ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Scientology is all bad

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Veda, Aug 5, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Scientology is all bad.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    :hysterical: :thumbsup:
     
  3. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation



    Mmmmm, it gives people weird eyes.

    :yes:



    [​IMG]
     
  4. Captain Koolaid

    Captain Koolaid Patron Meritorious

    No, it's worse.
     
  5. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    "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.
     
  6. NoName

    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.
     
  7. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    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.
     
  8. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    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.).
     
  9. Operating DB

    Operating DB Truman Show Dropout

    Maybe there was a natural evolution in this theory where DM came out with GAT.
     
  10. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    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: Aug 5, 2012
  11. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    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.

    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]
     
  12. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    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.
     
  13. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Only for those, such as yourself, who see things that way.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  14. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    No. Only for Scientologists.
     
  15. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    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).
     
  16. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    Everybody be quiet.*



    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]


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

    Purple Rain Crusader

    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.
     
  18. Veda

    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.
     
  19. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    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.
     
  20. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

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

    :lol: