge of discovering that it's all a myth, they send each other to Ethics. LOL