Debates
05 Jan 08
05 Jan 08
...how these institutions can be permitted to flourish in the USA, or anywhere else. I'm talking about the CoS RPF(s), operational since the 1970s:
(intro) http://www.watchman.org/sci/scientologycamps.htm
(study) http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/brainwas.htm
(trashy but with pictures) http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/rpf.html
Unless it's all just an antiCoS conspiracy and the truth is more like this:
http://www.cesnur.org/2002/scient_rpf_04.htm
05 Jan 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePeople volunteer for this stuff. It's hard to put rules on what people willingly allow themselves to be subject to.
...how these institutions can be permitted to flourish in the USA, or anywhere else. I'm talking about the CoS RPF(s), operational since the 1970s:
(intro) http://www.watchman.org/sci/scientologycamps.htm
(study) http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/brainwas.htm
(trashy but with pictures) http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/rpf.html
Unless it's a ...[text shortened]... iCoS conspiracy and the truth is more like this:
http://www.cesnur.org/2002/scient_rpf_04.htm
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageVery worthwhile and interesting thread. Not so much because of any relationship to a PARTICULAR cult, but as a way to examine the beginning cause of any cult.
...how these institutions can be permitted to flourish in the USA, or anywhere else. I'm talking about the CoS RPF(s), operational since the 1970s:
(intro) http://www.watchman.org/sci/scientologycamps.htm
(study) http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/brainwas.htm
(trashy but with pictures) http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/rpf.html
Unless it's a ...[text shortened]... iCoS conspiracy and the truth is more like this:
http://www.cesnur.org/2002/scient_rpf_04.htm
http://ask.metafilter.com/34788/Which-famous-scifi-author-wrote-the-worst-book-he-could-on-a-bet
There are lots of urban myths built on the idea that L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology on a bet. The first one I read was in about 1963 or 1964 by Harlan Ellison in an Analog magazine article. He described the poker game and the only difference from the legend of the "book" is that he insists that the bet was on "Who can start the most successful and rediculous Religion", not who could write the worst sf book.
Hubbard is the underlying "father" of the cult. The most defining feature of a Cult is it's raising of the "father" to the role of "eternal leader", whether that leader be a prophet of 'God' or the seer of 'Science'.
I think that all cults that succeed are Freudian in nature. They are able to use basic human frailties of insecurity to substitute undying loyalty to the "father".
Classic cults ALWAYS have the grand scheme of making a god of a man. Mao, Castro, Joseph Smith,Hubbard, Chavez, Guevara, Hitler, Pol Pot etc... are all classics.
The thing that makes cults dangerous are their ability to destroy individualism. Once that happens, mob rule is unabated to the quarterback... so to speak.
Then there are the many forms that pop up based on the main "father" with a substitution... "Gaia"... "The Good Doctor" etc.
I think that these new hybrid cults... Earth First!, PETA etc are more dangerous than the old form. The reason is that they are "altruistic" by nature of the argument, and therefore able to disable reason from a point of view "of the many". That is sad.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAnti-PETA cults. Now THAT's scary.
Very worthwhile and interesting thread. Not so much because of any relationship to a PARTICULAR cult, but as a way to examine the beginning cause of any cult.
http://ask.metafilter.com/34788/Which-famous-scifi-author-wrote-the-worst-book-he-could-on-a-bet
There are lots of urban myths built on the idea that L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology on a ...[text shortened]... le to disable reason from a point of view "of the many". That is sad.
08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAnit-PETA Cults?
Anti-PETA cults. Now THAT's scary.
Can you give a few examples of organized groups against PETA?
Especially those that I belong to? I'll await your research.
--svw goes off into the light, trying to remember if he canceled his membership to the LAST organized group he belonged to in high school... the National Honor Society... 42 years ago! 😲--
08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDo you really thing that one needs to be an official member of a cult to be under cult influence?
Anit-PETA Cults?
Can you give a few examples of organized groups against PETA?
Especially those that I belong to? I'll await your research.
--svw goes off into the light, trying to remember if he canceled his membership to the LAST organized group he belonged to in high school... the National Honor Society... 42 years ago! 😲--
08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI am not "obsessed" with them. They are just an "easy target" cult. If you don't think that they are then ask yourself "What would it take to make seemingly rational people want to give 'fish' and 'insects' -- 'human rights'?
PETA is very small then. More than 4 times smaller than the Church of Scientology. Strange your obsession about them.
That is not a rational position. It is accomplished with PETA members. HOW? How do these seemingly rational beings come to believe that fish are people -- or at least should have the same right to exist that humans have?
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAnimal rights, not human rights.
I am not "obsessed" with them. They are just an "easy target" cult. If you don't think that they are then ask yourself "What would it take to make seemingly rational people want to give 'fish' and 'insects' -- 'human rights'?
That is not a rational position. It is accomplished with PETA members. HOW? How do these seemingly rational beings come to believe that fish are people?
The irrationality is only in your misconstruction. I agree with some of the things they say, but I also disagree with a lot of others.
I find it more irrational to view them under such a caricatural light.
08 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaOk. And pray tell us which "animal rights" they propose for "fish"?
Animal rights, not human rights.
The irrationality is only in your misconstruction. I agree with some of the things they say, but I also disagree with a lot of others.
I find it more irrational to view them under such a caricatural light.
If a fish is given the rights that they "deserve"... what punishment do they (PETA) recommend for those who "deny them (fish) their rights"?
Do you... Palynka... think that fish have animal rights that protects them from predators? Are humans not natural predators?
How do we enforce "fish rights"? Is it ok for a shark to eat a fish, but somehow immoral for a human to do it? How is that rational?
edit... The only difference between a shark and a human is that sharks are relatively safe to swim with.😛
http://www.storiesthatmatter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=123&Itemid=39
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAll you reveal is that you don't know much about PETA.
Ok. And pray tell us which "animal rights" they propose for "fish"?
If a fish is given the rights that they "deserve"... what punishment do they (PETA) recommend for those who "deny them (fish) their rights"?
Do you... Palynka... think that fish have animal rights that protects them from predators? Are humans not natural predators?
How do we en ...[text shortened]... ference between a shark and a human is that sharks are relatively safe to swim with.😛
Is your criticism of them then rational when you're unaware of what they propose? Of course not. Why do you do it then?
I'll tell you. Because you follow the anti-PETA cult.