Separate names with a comma.
ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to www.exscn2.net and register there.
Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Boojuum, Sep 10, 2015.
Basically, that's what I meant.
<--- 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".
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?
No, but it comes close when repeated over and over again so many times.
"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
L Ron Hubbard was an obnoxious white supremacist, so...
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".
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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).
Boxers and other fighters consent to accepting harm, potentially even serious harm, as part of their sport.
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.
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".
Yeah, the goal is to lose your mind and go out of your head.
Good call . . . it is never a good use of time to get involved in idiocies
Not with Mr. Federer moving like a winged angel on the courts as an alternative!
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 ?
This is L Ron Hubbard explaining to YOU, how he fucks with your mind.