What's new

Scientology is all bad

Veda

Sponsor
Scientology is all bad.

black-wallpapers.jpg
 

Veda

Sponsor
Dillpickle - I think that there are three goups of people on ESMB.

The first group thinks that Dn/Scn is essentially a good thing, LRH is a saint, and Davey is the problem because he took something good and corrupted it.

The second group is seriously pissed off or seriously depressed at having been taken by the cult and refuses to acknowledge that there is anything good about Dn/Scn.

The final group tends to either be pragmatic or many years along on their way out. This group won't indulge in any sort of wheat/chaff exercise, but they won't deny that you had wins and that they were real (at least at the time). They won't deny that Dn/Scn can feel like it is helpful, and may still use some of the tools that they learned while in. But this group also tends to feel that the Tech is very limited, and will seek answers outside of the Tech. Because really, if your only tool is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.

-snip-

I think those of us in the third group know that if we dared to say something - anything - positive about anything to do with Scientology we will get jumped on from all sides, accused of being gullible, hypnotised, deluded, mistaken or just plain WRONG. :yes:

UF

"If we dared to say something - anything - positive about anything to do with Scientology we will get jumped on from all sides, accused of being gullible, hypnotised, deluded, mistaken or just plain WRONG."


I, and others, have acknowledged and discussed the positives in Scientology, and neither I, nor the others, have been "jumped on."

At least, I don't recall having been "jumped on," etc., but I probably have been "jumped on," etc. a few times; however, it doesn't stand out in my mind. It's not important to me.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
I don't recall ever being jumped on either. But if I say there is anything good, it is usually because I don't want to invalidate someone's perception of a win. Also, I try to couple my "yes, I believe your wins are real" statement with an educational statement about how Lafatty ripped off Dianetics from legitimate psychology practices.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I don't recall ever being jumped on either.

-snip for emphasis-

Since the people who most need to ponder this, probably won't, I'll jump to the finale:

Scientologists are trained to be sensitive to "attacks," and to do either of two things when encountering an "attack": 1) "Cut comm with entheta" 2) or "Handle."

The few Scientologists, routinely, on this board are pretty much in full time "handling" mode, in one form or another.

The rest have "cut comm with entheta" and are absent.

So, communication with Scientologists, or with someone still majorly under the influence of Scientology, is problematic.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Since the people who most need to ponder this, probably won't, I'll jump to the finale:

Scientologists are trained to be sensitive to "attacks," and to do either of two things when encountering an "attack": 1) "Cut comm with entheta" 2) or "Handle."

The few Scientologists, routinely, on this board are pretty much in full time "handling" mode, in one form or another.

The rest have "cut comm with entheta" and are absent.

So, communication with Scientologists, or with someone still majorly under the influence of Scientology, is problematic.

That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:

Handle or Disconnect

There is no other option available "per the tech".

Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.

Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".

If this then do this.

If that, then do that.

It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.

In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).
 

Operating DB

Truman Show Dropout
That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:

Handle or Disconnect

There is no other option available "per the tech".

Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.

Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".

If this then do this.

If that, then do that.

It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.

In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).

Maybe there was a natural evolution in this theory where DM came out with GAT.
 
That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:

Handle or Disconnect

There is no other option available "per the tech".

Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.

Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".

If this then do this.

If that, then do that.

It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.

In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).

Your example is actually case value or finite state multi-value logic. It allows for the description of specific well-defined separate cases with individual processes specified for each. As it allows for multiply defined states it is a fairly flexible schema for consistent programmed decision-making.

Two value logic is a form of this which allows for only two possibilities. As such two value logic lacks the flexibility inherent in more complex cases.

The reality is that good decision-making is based on tailoring outcomes to the range of actual possibilities presented. As such, multi-valued systems are among those which constitute a best practices approach, since infinite valued systems are not a practical objective.

People learn from considering finite states & conditions. Only as a result of learned experienced and training is there sufficient reason to consider in trusting in the extrapolation and approximation skills of individuals.

In other words: in any human endeavor judgement comes only with prior training & experience.


Multi-value logic is a good basis for training. Moreover, modern lives are dependent on it as it is the basis for most software.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

Purple Rain

Crusader
I don't recall ever being jumped on either. But if I say there is anything good, it is usually because I don't want to invalidate someone's perception of a win. Also, I try to couple my "yes, I believe your wins are real" statement with an educational statement about how Lafatty ripped off Dianetics from legitimate psychology practices.

I have never said anybody's wins weren't real. Show me one instance where I was rude or insulting or ever claimed anything about the person's wins and I will apologise.

But even if I did, what the hell?! Have I died and gone back to 1987? Am I back in a place where I can't "invalidate somebody's win"? Maybe I should try not to "evaluate" also.

"Wow, you teleported during the purif?!"

"Awesome!!"

Just like my cult self.

Well, screw that.

I'm not going to patronise anybody, just as people here do not patronise me.

[video=youtube;qTUcFhCim_A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUcFhCim_A[/video]
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . [One] reality is that good decision-making is based on tailoring outcomes to the range of actual possibilities presented. As such, multi-valued systems are among those which constitute a best practices approach, since infinite valued systems are not a practical objective


Mark A. Baker

Which means no good decision can be made in Scientology because the range "of actual possibilities presented" is inherently limited to exclude more useful possibilities.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
I have never said anybody's wins weren't real. Show me one instance where I was rude or insulting or ever claimed anything about the person's wins and I will apologise.

That wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Really, I was talking about the recurring theme on this board of how to be critical of Scn without running off the freshly out. Specifically, I'm referring to those freshly out who look at entheta sites like ESMB because they see outpoints with DM's style, but haven't really thought to question LRH yet. Really, if they're to the point where they are looking at ESMB, I can work with that.

I re-read Dillpickles intro thread, and I don't even really see any responses there that are outright invalidating. But there are plenty of these one or two sentence responses that got her hackles up a bit. Those responses seemed well-intentioned enough to me, but after the lengthy exchange I've had with her in the Total Spiritual Freedom thread I got the impression she felt a little attacked and/or invalidated.

Certainly, anyone is welcome to assume that I think LRH is a fraud, thief, plagiarist, madman, etc., when responding to me. But that assumption might not be shared with someone who is just barely looking here. Most will get there eventually (took Dillpickle all of a week, I think).
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Everybody be quiet.*



imgres
imgres
dredd-movie.jpg



*Just to be sure that no hypothetical freshly-out person will come into contact with the truth.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
That wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Really, I was talking about the recurring theme on this board of how to be critical of Scn without running off the freshly out. Specifically, I'm referring to those freshly out who look at entheta sites like ESMB because they see outpoints with DM's style, but haven't really thought to question LRH yet. Really, if they're to the point where they are looking at ESMB, I can work with that.

I re-read Dillpickles intro thread, and I don't even really see any responses there that are outright invalidating. But there are plenty of these one or two sentence responses that got her hackles up a bit. Those responses seemed well-intentioned enough to me, but after the lengthy exchange I've had with her in the Total Spiritual Freedom thread I got the impression she felt a little attacked and/or invalidated.

Certainly, anyone is welcome to assume that I think LRH is a fraud, thief, plagiarist, madman, etc., when responding to me. But that assumption might not be shared with someone who is just barely looking here. Most will get there eventually (took Dillpickle all of a week, I think).

I understand that, NoName, but my honest opinion is that that particular poster continually straw-manned my arguments to make it look like I was attacking her despite me asking her not to and attempting to get her to address the actual points I was making or questions I was asking, which she never did.

I consider that sort of behaviour passive aggressive and feel like that poster is attacking my character without any justification in actual fact. So whatever. I don't mind being taken to task if I actually am attacking somebody but I wasn't and I do resent it.

Despite being told numerous times that Scientology terms are "restimulative" and "buttons" for a lot of very hurt people here, that poster continues to push them from what I can ascertain by some of the comments made by other posters.

Far from being a victim I actually consider the opposite is true. Just my honest opinion - I am not trying to be offensive. I hope the other thread goes well, and I do not wish any ill to that poster. Good luck with it all, I do genuinely hope you can all help that person.
 

Veda

Sponsor
What prompted the title of this thread was the assertion by Scientologists that I and some others are saying Scientology is "all bad."

No matter how often I show such people that I don't think that Scientology is "all bad," they insist that I do think it's "all bad."

Because they have failed to "handle" me to their satisfaction, I am placed in a category of "SP," "bigot," and "Anti-Scientologist."

So, therefore, I must think that Scientology is "all bad."

My analysis of Scientology, although it recognizes positives, is unacceptable to Scientologists.

It is not enough to recognize some positives, one must he satisfactorily "handled."

Failure to handle = entheta being.

And, of course, "entheta beings" regard Scientology as "all bad."

Stupid isn't it?

Afterthought: With the current intra-Scientology war, it's alright to say that some things in Scientology are bad but, inevitably, it's explained that these are not really Scientology, but Reverse Scientology.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
I understand that, NoName, but my honest opinion is that that particular poster continually straw-manned my arguments to make it look like I was attacking her despite me asking her not to and attempting to get her to address the actual points I was making or questions I was asking, which she never did.

**snip for brevity**

Far from being a victim I actually consider the opposite is true. Just my honest opinion - I am not trying to be offensive. I hope the other thread goes well, and I do not wish any ill to that poster. Good luck with it all, I do genuinely hope you can all help that person.

Her last post in that Total Spiritual Freedom thread seemed to indicate that she's receptive and willing to see that LRH was "up to no good".

Straw man is an interesting way to put it, and I can see where you are coming from. You tend to write more than a sentence or two so it's probably fair to say straw man in your case. In the case of other people who responded in her intro thread, she took their conclusory statements and made assumptions about their thought processes. I think that I probably wrote some of the longest posts I have ever written on ESMB in that Total Spiritual Freedom thread. There really was nothing to assume about my thought process, so I didn't see her doing the straw man thing at all. Maybe she was already starting to have her eyes opened by the other exchanges on here.

I don't have a problem with the truth, and I certainly don't feel that anyone should be protected from it. More like I try to support my very unfavorable conclusions about LRH and the Tech, because I don't expect anyone to take my word at face value.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
Afterthought: With the current intra-Scientology war, it's alright to say that some things in Scientology are bad but, inevitably, it's explained that these are not really Scientology, but Reverse Scientology.

Wait, you mean the Textbook on Psychopolitics isn't Scientology??? It's REVERSE Scientology and BLACK Dianetics? That explains EVERYTHING!!!!

:lol:
 
Top