Helena Handbasket
Gold Meritorious Patron
Basically, that's what I meant.... as long as they don't harm others....
I believe people should simply be allowed to do what they want (within reason).
Helena
Helena
Basically, that's what I meant.... as long as they don't harm others....
I believe people should simply be allowed to do what they want (within reason).
Helena
<--- That's Hermione Granger, with dark hair, a scowl on her face, and a (gasp!) Slytherin tie. Not exactly a child, at least not in the sense of "mommy, mommy, wipe my nose".There is the face of a child in your avatar
No, but it comes close when repeated over and over again so many times.??? Eh ???? Ummm, "appreciate" does not mean "insist upon, must" or any other notions of assertions of superimposition upon others' free will . . .
"How To Save Your Marriage" by a man who abandoned or denied all of his children and all three of his wives. It makes me smile every time I see that book. It could use some more reviews: http://www.amazon.com/How-save-your...keywords=how+to+save+your+marriage+by+hubbard
? . .
I remember when I was still, 'in,' speaking with an obnoxious white supremacist
. . .
... as long as they don't harm others.
Further qualified: "people should simply be allowed to do what they want (within reason), as long as they don't harm others, <snip>".
What's so sacrosanct about not harming others? I'm not particularly looking at consensual BDSM activities, but what about street drugs? What about your (the reader's) enjoyment of junk food?
Where do you draw the line? "It's OK for people to be harmed as long as they can make an informed choice [see sub-section 18b] and don't mind the damage too much"?
In broad strokes it's OK, but as soon as you get down to lawyerly nitty-gritty it doesn't work at all.
Paul
As a religion or philoosphy, Scientology has no core beliefs about love or compassion, their use or expression. There are volumes of "how tos" and rules, but no central theme that an individual can use to make personal judgement calls about right and wrong. Instead, Scn assumes everything and everyone falls under one of its rules and individual judgement is removed.
It is the onion to be peeled with an empty core.
Aside from the obvious lack of results and bilking zillions of dollars from those who can't afford it and the disconnection policy and the concentration camp mentality and lots of very silly drills,
I keep coming back to 2 very obvious MISSING points in Hubbard's world view of fixing everyone and everything.
1. Failure to fully appreciate mothers, motherhood, rearing children with close and loving supervision. Sheeze! This omission was/is just gigantic. How Ron missed this is testimony to his lack of vision and being self-absorbed. Even Hitler honored the mothers. It's stunning that the COS has courses, books and tapes on improving the 2D.
2. "Inspection before the fact." Hubs isolated this one precept as being the senior admin problem everywhere. Well, that might be true if you run a half-assed, fly-by-night operation where the customers are banging the doors demanding their money back. Or, if you're writing sci-fi at 2 cents a word, volume would be more important than character development. The business world that I live in is marked by close attention to details and planning. In fact, individuals or companies that don't "inspect before the fact" aren't allowed to conduct business in my world. Try getting the FDA to approve your operations on those terms. "Inspection before the fact" is a great way to run from one problem to the next with great inefficiency. It's just stupid in nearly every business situation I can think of. I guess it makes sense since LRH had no experience running a real business. LRH had a lot of experience in getting folks to work for peanuts in absolute dictatorship.
What's so sacrosanct about not harming others? I'm not particularly looking at consensual BDSM activities, but what about street drugs? What about your (the reader's) enjoyment of junk food?
Where do you draw the line? "It's OK for people to be harmed as long as they can make an informed choice [see sub-section 18b] and don't mind the damage too much"?
In broad strokes it's OK, but as soon as you get down to lawyerly nitty-gritty it doesn't work at all.
Paul
I think it's a fairly universal concept, as far as bare minimum of standards, that one doesn't harm another.
In law, it's the neighbour principle, or who is so affected by my actions that I should have them in contemplation, although one cannot consent to GBH (grievous bodily harm). If you want to read an interesting legal case, have a look at R. v Brown which is about sado masochists who were taken to court because of orgies they were having. How the police managed to get involved remains a bit of a mystery, but the legal point being whether what they were doing was consensual. Apparently not.
I think the way to parse that part is:
If there's no harm to others, then fine.
If there's harm to others, then the action will need to be looked at, and a determination made as to whether it's an acceptable harm (like people choosing to harm themselves with junk food), or justifiable harm (shooting somebody who is invading your home)
I'm also one of those people who doesn't consider refusal to interact with somebody as "harm" (not to be confused with using undue influence on somebody to force them to disconnect).
I'm not really sure why I'm commenting on all this. I would hope it's more than something to do to pass the time, but . . . .
Who's doing the adjudication of no harm/harm and if so how much? If we're talking bodily damage like cuts and bruises or broken bones, that's easy enough. But mental/emotional trauma? Radioactivity damage when governments shift the goalposts to avoid liability?
I think I'll duck out of this conversation now and watch a movie or read about the end of the world or something.
Paul
most obvious gap in tech, if you can get past the blahblahblah is that the whole point is to drop your body and operate as a thetan without a body, scientologists don't realize this, haven't thought it through
I'm not really sure why I'm commenting on all this. I would hope it's more than something to do to pass the time, but . . . .
Who's doing the adjudication of no harm/harm and if so how much? If we're talking bodily damage like cuts and bruises or broken bones, that's easy enough. But mental/emotional trauma? Radioactivity damage when governments shift the goalposts to avoid liability?
I think I'll duck out of this conversation now and watch a movie or read about the end of the world or something.
Paul
As a religion or philoosphy, Scientology has no core beliefs about love or compassion, their use or expression. There are volumes of "how tos" and rules, but no central theme that an individual can use to make personal judgement calls about right and wrong. Instead, Scn assumes everything and everyone falls under one of its rules and individual judgement is removed.
It is the onion to be peeled with an empty core.
Well fuck me, the one I'm peeling has a really rotten stinky core. Why couldn't it have just been empty ?
Can you understand this ?
[video=youtube;PP376qIWyyg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP376qIWyyg[/video]
[video=youtube;_JY1pLFIsek]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JY1pLFIsek[/video]