Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

  • 04 Dec 2021, 01:42
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Chanology?  (Read 26041 times)

Ozymandias

Re: Chanology?
« Reply #100 on: 11 Feb 2008, 09:58 »

Tommy, you keep saying "if them why not them?" which is basically an erroneous argument and you know it. If someone wants to protest one wrong, they should be allowed to, despite the existence of others. Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of fighting any evil if  other evil continues to exist? Anonymous can't take down the Catholic Church. Anonymous can't take down Muslim extremists. Anonymous can't take down the government. Those entities exist outside of the modern construction of society, the internet, the businesses, the corporations. Anonymous and Scientology both feed off the modern construction of society. They grew in it and use it to their advantage. It's something that Anonymous can actually, at least, feel like they're doing something about.

And, yeah, Anonymous is malicious themselves. No one is arguing that they're the white knights coming to save us from the vicious dragon of Scientology. They're a bunch of nerds, script kiddies, /b/tards, and other assorted internet bottom dwellers who do stupid shit because it's funny. If they want to feel like they're doing something because it's right for once, though, I'm okay with that.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

AnotherQCaddict

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #101 on: 11 Feb 2008, 10:22 »

While anon is making some good arguements (paying for salvation?), they aren't exactly the most orthodox of protesters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoA0mnISlyQ

Might this constitute harrassment?  I don't particularly like either group, but it's more a matter of "who is worse?"




At least anon has done a few good things, wheras the few good things one might be able to be said about Scientology are shrouded in a cloud of doubt and legal nonsense.
Logged
*sneezes* Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit.

Spinless

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #102 on: 11 Feb 2008, 10:44 »

That video was horrible. The youtube comments say she is the one who approached them on a "rampage". That's not to say they protesters were justified in their following actions either. Both the protesters and the woman in the video were in the wrong.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,017
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #103 on: 11 Feb 2008, 11:16 »

Anonymous aren't protesting this because of moral objections. Their main issue is freedom of information, which is something anonymous is definitely not hypocritical about. Scientologys attempts to suppress criticism and free distribution of scientology docs are genuinely a serious threat to online freedom of speech. There's no double standards at play.

And Tommy, I think you will find that there are plenty of groups protesting other religions, though often ineffectively, and often from rather questionable stances of their own. Nevertheless, it happens. I remember reading only last month of Italian students protesting a speech by the pope because of his retrograde attitude to science. There are major figures and global and national organisations constantly speaking out against radical islam, catholicism, fundamentalist christianity, hindu nationalism, countless other groups. Maybe they don't make the press as much, but they're there. In a lot of cases this has to do with the fact that the battlegrounds are different, as are the people doing the protesting. In the case of a lot of this stuff most of the protest comes, naturally, from within the same culture. Also, there are all sorts of issues with white, christian backgrounded westerners protesting aspects of Islam, whereas Scientology is undeniably a distinctive product of the west.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

tommydski

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,064
    • Pocket Jury
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #104 on: 11 Feb 2008, 11:26 »

Tommy, you keep saying "if them why not them?" which is basically an erroneous argument and you know it. If someone wants to protest one wrong, they should be allowed to, despite the existence of others. Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of fighting any evil if  other evil continues to exist?

If you read what I said again, you'll notice I went to some length to point out that I merely want people to give this protest more consideration.

Rest assured it is absolutely fine by me if people want to declare open season on calling Religion evil. I genuinely hate Religion to the point of fanatacism but I just think there is something to be said for giving all due thought before this precedent is set.
Logged
Quote from: Ozymandias
One minute we're playing Mario Kart, the next my penis is in your mouth - it just happens.

IronOxide

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,467
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #105 on: 11 Feb 2008, 11:58 »

I am not critical of this movement because they are protesting the CoS. On the contrary, I feel that people need to raise awareness about the things that are happening in this church, but I feel that the protesters are mixed into three groups.

The first is the group that wants people to see what may be going on in this organization and feel that their actions are unacceptable. These are the people that you will see out and about with "Google Lisa McPherson" and "Salvation Should Be Free" signs. They are genuinely concerned about the actions of the church, and feel like they are wronging people, which I personally agree with.

The second group are the people who are "In it for the Lulz", these are the people that show up to the protests mindlessly quoting memes. These are the people carrying "Longcat is Loooooong" signs and carrying boomboxes to "Rickroll" the streets. They are just interested in generating chaos because they are not content with their lives and do not feel like contributing positively.

The final people are those who are intolerant of the core beliefs of the society and feel that it should be open to ridicule through that route. At a protest they are the ones shouting at entering and exiting members and are the people who will carry the "Lol Xenu" signs. They want to make fun of people because they find their beliefs too silly to be allowed in our society.

The first group is the only group that are in it for the betterment of society, they are actually trying to shed light on a situation that may be criminal or at least amoral. They are working to shed light on an organization that they feel are doing bad things. I find this respectable, and I would find it respectable even if I agreed with the actions of the CoS.

The second and third groups, however, are hurting their own cause more than they are helping it. They have found an organization that is easy to make fun of (like all religions). They are the ones who are just looking to attack a young religion. They want to hurt people just to hurt people. This is the activity of the group that I do not think is acceptable. Now, from the coverage of the "raids", I don't know which people are the most numerous. The news seems to revolve more around the first group, while the internet community is spending more time glorifying the second and third groups. I don't know which are better represented there because I was not at every protest in the world. Some people here want to better the world, some people don't want to change the world at all, and some people want to hurt the world. All three of these groups have banded together against one common enemy, and they are hurting their own cause.
Logged
Quote from: Wikipedia on Elephant Polo
No matches have been played since February 2007, however, when an elephant, protesting a bad call by the referee, went on a rampage during a game, injuring two players and destroying the Spanish team's minibus

calenlass

  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,194
  • queefcicle!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #106 on: 11 Feb 2008, 11:59 »

We all like to pretend there is an imminent and real danger, a bogey-man that we can project our own problems and insecurities upon.


Dude zombies are a real and imminent danger, but we are already talking about that other places.
Logged
Hey everyone, I need to buy some new bookshelves. When I get back from Ikea and put them together you're all invited to the bookshelf launch party.

a pack of wolves

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,663
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #107 on: 11 Feb 2008, 12:10 »

The second group are the people who are "In it for the Lulz", these are the people that show up to the protests mindlessly quoting memes. These are the people carrying "Longcat is Loooooong" signs and carrying boomboxes to "Rickroll" the streets. They are just interested in generating chaos because they are not content with their lives and do not feel like contributing positively.

I think you could well be completely wrong about these people. The role of the clown in protests is very well established, at any large demo you'll undoubtedly see groups of people who're either members of or adopting the general tactics of CIRCA. I'm actually quite taken with the tactic of rick rolling, it'd be enjoyable and the whole point of tactics like that are to create confusion and disorder, not necessarily to be easily understood.
Logged
Quote from: De_El
Next time, on QC Forums: someone embarrassingly reveals that they are a homophobe! Stay tuned to find out who!

Patrick

  • where did it cost?
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,392
  • Used to be a cool kid
    • Troubador! bandcamp page
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #108 on: 11 Feb 2008, 12:39 »

The thing about the repetition of the 4chan memes? It's a morale boost for the people standing in the picket lines. Sure, it isn't a political proclamation, but that's what the signs are for. It gets real boring standing outside for several hours unless you've got something everybody can laugh about.

Also, in b4 somebody posts the "INTERNET SUPERHEROES" poster which describes 4chan's /b/ ("we are mindless 'me too'-ism"). Seriously? A 4chan-based protest without memes is like a tanning salon without skin cancer.
Logged
My long-dead band Troubador! licks your gentlemen's legumes on the cheap

AnotherQCaddict

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #109 on: 11 Feb 2008, 12:41 »

The thing about the repetition of the 4chan memes? It's a morale boost for the people standing in the picket lines. Sure, it isn't a political proclamation, but that's what the signs are for. It gets real boring standing outside for several hours unless you've got something everybody can laugh about.

Also, in b4 somebody posts the "INTERNET SUPERHEROES" poster which describes 4chan's /b/ ("we are mindless 'me too'-ism"). Seriously? A 4chan-based protest without memes is like a tanning salon without skin cancer.

And both make one look rather baked, oui?
Logged
*sneezes* Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit.

calenlass

  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,194
  • queefcicle!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #110 on: 11 Feb 2008, 16:32 »

post quoting, dude


lurk moar
Logged
Hey everyone, I need to buy some new bookshelves. When I get back from Ikea and put them together you're all invited to the bookshelf launch party.

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #111 on: 11 Feb 2008, 16:43 »

That video was horrible. The youtube comments say she is the one who approached them on a "rampage". That's not to say they protesters were justified in their following actions either. Both the protesters and the woman in the video were in the wrong.

Honestly, it looks a lot like she was the one sounding off. She even kicked one guy who was trying to hand her a pamphlet. How did he respond?

He let it slide.

While I'm hesitant to use the bad behaviour of one person to tar an entire organization with one brush, that little exchange right there looks a lot like a microcosm for the larger anon/CoS dynamic

Quote
Scientology is -

1) A dangerous, brainwashing cult with an agenda of fear, intimidation, profit and world domination.
2) A bunch of pathetic rich people with some frankly fucking ridiculous beliefs.
3) A club for homosexual men who are unable to come to terms with their own sexuality.

Anonymous is -

1) An anonymous international terrorist cabal with an agenda of fear, intimidation, harassment and global unrest.
2) An online community of marginalised geeks with a perverse sense of humour that share an avowed interest in meta-ironic humour.
3) A bunch of pathetic Nerds who play anarchy between mammoth D&D sessions in their Mom's garage.

From what I gather, Scientology is somewhere between 1 and 2 (the extent to which either statement is true should be decided on a case-by-case basis). Anonymous, insofar as it's possible to generalize about them, mostly fall into category number 2. Any incidents where they're accused of falling into category 1 are generally a result of somebody either misinterpreting them, or trying to undermine their credibility with scary buzzwords.
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

bbqrocks

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #112 on: 11 Feb 2008, 16:44 »

Hmm, the church of scientology seems more and more like a peoples temple type organization to me.

Oh yes, and I have some useful information for your avatar, calenlass.
Logged

MusicScribbles

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 813
  • John Milton was a punk rocker.
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #113 on: 11 Feb 2008, 19:38 »

That article doesn't say anything about furry woodland creatures. The erect critter might not have a problem with looking like that.
Logged
Quote from: Tommydski
Listen to SLOAN you CUNTS.

David_Dovey

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,687
  • j'accuse!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #114 on: 11 Feb 2008, 19:55 »

I really don't get this "young religion" stuff people are talking about.

I guess, if I'm understanding it correctly, people are objecting to the singling out of Scientology simply because it hasn't had the years other religions have had to become entrenched in mainstream consciousness and thus seem less outright crazy than say, the story of a man rising from the dead, walking on water, and suggesting that his followers pretend they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Yet, instead of using it to suggest that all religions are pretty implausible and deserve to be criticised, just like every other topic of discourse in our society, it is being argued that despite it's youth, Scientology deserves to join all the other religions of the world in being completely immune to analysis and criticism.

I'm with people in the sense that Scientology shouldn't be special because it is young, or because it was started by a science fiction author, but I completely disagree with them that we should refrain from pointing out irrationalities in any religion because we're afraid of wounding someone's delicate sensibilities. Sure, the idea of an evil alien warlord and malicious spirits inhabiting our bodies is pretty out there, but what about a prophet ascending bodily to heaven on a winged horse?

EDIT: I get the feeling that I may get chewed out here because I've completely misread people's arguments. If that's true, kindly disregard!
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

blindeye

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #115 on: 11 Feb 2008, 20:32 »

Here is how CoS deals with the BBC.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652
All they tried to do was interview people peacefully.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,017
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #116 on: 11 Feb 2008, 21:22 »

Also, Tommy bought up the idea of comparing this to the persecution of certain religious minorities in history. I hardly think that is at all accurate. Scientology is a global organisation controlling hundreds of millions of dollars of money, assets and shares, with ties to big business, archives full of blackmail information, batteries of lawyers and private investigators and even its own merchant navy. Comparisons to groups like the Spanish Jews, the Heugenots, the Falun Gong or the Japanese Christians are ill deserved to say the least.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Boro_Bandito

  • William Gibson's Babydaddy
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,295
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #117 on: 11 Feb 2008, 21:44 »

Well, remember that the Catholic Church isn't exactly a poor operation either Khar, they've got billions to their name.


This is my only post in this thread since all views have been covered ad nauseum I feel. Guys, you should really just let it die. I'm not gonna be posting in here again or even so much as reading it anymore. Whether you like it or not religious discussion has taken place in here and plenty of views that don't truly belong to a forum where politics and religion are supposed to stay outside, or at least restricted to Gabbly. I'm not taking sides and I'm not claiming that Scientology is or isn't a religion, or even what my own religion is (to those that don't already know). But I feel that plenty of anti-religious sentiment has gone on in here long enough towards other religions that are established by the opinions of most people on here of being "actual religions" or whatever the fuck that means. Seriously, let it die, there's plenty of things on 4chan to offend people enough as it is.
Logged
Yeah, I mean, "I won't kill and eat you if you won't kill and eat me" is typically a ground rule for social groups.

ruyi

  • Asleep in the boner patch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #118 on: 11 Feb 2008, 22:14 »

err, sorry to not let it die, but i just wanted to clarify something i said.

I really don't get this "young religion" stuff people are talking about.

I guess, if I'm understanding it correctly, people are objecting to the singling out of Scientology simply because it hasn't had the years other religions have had to become entrenched in mainstream consciousness and thus seem less outright crazy than say, the story of a man rising from the dead, walking on water, and suggesting that his followers pretend they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Yet, instead of using it to suggest that all religions are pretty implausible and deserve to be criticised, just like every other topic of discourse in our society, it is being argued that despite it's youth, Scientology deserves to join all the other religions of the world in being completely immune to analysis and criticism.

I'm with people in the sense that Scientology shouldn't be special because it is young, or because it was started by a science fiction author, but I completely disagree with them that we should refrain from pointing out irrationalities in any religion because we're afraid of wounding someone's delicate sensibilities. Sure, the idea of an evil alien warlord and malicious spirits inhabiting our bodies is pretty out there, but what about a prophet ascending bodily to heaven on a winged horse?

EDIT: I get the feeling that I may get chewed out here because I've completely misread people's arguments. If that's true, kindly disregard!

i actually did not mean that it was because of its youth that it's more deserving of criticism, though that is what other posters interpreted.

what i meant was simply that it hasn't had the time to grow to the point where believers can exist apart from the institution. thus, for example, one can criticize the vatican without criticizing all self-identified christians. christianity has been around for a couple thousand years, so there's been a lot of splits and whatnot, and it's not uncommon to find people who would call themselves believers yet don't regularly go to church or identify with the prominent church members. a lot of these people are not harmful.

by pointing out the youth of the CoS, i'm simply allowing for the possibility that some time in the distant future, if the believers are indeed genuinely convinced, there may exist believers outside of the institution. at the moment, however, that's simply not the case, due to what khar pointed out. but whatever, if its claims are genuinely compelling, people will start to believe it (or perhaps a modified version of it) in the future. it might die out too, but i'm just saying.
Logged

Narr

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #119 on: 11 Feb 2008, 22:28 »

Why is it that some people now find persecution funny and cool? I thought that it was something that we had generally started to get the better of in this nation. I know we weren't perfect, but this it a huge leap backwards.

I really don't get it in the slightest.
You're talking about fucking 4chan here.

Not just that, you're talking about /b/.

If there is anything that needs to be shut down for being a hive of disgust and a breeding ground for deviousness, 4chan would be it.
Logged

David_Dovey

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,687
  • j'accuse!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #120 on: 11 Feb 2008, 22:39 »

Thanks for the clarification ruyi!
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,017
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #121 on: 11 Feb 2008, 23:16 »

If there is anything that needs to be shut down for being a hive of disgust and a breeding ground for deviousness, 4chan would be it.

SERIOUS BUSINESS.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Patrick

  • where did it cost?
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,392
  • Used to be a cool kid
    • Troubador! bandcamp page
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #122 on: 12 Feb 2008, 01:11 »

Well, remember that the Catholic Church isn't exactly a poor operation either Khar, they've got billions to their name.

The Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a military. They have the Swiss Guards, for sure, but the closest thing they've got to a legal team is the Cardinals.

Also, I am annoyed by this business about all the hate on 4chan. We don't blackmail people into giving us money.
Logged
My long-dead band Troubador! licks your gentlemen's legumes on the cheap

öde

  • Vulcan 3-D Chess Master
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,767
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #123 on: 12 Feb 2008, 02:42 »

deviousness

By deviousness do you mean difference from social standards? If so, isn't that a good thing?

Here is how CoS deals with the BBC.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652
All they tried to do was interview people peacefully.

Saddening!
Logged

schimmy

  • The Tickler
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 931
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #124 on: 12 Feb 2008, 02:50 »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652

That was the program I was talking about. I guess it wasn't Louis Theroux. Regardless, you should all watch this.
Logged

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #125 on: 12 Feb 2008, 02:55 »

Yet, instead of using it to suggest that all religions are pretty implausible and deserve to be criticised, just like every other topic of discourse in our society, it is being argued that despite it's youth, Scientology deserves to join all the other religions of the world in being completely immune to analysis and criticism.

I would tend to dispute that even the well-established ones should be immune to analysis and criticism. If a religions is abused for the sake of extortion, intimidation and brainwashing then it deserves to be justly criticized. Even if Scientology is a genuine religion (we'll ignore that particular debate for now) the CoS is responsible for some deeply immoral practices. It just happens to have a legal team that is capable of some fantastic brinksmanship.

A religion should not be allowed to exploit "freedom of speech" in order to sweep those kinds of transgressions under the rug.
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

Cartilage Head

  • Only pretending to work
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,207
  • Do Me Baby
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #126 on: 12 Feb 2008, 14:50 »

Well, remember that the Catholic Church isn't exactly a poor operation either Khar, they've got billions to their name.

The Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a military. They have the Swiss Guards, for sure, but the closest thing they've got to a legal team is the Cardinals.

Also, I am annoyed by this business about all the hate on 4chan. We don't blackmail people into giving us money.


Yeah, all they do is promote child pornography!
Logged
Hate, rain on me

IronOxide

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,467
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #127 on: 12 Feb 2008, 14:53 »

I thought 4chan had a pretty vocal con-child porn stance.
Logged
Quote from: Wikipedia on Elephant Polo
No matches have been played since February 2007, however, when an elephant, protesting a bad call by the referee, went on a rampage during a game, injuring two players and destroying the Spanish team's minibus

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,017
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #128 on: 12 Feb 2008, 15:38 »

Yeah, no child porn on 4chan.

Well, no child porn that hasn't been placed in one of those cunning archives that are disguised as jpegs.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

KvP

  • WoW gold miner on break
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,720
  • COME DOWN NOW
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #129 on: 12 Feb 2008, 17:47 »

I remember when I was in high school, one Halloween I dressed up and acted like a "revolutionary" for a day. I had a beret, dressed in all black, carried around a little red book, and scrawled meaningless slogans all around the school. It was pretty fun. I bet these protests are too.

I'm of the persuasion that what Scientology really lacks (along with other young religions like Mormonism) is the shroud of time taking off its sharp edges and lending it a "traditional" legitimacy that people really latch onto. Other religions are only slightly less weird and outrageous in their claims. But that doesn't mean religion in general is detestable or even ignorable.
« Last Edit: 12 Feb 2008, 17:54 by Kid van Pervert »
Logged
I review, sometimes.
Quote from: Andy
I love this vagina store!
Quote from: Andy
SNEAKY
I sneak that shit
And liek
OMG DICK JERK

Ozymandias

Re: Chanology?
« Reply #130 on: 12 Feb 2008, 19:02 »

Part of what makes other religions more tolerable is a claim of the metaphysical. You can't prove the existence of a God and, thus, you can't disprove him has the cause of miracles and other such things.

Scientology implicitly makes the claim that all of its tenets are provable, real constructs of the universe. And, as such, they can be dismissed as absurd.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

David_Dovey

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,687
  • j'accuse!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #131 on: 12 Feb 2008, 19:26 »

I have no trouble dismissing the metaphysical claims of most religions as absurd.
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Patrick

  • where did it cost?
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,392
  • Used to be a cool kid
    • Troubador! bandcamp page
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #132 on: 13 Feb 2008, 01:01 »

I thought 4chan had a pretty vocal con-child porn stance.

Yeah, moot and the mods have been against child porn since the very beginning. It's only ever been an issue because the mods got lazy on /b/ for a week and some jackasses decided it'd be real goddamn funny to take advantage of it.

Mod laziness is no longer the case, and as a result, every time child pornography is posted to 4chan it is quickly taken care of and reported to the authorities in whatever country the IP address is from. The poster is IP banned as well.
Logged
My long-dead band Troubador! licks your gentlemen's legumes on the cheap

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,017
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #133 on: 13 Feb 2008, 02:13 »

I'm of the persuasion that what Scientology really lacks (along with other young religions like Mormonism) is the shroud of time taking off its sharp edges and lending it a "traditional" legitimacy that people really latch onto.

Also any regard for the law or common morality.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,729
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #134 on: 13 Feb 2008, 10:36 »

err, sorry to not let it die, but i just wanted to clarify something i said.


i actually did not mean that it was because of its youth that it's more deserving of criticism, though that is what other posters interpreted.

what i meant was simply that it hasn't had the time to grow to the point where believers can exist apart from the institution. thus, for example, one can criticize the vatican without criticizing all self-identified christians. christianity has been around for a couple thousand years, so there's been a lot of splits and whatnot, and it's not uncommon to find people who would call themselves believers yet don't regularly go to church or identify with the prominent church members. a lot of these people are not harmful.

by pointing out the youth of the CoS, i'm simply allowing for the possibility that some time in the distant future, if the believers are indeed genuinely convinced, there may exist believers outside of the institution. at the moment, however, that's simply not the case, due to what khar pointed out. but whatever, if its claims are genuinely compelling, people will start to believe it (or perhaps a modified version of it) in the future. it might die out too, but i'm just saying.



That would be mostly false though. In most religions (I am too lazy to think of one where it isn't the case but there probably is), churches are formed after the religion itself. Some dude (or group of dudes) get some silly ideas and get other people to follow them. Sometime after ther founder dies, some followers decide it is pretty good business and forms the church.  In Scientology, some dude really needed some cash so he made up a church.
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

tommydski

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,064
    • Pocket Jury
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #135 on: 13 Feb 2008, 10:48 »

As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.
Logged
Quote from: Ozymandias
One minute we're playing Mario Kart, the next my penis is in your mouth - it just happens.

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,729
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #136 on: 13 Feb 2008, 10:53 »

That is usually something the actual church imposes though, not one of the main tenets of the leader.
As far as the 4chan protests go, I think that they are not particularly bad, I do believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want, but I also reserve the right to mock and ridicule them as I see fit.
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

Patrick

  • where did it cost?
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,392
  • Used to be a cool kid
    • Troubador! bandcamp page
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #137 on: 13 Feb 2008, 10:58 »

As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.

Pssssh, who needs an excuse.

I should probably not be wearing my "Women: You can't beat 'em" shirt right now, somebody might take me seriously.
Logged
My long-dead band Troubador! licks your gentlemen's legumes on the cheap

psyne

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #138 on: 13 Feb 2008, 11:15 »

I'm opposed to pretty much all organized religion so as long as their attacks are confined to the establishment and not the beliefs (which as far as I've seen they've done pretty well) I'm for it. I'm agnostic/atheist but I'm fine with other's beliefs, whatever makes them happy. But churches seem to lend themselves to corruption, extortion, inflicting guilt on members, excessive power, etc. I think they're bad for both members of the religion and non-parishioners who are affected by their influence in the government and community.
Logged

calenlass

  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,194
  • queefcicle!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #139 on: 13 Feb 2008, 11:36 »

As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.

Pssssh, who needs an excuse.

Not me!

now where is my goddamn sammich
Logged
Hey everyone, I need to buy some new bookshelves. When I get back from Ikea and put them together you're all invited to the bookshelf launch party.

Slick

  • Lovecraftian nightmare
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,851
  • I am become biscuit
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #140 on: 13 Feb 2008, 19:58 »

I love the part where Scientology stole all of the good therapy ideas from psychiatry, and then said psychiatry is the worst thing in the world.

Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #141 on: 14 Feb 2008, 04:29 »

That is usually something the actual church imposes though, not one of the main tenets of the leader.
As far as the 4chan protests go, I think that they are not particularly bad, I do believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want, but I also reserve the right to mock and ridicule them as I see fit.

That's just the thing, though. the Anonymous protests aren't directed at the Church's beliefs or anything benign like that, they're directed at the way the Co$ blatantly lies, steals, brainwashes, intimidates, extorts, blackmails and denies people of psychiatric and medical care that they genuinely need, purely so that the organisation can make a quick buck.

Take the case of Lisa McPherson - Not only did the CoS remove her from the hospital where she was receiving urgent medical and psychiatric attention after a car accident, but when she later turned up dead having been in the CoS' care, the autopsy ruled that she died of neglect, dehydration and starvation. she was covered in cockroach bites, too. You can find the autopsy files at xenu.net (you'll need a strong stomach) - the Co$ told her family (many of whom are still cult members to this day) that she died of meningitis.

If Anonymous were just protesting the "Church"'s religious beliefs, then the claims of religious bigotry and intolerance would be right on the mark. Instead, the protest focuses on the Organization's sinister business practices that have grown up around that belief system.

I could care less if they want to believe in Xenu, or the Galactic Confederation, or Thetans, or any of that lot. People are free to believe whatever they want in my view - I draw the line at (sic) "taking any means necessary to destroy [their critics]".

These people devote thousands of dollars and considerable resources to trying to drive their critics and opponents to suicide. No legitimate religion does that.
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

tommydski

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,064
    • Pocket Jury
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #142 on: 14 Feb 2008, 05:14 »

I love the part where Scientology...is the worst thing in the world.

James is right.

The utter fuckwit.
Logged
Quote from: Ozymandias
One minute we're playing Mario Kart, the next my penis is in your mouth - it just happens.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up