Is every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard false?

[kate8024]

Some have stated that every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard is false. This thread is about doing a proper dependency evaluation on statements made by Hubbard to determine if this is, in fact, the case.

I'll start with this one:

Statement: "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival."
Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 25
Dependencies: None, this is a stand-alone passage.
True, false, or opinion?: Opinion

If you believe the above passage is provable to be false, please explain your reasoning.

 

[Anonycat]

Some have stated that every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard is false. This thread is about doing a proper dependency evaluation on statements made by Hubbard to determine if this is, in fact, the case.

I'll start with this one:

Statement: "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival."
Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 25
Dependencies: None, this is a stand-alone passage.
True, false, or opinion?: Opinion

If you believe the above passage is provable to be false, please explain your reasoning.

He gets a little woo-woo with the teeth and armor and claws, but reasoning is a good idea, and that is why I called you here. Saying that thinking makes you smart is not illuminating.

 

[kate8024]

Here is another:

Statement: "Any animal that simply adjusts itself to match its environment is doomed. Environments change rapidly. Animals which control and change the environment have the best chance of survival."
Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 26
Dependencies: This can be read two ways, for a species or for an environment. Evaluating this statement for an entire species to true of false would require finding a species that has no effect on its environment that has gone extinct and one which has a large effect on its environment which has also gone extinct and controlling for all possible other conditions which could affect the survival rate and then using those controlled numbers to calculate a normalized length of survival. Evaluating this for individuals within a species merely requires taking two individuals which have different levels of control over their environment, controlling for all other possible factors, and seeing which one lives longer. I am not personally aware of any studies of this latter type, though some studies involving animals may exists.
Tue, false, or opinion: Opinion unless the studies required for evaluating to true or false have been conducted

 

[Anonycat]

Here is another:

Statement: "Any animal that simply adjusts itself to match its environment is doomed.

I only made it this far, due to the bullshit. This is exactly how evolving occurs. So, you are incorrect as to how life forms.

 

[kate8024]

He gets a little woo-woo with the teeth and armor and claws, but reasoning is a good idea, and that is why I called you here. Saying that thinking makes you smart is not illuminating.

Sure, its not exactly a profound statement that has never been made before, but if the question is "is everything he said false" or "is everything he said a lie" then by the use of the term "everything" one only has to show one thing that can only be evaluated as an opinion to show the assertion that everything is false/lies to be false. That does not, of course, imply that every statement is true only that not every statement can be shown to be false or a lie.

 

[Lone Star]

Some have stated that every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard is false. This thread is about doing a proper dependency evaluation on statements made by Hubbard to determine if this is, in fact, the case.

I'll start with this one:

Statement: "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival."
Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 25
Dependencies: None, this is a stand-alone passage.
True, false, or opinion?: Opinion

If you believe the above passage is provable to be false, please explain your reasoning.

Humans also use "reason" nefariously. Many a man has been done in by reason. Not to mention doing others in by it. Hubbard mastered both.

But I do remember him warning against "being reasonable". Well he usually talked out of both sides of his mouth. I'm sure he had his reasons. :wink2:

 

[Anonycat]

Sure, its not exactly a profound statement that has never been made before, but if the question is "is everything he said false" or "is everything he said a lie" then by the use of the term "everything" one only has to show one thing that can only be evaluated as an opinion to show the assertion that everything is false/lies to be false. That does not, of course, imply that every statement is true only that not every statement can be shown to be false or a lie.

You must prove your case as a starting point. Tell me something that you can prove.

 

[kate8024]

I only made it far, due to the bullshit. This is exactly how evolving occurs. So, you are incorrect as to how life forms.

But your argument only applies if you omit the word 'simply', in this context it means 'only'. He is saying if an organism _only_ adapts itself without also affecting its environment it is doomed. This statement does not preempt evolution as a necessity.

 

[Anonycat]

But your argument only applies if you omit the word 'simply', in this context it means 'only'. He is saying if an organism _only_ adapts itself without also affecting its environment it is doomed. This statement does not preempt evolution as a necessity.

Quit fucking around and prove something.

 

[Anonycat]

Yeah, I thought not. This was a debate, right?

 

[kate8024]

Humans also use "reason" nefariously. Many a man has been done in by reason. Not to mention doing others in by it. Hubbard mastered both.

No question there. This of course supports his assertion that reason is a weapon (though only that it is a weapon, your statement does not also support the qualifier 'greatest')

But I do remember him warning against "being reasonable". Well he usually talked out of both sides of his mouth. I'm sure he had his reasons. :wink2:

Statement: "he usually talked out of both sides of his mouth"
Source: Lone Star
True, false, or opinion: True - self evident. ;-)

 

[NoName]

A broken clock is still right twice a day. And L. Ron Hubbard was truthful sometimes. For example, the following statement was truthful.

I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.

So, no, I absolutely don't believe that every statement ever made by L. Ron Hubbard is false.

 

[kate8024]

Quit fucking around and prove something.

A debate requires two way communication. Do you agree with or disagree with my assertion that "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival." is an opinion and not able to be evaluated to true or false? If you disagree with that please specify that you believe it is true or false and why.

 

[kate8024]

A broken clock is still right twice a day. And L. Ron Hubbard was truthful sometimes. For example, the following statement was truthful.

So, no, I absolutely don't believe that every statement ever made by L. Ron Hubbard is false.

Perfect example! Thanks!

 

[Anonycat]

A debate requires two way communication. Do you agree with or disagree with my assertion that "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival." is an opinion and not able to be evaluated to true or false? If you disagree with that please specify that you believe it is true or false and why.

Mans greatest weapon is ever changing, and why the hell are you so worried about weapons? Reasoning is good, so what is the big deal? Eating and drinking water is good too.

This is a lame debate. Say something significant.

 

[kate8024]

Mans greatest weapon is ever changing, and why the hell are you so worried about weapons? Reasoning is good, so what is the big deal? Eating and drinking water is good too.

This is a lame debate. Say something significant.

So is your answer that you believe his statement to be false and your evidence to back up your assertion is the opinion "Mans greatest weapon is ever changing" and the unrelated question "why the hell are you so worried about weapons"?

 

[Anonycat]

So is your answer that you believe his statement to be false and your evidence to back up your assertion is the opinion "Mans greatest weapon is ever changing" and the unrelated question "why the hell are you so worried about weapons"?

What the fuck are you trying to prove? Post it. This proof is on you. Go.

 

[JBWriter]

<snip> --- Some have stated that every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard is false. This thread is about doing a proper dependency evaluation on statements made by Hubbard to determine if this is, in fact, the case... <snip>

I'm interested to see how this thread progresses, given the wealth of knowledgeable folks here @ ESMB, and how thoroughly so many know the issues likely to come up.

That said, a tangential question comes to mind that dovetails with the OP, and that is this:

Whether Hubbard's statements are proven within this forum to be true, false, or bits of both, does his self-proclaimed status of 'mankind's best friend' have any merit whatsoever given the fact --- as agreed to by all who have been or are currently associated with Co$ -- that hubbard's statements must be purchased?

Is the commonly-understood definition of 'friend' to be discounted entirely when used by hubbard and all who continue to insist his friendship to humans on Earth is without equal in the annals of history just....because?

Just askin',



JB

 

[Lone Star]

No question there. This of course supports his assertion that reason is a weapon (though only that it is a weapon, your statement does not also support the qualifier 'greatest')



Statement: "he usually talked out of both sides of his mouth"
Source: Lone Star
True, false, or opinion: True - self evident. ;-)

Yes I am Source. I make shit up and pronounce with certainty and authority.

(But I also throw in verifiable truths discovered by others and claim them as my own).

 

[Idle Morgue]

A debate requires two way communication. Do you agree with or disagree with my assertion that "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival." is an opinion and not able to be evaluated to true or false? If you disagree with that please specify that you believe it is true or false and why.

In Scientology - a debate requires two way comm but remember, no entheta - and entheta is "anything that exposes our crimes". Entheta is not allowed in Scientology. Reason is subjective - Scientological "reason" is not what most people consider "reason". Most people believe that they need to take care of themselves first, their family next, their group would come after those two dynamics are handled. If the first two are not doing well - there is not much left for the group.

Scientological reason is that you should forsake your first, second and strictly live on the third. That dynamic - the Scientology group does nothing for anyone including themselves but the reality is they hurt themselves and no one wins - except David Miscavige and L Ron Hubbard when he was alive. It is totally insane but Scientology calls it reason.

See how this weapon of "reason" works in scientology.

So yes, a debate requires two way communication and here is how it goes in Scientology:

A Scientological debate between a PC and a REGG using Scientological "reason":


PC - heh, I think I got ripped off. I thought I was going to 'get rid of my reactive mind' and I spent $350,000 and 10 years of my life to come to the realization that "I mocked up and continue to mock up my reactive mind but now I can control it". I was told I was "clear" but I still feel like shit. I don't have any special abilities and my IQ is worse as well as my aptitude and personality test results. I am broke and divorced and have no family left - I had to disconnect from them to go "clear". I am pissed.

Regg - well, you are only clear on your first dynamic. You have 7 other dynamics.

PC - but that is not what I was told - I was told I would get rid of my reactive mind and I still have it - it sucks. I feel like crap. I don't have any money to do any more of this shit and by the way - what exactly is the 8th dynamic in Scientology - who is the supreme being in Scientology?

Regg - do you have any credit cards you can put some more bridge on?

PC - did you not hear me? I feel like shit. I am bankrupt and have nothing. Who is the 8th dynamic - supreme being? Answer me you stupid idiot.

Regg - I am afraid that I cannot listen to your entheta and am going to write up a KR on you. You will be issued a non-enturb order. If we hear anything more out of you other than how much money you have to give us to get out of your lower condition, you will get declared and your spiritual destiny is fucked.

End of Scientological debate using reason!