Pedophilia in Scientology

[Bill]

I agree. But it's an assumption I make when someone can't differentiate between an intellectual, scientific-minded discussion and morality. Just as you can't seem to differentiate between an interpretation of what someone wrote and what they later did in their life to harm others. So, is it safe to assume you're a college drop-out too?

The rule is: The first person to drop into ad hominem attacks loses.

 

[TomKat]

I think it's you who either dropped out, or didn't pay attention, or read, if you took any psychology classes. It's you that can't differentiate bias. You'd also make a bad detective, had you taken the blue-collar route. Evidence shows that he was harming people well before he published Dianetics, and as he ran it on others. All throughout his life, he justified social, moral, scientific, psychological, and every other thing he went against to push his agenda--all made up fantasy, opinion, and knowing lies. You are trying to differentiate between those lies and some semblance of truth between the written lines, and it is all unknowable. No one knows for sure what Hubbard really thought anything, not really.

Again, you're using a moral argument against a scientific one... Probably if Albert Einstein ran over your dog you would say his theories were off-base. But you're an emotional person, I get it. As to what Hubbard really thought, well haven't you established that he thought mostly about molesting children? Why else would he write Dianetics? It's obvious!

 

[guanoloco]

I agree with you here that a child knows, a child who's been healthily nurtured so far would. I think even a child that hasn't had too much bonding with her family may be alarmed as well, and I think both of these backgrounds would have to do with her sense of trust. She would know. It would have nothing to do with engrams, but perhaps it's in our genetic make up to know what feels right from wrong. Early childhood sexual trauma can sometimes be forgotten and buried, but still leave body memories years later. It's a fact.

As for gender, yes. A child absolutely has a sense of gender early on, but this has nothing to so with sex yet. This isn't connected with sexual attraction.

Another thing is that there are not only two genders. Chromosomes are funny that way. Some people are born with a mixture, some people are born with both genitalia, or none, or some. It's only a Western idea to assign a gender (one or the other) when this happens and start immediate surgeries -- usually multiple ones, sometimes up until the child is nearly a teenager.

When I'm talking about sex I'm talking about male and female...as in "what's your sex?" I'm not talking about sexual attraction or the practice of sex as in copulation.

Also, gender is directly attached to sex just like fingers are attached to hands. To say that there's congenital birth defects regarding sex is the same to say that some are born with fewer than 5 fingers or more than 5 fingers. The facts are that human beings have 5 fingers. Everything else is a birth defect.

 

[EZ Linus]

Again, you're using a moral argument against a scientific one... Probably if Albert Einstein ran over your dog you would say his theories were off-base. But you're an emotional person, I get it. As to what Hubbard really thought, well haven't you established that he thought mostly about molesting children? Why else would he write Dianetics? It's obvious!

TrollKat,

You are out of your mind if you think I'm making a moral or emotional argument. You are delusional (and chauvinistic). I'm not even speaking about whether or not he was a pedophile. I was originally addressing something specific he wrote, and the psychology of children, and an opinion--just as any other participant on this forum was. However, you are projecting hyper-sensitivity onto me when none exists.

I also said it is ALL unknowable what Hubbard's intentions and thoughts were. No one knows for sure. No one knows for sure if there is a God or if more discoveries in space are to come. (Duh!) You can't know someone's thoughts. That is not an emotional-based argument, and again, you can't assume anything about things you do not know about. You can't just make shit up. That is not a moral argument. Scientists test for facts, get repeated results before they report. They do not make shit up, and they do not assume. But you keep assuming much, like:

I am an emotional person.
I dropped out of college.
I can't differentiate the intellectual from morality.
And that I think Albert Einstein ran over dogs.

 

[EZ Linus]

When I'm talking about sex I'm talking about male and female...as in "what's your sex?" I'm not talking about sexual attraction or the practice of sex as in copulation.

I see what you're saying. I think we may have misunderstood each other, or maybe we're on the same page. Depends. I too was speaking of that: Gender: male, female, or both. A person can be born with XX, XY, or both: intersex. It is not considered a defect. It is an idea in Western society that it's a defect.

 

[TomKat]

TrollKat,

You are out of your mind if you think I'm making a moral or emotional argument. You are delusional (and chauvinistic). I'm not even speaking about whether or not he was a pedophile. I was originally addressing something specific he wrote, and the psychology of children, and an opinion--just as any other participant on this forum was. However, you are projecting hyper-sensitivity onto me when none exists.

I also said it is ALL unknowable what Hubbard's intentions and thoughts were. No one knows for sure. No one knows for sure if there is a God or if more discoveries in space are to come. (Duh!) You can't know someone's thoughts. That is not an emotional-based argument, and again, you can't assume anything about things you do not know about. You can't just make shit up. That is not a moral argument. Scientists test for facts, get repeated results before they report. They do not make shit up, and they do not assume. But you keep assuming much, like:

I am an emotional person.
I dropped out of college.
I can't differentiate the intellectual from morality.
And that I think Albert Einstein ran over dogs.

Thanks for the non-emotional post. Only slightly simplified: you objected to my interpretation of some text in Dianetics on the grounds that LRH was a horrible human being. And I'm sorry about your dog. What was its name?

 

[EZ Linus]

And I'm sorry about your dog. What was its name?

TomKat

EDIT: oops, forgot the smiley thing:

 

[guanoloco]

I see what you're saying. I think we may have misunderstood each other, or maybe we're on the same page. Depends. I too was speaking of that: Gender: male, female, or both. A person can be born with XX, XY, or both: intersex. It is not considered a defect. It is an idea in Western society that it's a defect.

Or it's a defect and in other than Western society it's an idea that it's not a defect.

 

[EZ Linus]

Or it's a defect and in other than Western society it's an idea that it's not a defect.

Yeah. Ideas. Got it. We've all got em.