The CoS has a single mission: to protect the CoS, and they have the ability to effectively concentrate resources against perceived threats.
By contrast, the Government, or more accurately, each bureau of the government, has a mandate to protect the citizens of the United States from the depredations of malefactors everywhere, not just the CoS. Where the absence of definitive results on the part of the government cannot be reasonably extrapolated to demonstrate that efforts have not been made (or are not being made) against the CoS, the absence of results from the CoS strongly suggests that their strategists have pre-emptively decided that pursuing the South Park episode would not be an effective use of their resources. One suspects that Parker and Stone would be able to use accuracy of their material as a defense, that that the CoS folks know that.
In addition, there’s the whole factor of the U.S. government being squeamish about being perceived as piling on against a free association of law-abiding individuals. In the absence of a slam-dunk case against the organization, you’re not going to see a concerted government effort to disband it.
I should note that ‘get them in trouble’ refered specifically to Stone and Parker being sued for defamation of character. Which would probably have happened if they’d lied.
It refers to this episode,
where there is a long depiction of “THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE”.
Look… any of you who are angry at the Scientologists for the poor sheep who’ve subscribed to this stuff are, frankly, being a little unreasonable.
“Disembodied souls in volcanoes”? Are you fucking kidding me? GI Joe had more believable storylines.
You can only protect the gullible up to a point, guys- and anyone who actually believes an alien warlord is going around harvesting alien spirits or whatever is probably much safer parted from their money.
Are you going to lead a campaign against the National Enquirer? They use similar storylines to turn a profit, and they slander people too…
My big question; where are the CO$ “clears”? Being clear is supposed to make you a super genius. So, how do they explain a Tom Cruise? is he a “clear”? If so, why isn’t he a genius? My guess is that this cult is probably beginning to die out. It probably attracts a lot of losers, who don’t have a lot of money.
Well, until very recently, people generally couldn’t be expected to know about CoS’s weird mythology until they were already well-invested in the organization.
Besides, even if someone is gullible as you describe them, this does not mean no one should care if they are harmed by the group which is leading them on, and that no one should try to make sure that group is answerable to the law.
RANTB: The thing is, they aren’t told about Xenu until they’re running at Operating Thetan III. Which is several levels and tens of thousands of dollars in.
Trust me, with the proper social organization, you can get any single person to believe just about any damn fool thing, given time and investment.
Need I point out that acknowledging a cite has been produced, and acknowledging the logical impact that cite has on the question of safety of ultra-high dose niacin therapy, which is the real issue, are two very different things? I guess I do.
After all the cites had been produced, after all the differences between the valid references and more questionable references had been discussed, after all the faulty logic inherent in the “the government would stop it if…” fallacy had been pointed out, CM states:
Addressed to me, this conveniently confuses my statement with that of some article, which I specifically declined to claim as the source of my information (you will remember I looked it up in the PDR) and continues to question the risk. I didn’t produce that article, I didn’t read it, and I make no claims as to its credibility. I produced a more reputable source, which you aknowledge exists, but niether you nor CM have been honest enough so say, “yup, based on the PDR it looks like a risky practice.”
This was in response to me, but it’s staw man followed by one of several phallacies that keep appearing. I never said it was killing people. I stated the risks just as they appeard in my source: liver damage, ulcers, etc. And why the assumed link between established risk and forcible shut down? The link between cigarattes and lung cancer hasn’t resulted in tanks rolling into Phillip Morris, has it? You never hear anyone say the risk of cigarettes must not be well established because the cigarette companies haven’t been shut down. It even sounds silly… yet apparently there are some that like that same logic in the context of CoS.
It couldn’t be clearer that at this point in the conversation, **CM has not acknowledged the implications of “the reputable sources produced for the toxicity of niacin at high doses” on CoS prescribed ultra high dose therapy. **The fact that you, and other members of the SDMB, would not only allow such a dodge, but defend it, saddens me. Fighting ignorance my arse.
I offer one data point. A few years ago, on a newsgroup, I observed a discussion much like this. A new poster appeared, claimed to know nothing about the CoS and not support it, and offered arguments much like CM’s. He eventually made a mistake and started posting stuff that he’d only know if he were in the Church, and was thus exposed.
CM’s posts are indeed well written, if evasive, but surely the CoS would not send a teenage idiot into a place like this. They aren’t stupid.
ConstipatedMathematician, I’ll accept that you aren’t a Scientologist, but you are doing a very good imitation of one in this thread. You might think about that. You surely know that the government is limited in investigating the CoS because it is a church (and surely you now know why it became a church.) If the Mafia wrote themselves a holy book, we’d be screwed also.
BTW, I haven’t read any of the later Hubbard sf, but the stuff in the '40s wasn’t all that bad. It was at least as good, and in my opinion better, than the stuff Silverberg wrote in his hack period during the late '50s. Some of it, like Typewriter in the Sky, with a hack writer as God, was actually quite good.
In the post of CMs which you are talking about in this post, in the passage you quote, he is not addressing the issue of whether any good cites have been brought up, but rather, the issue of whether one particular cite was any good. He argued that cite was no good. I agree with him.
You produced a more reputable source than that cite. I agree with you.
But this:
Is incorrect, as you would know if you read my last post to you. I quoted myself there as having explicitly said “Niacin is dangerous at doses lower than the ones recommended by Hubbard.” Go back and read the post: It’s right there.
In that post also is a quote from CM, in which he says good cites against Niacin have been produced by myself and others. He hasn’t said anything as explicit as me as to whether he thinks Niacin is dangerous, but it seems a clear implication of his comment (that I quoted) that he does think its dangerous. He has not been explicit about this because he is not arguing with you about whether Niacin is dangerous or not, but rather about whether particular cites about it have been good cites. Good cites have been produced, and he has acknowledged this, but you and others have refused to take his original point–that your original set of cites were no good, and hence, the argument between him and you continues.
Frylock: Waverly didn’t say cites weren’t offered. He said that people weren’t acknowledging them.
Voyager: I’ve seen the same kind of behavior repeatedly over the years, in one group or board or forum or another. That’s why I thought he was one. He acts like one, and sometimes half-identifies as one.
This is what I haven’t been able to understand about this thread. I can’t see how anyone could think CM is doing anything which could help support the CoS.
To criticize an argument is not the same thing as to support the view argued against. We all understand this, correct?
Actually, please raise your hand if you disagree.
Assuming for the moment we all agree, then it follows that just because CM is criticizing anti-CoS arguments, this does not imply his comments support CoS. To establish that his comments support CoS, other considerations must be adduced. Such adduction of such considerations is something I have yet to witness on this thread.
Please adduce those considerations for me. If anyone here thinks something CM (or maybe myself) has said actually works to aid and abet CoS nefarities, please explain what comment(s) do so and how. To repeat: It is not sufficient to point out that the comment criticizes an anti-CoS argument.
This is what I haven’t been able to understand about this thread. I can’t see how anyone could think CM is doing anything which could help support the CoS.
To criticize an argument is not the same thing as to support the view argued against. We all understand this, correct?
Actually, please raise your hand if you disagree.
Assuming for the moment we all agree, then it follows that just because CM is criticizing anti-CoS arguments, this does not imply his comments support CoS. To establish that his comments support CoS, other considerations must be adduced. Such adduction of such considerations is something I have yet to witness on this thread.
Please adduce those considerations for me. If anyone here thinks something CM (or maybe myself) has said actually works to aid and abet CoS nefarities, please explain what comment(s) do so and how. To repeat: It is not sufficient to point out that the comment criticizes an anti-CoS argument.
1.-Why would anyone rant about an organization that doesn’t directly affect them?
2.- Even if they would want to rant about it, it hasn’t been shut down, so it can’t have done anything flagrantly illegal
Now, many of the rants I’ve read around here have those elements in them. However, most people who don’t agree with these kind of rants simply disregard them and don’t post. At worst, they’ll post one time, saying “I don’t care one way or the other”.
And, if the CS is really as nefarious as its reputation, non-discussion of their activities would certainly help them. Information is power, or so they say.
Not to mention that CoS has waged court battles to have documents involving this story suppressed, claiming it is a trade secret. To their followers, they claim that this documents, as well as other ones further along their secret teachings, will cause insanity to someone who has not undergone the previous levels.
What I said before about the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread operating to the benefit of the CoS applies. And it doesn’t need to be Constipated Mathematician’s intent to have that effect (to the benefit of the CoS).
Although I have to admit that the S:NR has been going up during the past fifty or so posts. You’re right about that.
What’s with “you” and “your”? Not wanting to research and vouch for the cites of others, I went directly to a reputable source and produced one and only one niacin related cite of my own. Hopefully you can understand my frustration at having my points stemming from the facts provided in that cite answered with criticism of other cites from other people. I rightly consider this evasive.
If you are agreeing, or have agreed, that the CoS niacin treatment is risky, then you have my thanks and you and I do not need to discuss it further.