Taking apart the Church of Scientology

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Asking the question for the third time, how? How can labelling actions which are the very embodiment of human trafficking as human trafficking be an act of hyperbole?

How can you consider the extracts to NOT be hyperbole, while considering the act of correctly labelling the Scientology activities relating to said extracts TO BE hyperbole?

Calling what the church does as human trafficing is designed to direct one’s attention to the abusive action's of the Church in a way that conveys the feelings which the thought has excited in the writer’s or accuser's mind.

If the nuns keep my kid after school in detention and make him clap erasers, yeah, I could claim that is human trafficing.

The claim that the Church is involved in systematic human trafficing and not their ecclestiastical proceedures is just an emotive claim, and will probably lose every time in civil court.

But the whole point of this thread is that critics get hung up discussing and arguing things which take attention away from the tenents of the Church that are the very incentive for the Church's abusive actions.

And arguing the semantics and interpretation of whether or not what the Church does is one kind of violation or the other is an example of this.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

The Church of Scientology has strict policy forbidding human trafficking.

Once I was late for course because the freeway was backed up for 6 miles due to an accident.

I was still sent to Ethics for going into agreement with a human trafficking jam.

When I asked what in the world I was supposed to do, I was R-Factored that I "...should have made it go right."

My amends was to donate money to my Bridge so that in the future I could telepathically communicate to tow-truck drivers to clear a special lane for OTs moving up the Bridge.

Okay, I lied and made some of that up. So, I am going to hell, so what?

 

[themadhair]

Calling what the church does as human trafficing is designed to direct one’s attention to the abusive action's of the Church in a way that conveys the feelings which the thought has excited in the writer’s or accuser's mind.

So the fact that such behaviour is human trafficking doesn’t matter? The above is little more that crap armchair psychology which misses the much simpler explanation. Maybe people accuse the CoS of human trafficking, as I do, because their actions are what human traffickers do? Check out the extracts I quoted and see for yourself how they apply to the CoS.

If the nuns keep my kid after school in detention and make him clap erasers, yeah, I could claim that is human trafficing.

You could make the accusation, sure. But since the analogy doesn’t involve the litany of factors used to qualify human trafficking, such as those I quoted in my extracts, you would simply be talking shit.

Doesn’t the fact that you had to reach for such a piss-poor analogy, that completely and utterly misses the factors that determine whether a series of conduct qualifies as being human trafficking, undermine your point here? I don’t get how anyone aware of what human trafficking actually is can argue that using it as an accurate label is hyperbole. And I note your complete lack of argumentation on this point despite being asked directly three times to elucidate such.

The claim that the Church is involved in systematic human trafficing and not their ecclestiastical proceedures is just an emotive claim, and will probably lose every time in civil court.

There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.

1) You are accusing people of making the claim that “the cult [fixed it for you]is involved in systematic human trafficing and not their ecclestiastical procedures”. I certainly don’t make this claim and I find it hard to believe that the majority of people would either. What seems to have happened here is that you have mistaken an argument presented it court for a widespread belief in critics’ circles.

2) You are still misunderstanding the judgement in the Headley case. Since you clearly won’t listen to me on this issue maybe you will listen to Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor, who is saying the same thing I tried, repeatedly, to get you to understand:

In this case, the plaintiffs were suing pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which the Court found was trumped by the religious elements in the case. That would seem to open a very large hole in the Act for people who claim a religious foundation for their conduct. The ultimate decision, however, turned on the broad application of the ministerial exception as opposed to the language of the statute.​

In other words, the very strategy you recommend in your comment is less likely to succeed than the one employed by the Headley’s. Following your approach, by trying to challenge “ecclestiastical procedures” you are simply reinforcing the first amendment defence.

3) You do not suggest an alternative law to sue under. If you are going to argue that suing under TVPA is not a runner (and I think the other threads displays your gross ignorance on this issue) then you have to suggest what laws they should be suing under. ‘Make shit up’ isn’t such a law, nor is vague musings about ”ecclestiastical procedures” a law either.

4) Your argument is completely ignoring the most relevant question, namely whether such claims are true. If such claims are true then why would it be improper to sue over them (particularly given that the cult’s legal strategy at the moment involves admitting such)?

But the whole point of this thread is that critics get hung up discussing and arguing things which take attention away from the tenents of the Church that are the very incentive for the Church's abusive actions.

How do you come to this conclusion? If I accuse the cult of human trafficking and can point to policy letters on that topic – how does that take away from the tenants of the cult? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t do that. When I am at a protest I have an entire folder of Scientology policies and associated documents that I can present to back up any claims I make. My favourite patter about the cult concerns disconnection, and I have a copy of an old SP/PTS course that I can use to back up any argument I make.

The above would appear to be a complete nonsense on your part, and I suspect that it is being used to avoid answering questions put to you. I note that this is not the first time you have resorting to using such a tactic when you refuse to defend mistaken claims you have made.

And arguing the semantics and interpretation of whether or not what the Church does is one kind of violation or the other is an example of this.

What semantics? The extracts I posted are pretty clear cut, and can be easily seen to apply to the cult. You yourself admitted that such extracts were not hyperbole. So how does pointing out their application to the cult suddenly make it hyperbole?

Reiterating the central question:
How is accusing the cult of human trafficking hyperbole when I can point to the very Scientology actions that qualify as human trafficking?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

So the fact that such behaviour is human trafficking doesn’t matter? The above is little more that crap armchair psychology which misses the much simpler explanation. Maybe people accuse the CoS of human trafficking, as I do, because their actions are what human traffickers do? Check out the extracts I quoted and see for yourself how they apply to the CoS.

You could make the accusation, sure. But since the analogy doesn’t involve the litany of factors used to qualify human trafficking, such as those I quoted in my extracts, you would simply be talking shit.

Doesn’t the fact that you had to reach for such a piss-poor analogy, that completely and utterly misses the factors that determine whether a series of conduct qualifies as being human trafficking, undermine your point here? I don’t get how anyone aware of what human trafficking actually is can argue that using it as an accurate label is hyperbole. And I note your complete lack of argumentation on this point despite being asked directly three times to elucidate such.

There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.

1) You are accusing people of making the claim that “the cult [fixed it for you]is involved in systematic human trafficing and not their ecclestiastical procedures”. I certainly don’t make this claim and I find it hard to believe that the majority of people would either. What seems to have happened here is that you have mistaken an argument presented it court for a widespread belief in critics’ circles.

2) You are still misunderstanding the judgement in the Headley case. Since you clearly won’t listen to me on this issue maybe you will listen to Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor, who is saying the same thing I tried, repeatedly, to get you to understand:

In this case, the plaintiffs were suing pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which the Court found was trumped by the religious elements in the case. That would seem to open a very large hole in the Act for people who claim a religious foundation for their conduct. The ultimate decision, however, turned on the broad application of the ministerial exception as opposed to the language of the statute.​

In other words, the very strategy you recommend in your comment is less likely to succeed than the one employed by the Headley’s. Following your approach, by trying to challenge “ecclestiastical procedures” you are simply reinforcing the first amendment defence.

3) You do not suggest an alternative law to sue under. If you are going to argue that suing under TVPA is not a runner (and I think the other threads displays your gross ignorance on this issue) then you have to suggest what laws they should be suing under. ‘Make shit up’ isn’t such a law, nor is vague musings about ”ecclestiastical procedures” a law either.

4) Your argument is completely ignoring the most relevant question, namely whether such claims are true. If such claims are true then why would it be improper to sue over them (particularly given that the cult’s legal strategy at the moment involves admitting such)?

How do you come to this conclusion? If I accuse the cult of human trafficking and can point to policy letters on that topic – how does that take away from the tenants of the cult? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t do that. When I am at a protest I have an entire folder of Scientology policies and associated documents that I can present to back up any claims I make. My favourite patter about the cult concerns disconnection, and I have a copy of an old SP/PTS course that I can use to back up any argument I make.

The above would appear to be a complete nonsense on your part, and I suspect that it is being used to avoid answering questions put to you. I note that this is not the first time you have resorting to using such a tactic when you refuse to defend mistaken claims you have made.

What semantics? The extracts I posted are pretty clear cut, and can be easily seen to apply to the cult. You yourself admitted that such extracts were not hyperbole. So how does pointing out their application to the cult suddenly make it hyperbole?

Reiterating the central question:
How is accusing the cult of human trafficking hyperbole when I can point to the very Scientology actions that qualify as human trafficking?

I know you can't get past this point and it is consuming you. I've seen you do this on two other threads.

It is a matter of interpretation.

Get over it, you are making yourself impotent by being stuck on this point.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[themadhair]

I know you can't get past this point and it is consuming you. I've seen you do this on two other threads.

I know you dislike the whole providing argumentation thing, the whole trying to back up claims made, the whole providing suitable references when needed and generally trying to discuss actual content. What can I say, I’m too old to change now.

It is a matter of interpretation.

This is what really bugs me about your vacuous comments. The fact that they contain no content whatsoever is bad enough. The fact that that they are merely attempts to distract from the subject matter you are incapable of defending is a little worse. But what really bugs me is the shitty way you hide behind comments like these after you have made your grand, and ultimately unsupported, pronouncements. Hell, you started an entire thread to declare your pronouncements to the world.

You ignorantly claimed that “calling what the Church does “human trafficking” is hyperbole. In one concise sentence you demonstrated a lack of understanding of what human trafficking really is, and how the actions of Scientology are examples of it. Why bother listening to the argument as used by critics, and the edifice on which it rests. Why bother listening to how this argument is based on a detailed analysis of compared Scientology actions with the traits and qualities that comprise the actions of human trafficking. Why bother doing any of that when you can simply go hide behind some more vacuous comments.

Get over it, you are making yourself impotent by being stuck on this point.

Oh dear. Was I being too contrarian for…*gasp*…daring to provide argumentation disagreeing with your sophistic overly-simplified misconceptions of what human trafficking entails?