What's new

Obvious Gaps in the Tech

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
There is the face of a child in your avatar
<--- 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".

Helena

Perhaps I should have said babies? Anyway, we're talking about a Harry Potter series character here. The overall story line is what made it interesting, and the age of the characters is only secondary.

Just don't get all self-righteous on me, okay?
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
... 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, and as long as they don't demand others pay for (or otherwise subsidize) their choices".
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
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
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
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.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
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.
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
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.

But people aren't really even human beings. They are, 'terminals.'
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
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.


Hubbard didn't just fail to appreciate mothers (and fathers and children for that matter) ... he actively degraded and dominated them.

He shat on any concept of true family.

 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
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 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).
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
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.

Boxers and other fighters consent to accepting harm, potentially even serious harm, as part of their sport.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
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
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
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

I never implied it would be simple. In much of the real world, it would be judged by courts. In inter-personal relations, by the individuals involved.

For me, my application of the principle is that I will not participate in, nor support, punishing somebody who has not done harm to another, with my making my own personal judgement as to whether the action in question constituted "harm".
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
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

Yeah, the goal is to lose your mind and go out of your head.
 

RogerB

Crusader
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

Good call . . . it is never a good use of time to get involved in idiocies:melodramatic:

Not with Mr. Federer moving like a winged angel on the courts as an alternative!

R
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
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 ?
 

Cat Daddy

Silver Meritorious Patron
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]
 

Cat Daddy

Silver Meritorious Patron
This is L Ron Hubbard explaining to YOU, how he fucks with your mind.

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]
 
Top