What's new

"Replace 'Scientology' with 'Judaism'", etc. ... Bad Logic!!

barky

Patron with Honors
OK, rant time:

For years and years, whenever critics go after Scientology's corrupt, unethical practices, this old tired argument comes out:

[paraphrasing]

"We see signs saying 'Scientology is a dangerous cult'. Well, replace 'Scientology' with 'Judaism' or 'Christianity' and you see how ridiculous and/or hate-filled these critics are."

What utter and complete crapola! Replacing one noun with another totally changes the meaning of a sentence! That's grade-school English stuff! Hell, that's kindergarten stuff! And these folks supposedly have fabulous grammar skills thanks to KTL. :screwy:

What if I said "Ted Bundy was a murderous scumbag", and you say "well, what if you replaced Ted Bundy with Mother Theresa! You must have hate in your heart." Anyone with any sort of sense would say that you are illogical and stupid. I wasn't talking about Mother Theresa, I was talking about Ted Bundy!

Same applies here. This "church" has defrauded thousands of people for millions of dollars, has enslaved hundreds of "faithful" in their RPFs, has destroyed families through their disconnection policies, and has been guilty of harrassment and far worse under "fair game".

To replace "Scientology" with "Judaism" or "Christianity" totally changes the meaning of the sentence. But that's what these propagandists are trying to do: apply subterfuge to their arguments and derail the topic at hand.

The pre-WWII anti-Jewish propaganda was manufactured by the Nazis out of nothing, and was basically scapegoating an entire ethnicity for their own failures to keep a nation solvent. The Jews were guilty of nothing, and paid a horrible price under a psychotic, sadistic regime.

Contrarily, Scientology's crimes are actual, verifiable facts, not some homespun nonsense. They have ruined lives, they have gone after people, they are responsible for deaths and fraud and all sorts of things! These are facts, people!

You can't hide behind word games, CoS. We're on to you.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
OK, rant time:

For years and years, whenever critics go after Scientology's corrupt, unethical practices, this old tired argument comes out:

[paraphrasing]



What utter and complete crapola! Replacing one noun with another totally changes the meaning of a sentence! That's grade-school English stuff! Hell, that's kindergarten stuff! And these folks supposedly have fabulous grammar skills thanks to KTL. :screwy:

What if I said "Ted Bundy was a murderous scumbag", and you say "well, what if you replaced Ted Bundy with Mother Theresa! You must have hate in your heart." Anyone with any sort of sense would say that you are illogical and stupid. I wasn't talking about Mother Theresa, I was talking about Ted Bundy!

Same applies here. This "church" has defrauded thousands of people for millions of dollars, has enslaved hundreds of "faithful" in their RPFs, has destroyed families through their disconnection policies, and has been guilty of harrassment and far worse under "fair game".

To replace "Scientology" with "Judaism" or "Christianity" totally changes the meaning of the sentence. But that's what these propagandists are trying to do: apply subterfuge to their arguments and derail the topic at hand.

The pre-WWII anti-Jewish propaganda was manufactured by the Nazis out of nothing, and was basically scapegoating an entire ethnicity for their own failures to keep a nation solvent. The Jews were guilty of nothing, and paid a horrible price under a psychotic, sadistic regime.

Contrarily, Scientology's crimes are actual, verifiable facts, not some homespun nonsense. They have ruined lives, they have gone after people, they are responsible for deaths and fraud and all sorts of things! These are facts, people!

You can't hide behind word games, CoS. We're on to you.

Ummmm..,Yer gionna hafta talk to Micheal Shermer and the LA Times, then, too

From another thread today by RolandAMI:


Michael Shermer, the author, is a professional debunker, author of "Why People Believe Wierd Things" and editor of "The Skeptic" magazine (I think it's called.

The piece is at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5813251.story

It starts:

Imagine reading this press release:

Hello, Jews. We are anonymous. Over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. ... Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind -- for the laughs -- we shall expel you ... and systematically dismantle Judaism in its present form. ...

But it is by no means anti-anonymous.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
You are right, Barky. I will say that the history of Christianity and Judaism isn't totally rose-strewn and there were abuses (and if you go back centuries, some were horrific) and there still are some occasional abuses, but overall those religions and churches have reformed and have reformed greatly. No one's getting pilloried, burned at the stake, stoned (no jokes, please), tortured, witch-hunted.... Catholicism, Protestant Churches, Judaism- they've all done much to reform and make themselves far more user friendly and less abusive for their parishioners and congregants.

They still have some problems, but it's nothing like what it was during their most draconian periods. Their members are even allowed to talk back!

Whereas CofS continues to abuse people and not make one single reform. Not one.
 

WrongPlaceRightTime

Patron Meritorious
I have personally spoken with Michael Shermer. Too bad I didn't get in touch a bit sooner, this could have been a different article. Well it starts out on the wrong foot but I think ends up on the right one (as far as I am concerned). He is writing another one. I don't think he really understood what is going on with Anon et al. And I would also like to point out that the Anon message did not say "Hello, Scifags..." Eventhough used by Jewish people and others as a common word to indentify followers of Judiaism I think "jew" has a derogatory connotation and is not really comparable to the Anon message. so, FAIL and then a bit of a WIN for Michael Shermer. Pick more juicy fruits!
 

barky

Patron with Honors
Ummmm..,Yer gionna hafta talk to Micheal Shermer and the LA Times, then, too

That's what set me off. What he did was BAD WRITING.

It's a play right out of an OSA handbook, dating back (at least) to the Time Magazine article. That he is duplicating that method in his writing does not say well of him (regardless of how the article ended).
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
That's what set me off. What he did was BAD WRITING.

It's a play right out of an OSA handbook, dating back (at least) to the Time Magazine article. That he is duplicating that method in his writing does not say well of him (regardless of how the article ended).

He's usually a very intelligent guy. I've heard him interviewed for years on lots of topics that interest me.

But that article was not well-written. To begin it like that, and end it the way he did was disjointed. The beginning did not support the ending.

It was odd.

But you make a good point.

Which I agree with.
 
Top