What's new
By:
Filters

ESMB and The Freezone - let's have it out!

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this talk about "who's next?" and "my rights" and "free speech" is pure obfuscation I say! Emma made it quite clear in her OP what her concerns are.

Emma the Board owner said:
ESMB and The Freezone - let's have it out!

Recently I have had reason to question the easy going stance on ESMB to the Freezone.

I have read certain threads that concern me, have received a number of PMs from concerned members and visited a FZ forum and recieved an interesting "welcome".

Originally I decided that FZers were welcome here because fundamentally they are Ex Scientologists. Now I have some reasons to be concerned about this apparent "affiliation" with the FZ and a perception that ESMB is a recruiting ground for and/or a free advertising venue to a larger audience for the FZ.

I haven't made any decision regarding this as yet and I'm looking for some feedback. Please don't get hysterical about this. I'm really after some thought out responses.

I want to know what you all think.
Click to expand...

I think and have heard from many other ex-scientologists that esmb is developing the reputation of being a freezone board.

Freezoners have their own boards and even their own sections on this board where they can debate the finer points of the "tech". Who of even the many factions of the Freezone let alone different eras of scientologists know what the real "tech" even is? If they even bothered to research the original source of Hubbard's plagiarizations they would not be picking through Hubbards diarrhea for hershy kisses.
 
nw2394 said:
Also, "recovery" is not all about turning your back on Scio - or at least it isn't for a lot of people. One needs the full width of experiences and viewpoints.

Nick
Click to expand...

I agree.

I've needed to be reminded by the pro-scios from time to time about things that I had forgotten were true.

When you surround yourself with only one set of ideas, like, "we hate Scientology", and you shut out all dissent to that stance, then you are never challenged in your beliefs. And for the same reason that Churchies are too often pinheaded idiots who can only espouse bumper stickers, Critics and Anonymous become the same.

The answer is never less speech, fewer viewpoints, and more conformity.

Didn't we learn that after the Cult?
 
Ladybird said:
....

I think and have heard from many other ex-scientologists that esmb is developing the reputation of being a freezone board.
Click to expand...

For anyone who thinks ESMB is a Freezone board, have them read this thread.

Then tell us ESMB is a Freezone board.
 
Ladybird said:
All this talk about "who's next?" and "my rights" and "free speech" is pure obfuscation I say! Emma made it quite clear in her OP what her concerns are.



I think and have heard from many other ex-scientologists that esmb is developing the reputation of being a freezone board.

Freezoners have their own boards and even their own sections on this board where they can debate the finer points of the "tech". Who of even the many factions of the Freezone let alone different eras of scientologists know what the real "tech" even is? If they even bothered to research the original source of Hubbard's plagiarizations they would not be picking through Hubbards diarrhea for hershy kisses.
Click to expand...

Then let them get their asses over here and change it! Jesus, does being an ex-scientologist mean you get to stand on the balcony while the Germans march through? If I were you I'd say pluck, have pluck, my dear sir.

But then I'm not you.
 
Alanzo said:
I agree.

I've often needed to be reminded by the pro-scios from time to time about things that I had forgotten were true.

When you surround yourself with only one set of ideas, like, "we hate Scientology", and you shut out all dissent to that stance, then you are never challenged in your beliefs. And for the same reason that Churchies are too often pinheaded idiots who can only espouse bumper stickers, Critics and Anonymous become the same.

The answer is never less speech, fewer viewpoints, and more conformity.

Didn't we learn that after the Cult?
Click to expand...

My problem is that I'm willing to talk about the tech at the drop of a hat. I'll talk about anything, ask about anything, and accept good points made by people who honestly engage. This is why I respect alex (an actual active Scientologist) and fluffy and to a large degree Terril (as of today) as well.

What pisses me off are the recidivists who aren't interested in open discussion, they're afraid of the questions.

Should I be the only one who has an open mind?
 
Escalus said:
My problem is that I'm willing to talk about the tech at the drop of a hat. I'll talk about anything, ask about anything, and accept good points made by people who honestly engage. This is why I respect alex (an actual active Scientologist) and fluffy and to a large degree Terril (as of today) as well.

What pisses me off are the recidivists who aren't interested in open discussion, they're afraid of the questions.

Should I be the only one who has an open mind?
Click to expand...

Yes.

We're up to 870.
 
Escalus said:
My problem is that I'm willing to talk about the tech at the drop of a hat. I'll talk about anything, ask about anything, and accept good points made by people who honestly engage. This is why I respect alex (an actual active Scientologist) and fluffy and to a large degree Terril (as of today) as well.

What pisses me off are the recidivists who aren't interested in open discussion, they're afraid of the questions.

Should I be the only one who has an open mind?
Click to expand...

It takes a while to find the Scientologists who are not pinheaded and who will engage, and listen, and consider.

And they will also come up with some good points from time to time.

Those three you mentioned do that regularly.

A typical Churchie comes to this board and doesn't even read anything while their eyes skim across the posts. In their mind they are saying, "DBs! SPs! PTSes!" and that's all they see.

Typical Churchies are not the only human beings susceptible to such thinking and behavior.

It happens on both sides of the fence.
 
Alanzo said:
It takes a while to find the Scientologists who are not pinheaded and who will engage, and listen, and consider.

And they will also come up with some good points from time to time.

Those three you mentioned do that regularly.

A typical Churchie comes to this board and doesn't even read anything while their eyes skim across the posts. In their mind they are saying, "DBs! SPs! PTSes!" and that's all they see.

Typical Churchies are not the only human beings susceptible to such thinking and behavior.
Click to expand...

I was brought up to think that intellectual rigor is a good thing. And that sometimes means energetic engagement. The School at Oxford built an entire style of debating that is valid to this day. There's lots of people in the world - mostly whose arteries are already hardening - who mistake my aggressive questioning for abject belligerence. It's not so.

I would like to be shown a time here where energetic engagement + intellectual rigor got me to just go ad hominem on someone confronting me. That's when I start to GO.
 
Escalus said:
I was brought up to think that intellectual rigor is a good thing. And that sometimes means energetic engagement. The School at Oxford built an entire style of debating that is valid to this day. There's lots of people in the world - mostly whose arteries are already hardening - who mistake my aggressive questioning for abject belligerence. It's not so.

I would like to be shown a time here where energetic engagement + intellectual rigor got me to just go ad hominem on someone confronting me. That's when I start to GO.
Click to expand...
So you mean that someone used a logical fallacy in a debate with you?

And you were unable to handle it?
 
nexus100 said:
Then let them get their asses over here and change it! Jesus, does being an ex-scientologist mean you get to stand on the balcony while the Germans march through? If I were you I'd say pluck, have pluck, my dear sir.

But then I'm not you.
Click to expand...

godwins-law-9796.jpg
 
Mick Wenlock said:
I have to admit that, while I despise the pseudo-science/religion that is scientology I am loathe to have rules that shut anyone up. Bear with me

In Scientology (and I guess I should emphasize I am referring to the Davy Navy here) members cannot talk freely, think freely, listen freely to anything that may expose them to something other than the approved rubbish.

Part of getting oneself OUT of that mindset and that programming is being willing to argue and listen to points of view one disagrees with.

There are, believe it or not, people who are out, out, out of Scientology who still think that the "ARC" triangle actually has some merit or that looking a word up in a dictionary is applying study dreck. Only by argumentation and examination does this crap get exposed.

So I guess, in the end, I think that an "ex" board needs to be the opposite of the cult. It needs to be open and disputatious - which it pretty much has been up to now.

While I disagree with Cat's Squirrel I would not wish to see her stop posting or arguing and defending her position.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'm actually a bloke. I think I should call myself Tomcat's Squirrel, might resolve some of the confusion. :) My username is a play on the word "squirrel" and also a homage to 60's rock (it's a track by Cream).

What I'd like to ask you is this;

You clearly take a very absolutist line on this, which I'll paraphrase thus; Scn is complete s**te and anyone who believes in it are fools and w***ers (clearly including me).

Nevertheless, some people believe they have made gains with the Tech. How do you account for that? And if they're deluded, why are they more deluded than people who have made gains with any other kind of counselling or therapy?
 
Cat's Squirrel said:
Thanks, but I'm actually a bloke. I think I should call myself Tomcat's Squirrel, might resolve some of the confusion. :) My username is a play on the word "squirrel" and also a homage to 60's rock (it's a track by Cream).

What I'd like to ask you is this;

You clearly take a very absolutist line on this, which I'll paraphrase thus; Scn is complete s**te and anyone who believes in it are fools and w***ers (clearly including me).

Nevertheless, some people believe they have made gains with the Tech. How do you account for that? And if they're deluded, why are they more deluded than people who have made gains with any other kind of counselling or therapy?
Click to expand...

Because Scientology is more deluded than other kinds of counseling or therapy. Duh!
 
I think you're being ironic here, but that one is a circular argument; Scientology is deluded, therefore people who think they have made gains with Scn are deluded.
 
Cat's Squirrel said:
I think you're being ironic here, but that one is a circular argument; Scientology is deluded, therefore people who think they have made gains with Scn are deluded.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No one can prove anything about anybody. Perhaps the best you can do with someone is love them. And that is a tall tall task that it seems few are up to, possibly because no one knows if that is really the solution. Love across the board sends the game into nowhereland, too. At this point I am not able to get there. Maybe someday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top