Your welcome Aqua, I simply read and understood the points you were making and rewrote them into the known axioms that they are. 🙂

Let me know if you are ever told what “your government’s dark and dirty deeds.” are as opposed to mwesten’s government’s “dark and dirty deeds.”

@mwestern,

First, I wouldn’t want to be supporting what you’ve stated are “my government’s dark and dirty deeds”.
I have not seen any proof of what you’ve alleged but on the other hand if I knew for sure I’d be horrified and wouldn’t want to support such actions in any way! On the other hand, as an American citizen I am legally bound to pay taxes. What could I do, get thrown in jail for tax evasion? I do get the concept, I get how you believe you are making a viable equivalency here but what you’ve offered is indeed on a much grander scale. You’re driving a hard bargain in making your point.

You said, “So even if you feel rotten and dehumanized, you choose not to care.”

That’s not possible. You CAN do something DESPITE it making you feel rotten and dehumanized. But I don’t think its possible to “CHOOSE not to care” emphasis mine. One either CARES or one doesn’t; I don’t think “caring” falls under the heading of analytical CHOICE

But I wasn’t commenting on people who do what they know is wrong and dishonest and feel terrible.

I was commenting on people who do what they know is wrong and dishonest and feel NOTHING.

But perhaps that’s a misperception on my part. Perhaps, that they feel nothing, is only an apparency. Perhaps they in fact feel totally horrible and guilty about it, yet, because no communication from them indicates this, and there are otherwise no clues to their ACTUAL feelings, its an assumption on my part, a bad assumption, possibly, that they feel…NOTHING.
That COULD be a wholly bad assumption on my part, I grant you! And if you can believe this, I would LOVE to believe that these people are torn, are struggling, ripped apart with guilt for the pain they have caused and are causing those who love them. I don’t have an inside track into their minds and hearts. I commented on what LOOKS LIKE from their words and actions a complete WILLINGNESS to inflict pain. And maybe that is not true and they did it but feel TERRIBLE about it.
Which would make them NOT robots, but misguided humans. who have acted badly.

Look, I’ll watch Derren Brown’s “The Push”.

I’m interested; I’ll watch it and give you my thoughts on it afterwards. Ciao for now 🙂

@aqua

“So maybe I’m guilty of assuming that MOST people would feel as rotten and self-dehumanized as I would under circumstances. If so, OK, guilty as charged.”

I get what you’re saying. But your moral judgement is detached from the complex, multifaceted reality of the individual – who’s ideological and ethical considerations, whilst seemingly unimaginable to the “other” – are influenced by multiple factors which imho should not be so easily dismissed.

You’ve also said that individual inclinations are irrelevant. So even if they do feel rotten and dehumanised, you choose not to care. Your judgement has already been made.

If you haven’t already, watch Derren Brown’s “The Push” (aka “Pushed To The Edge”). I’d really love to hear your thoughts on it.

“But something tells me that MOST people would feel utterly awful and degraded and inhuman if they did what I described above. Unless – and you’re going to hate this – unless, they don’t HAVE these feelings anymore.”

Again, you’ve already said their feelings don’t matter. Your judgement was based on an action, an absolute. So why do you care what they may or may not feel? All variables that led A to B are irrelevant. Propaganda. Suggestion. Conditioning. Social compliance. The only thing that matters to you is the end result. Well, that’s the exact same philosophy of those you are criticising/labelling. You risk becoming their reflection. A frankenstein arguing with his monster…over who’s who. And on and on it goes. What’s the point? Where does it get you?

You still haven’t answered my question regarding your government’s dark and dirty deeds. It is the same issue, only on a grander scale.

@ Wynski,
Thanks for making my essential point more cogently and than I did. You said it better, clearer and in much less time 🙂

@mwestern,
You said, “One’s own brand of morality is not necessarily universal.”

I agree.

I have my own sense of what is right and ethical.

If I were ordered by Scientology or anyone to blog about my father with accusations that I KNEW were lies so as to get him fired from his job, so as to destroy his income and reputation and relationships, and if I obeyed, knowing that I was lying, then, yes, given my own sense of ethics, I would be dehumanizing myself. I would be utterly ashamed.

If I were ordered by Scientology to go on the Internet and lie about my mother, about how SHE disconnected from ME, when in fact I disconnected from her, to lie and weave a false narrative that my mother is a liar and has always been a liar, stating on the internet that she refuses to allow me to practice my religion in peace, that she is totally intolerant about my religion when in fact she had assured me that I could carry on with my beliefs and it would never be an issue us – I would not be able to look at myself in the mirrow. Lying like that, publicly about my mother would be a huge problem for me. If I followed my religion’s orders and disconnected from her knowing that she loved me, wanted a relationship with me more than anything, KNOWING that she would accept my adherence to my faith without nary a word from her IF ONLY she could please just remain in communication with me – not only disconnected from her but lied about how she was FORCING me to disconnect – if I could lie about her motives and break her heart knowing she was suffering and missing me, all so I could follow an order from my church..wow, I don’t know if I could look myself in the mirror. Even if I were angry with her about something, something personal between us, if I did this, it would…how do I say this…it would ruin me, as a person, as a human. As a HUMAN being. I would destroy myself, doing something like this.

So maybe I’m guilty of assuming that MOST people would feel as rotten and self-dehumanized as I would under circumstances.

If so, OK, guilty as charged,

But something tells me that MOST people would feel utterly awful and degraded and inhuman if they did what I described above.

Unless – and you’re going to hate this – unless, they don’t HAVE these feelings anymore. Unless their sensibilities have been programmed OUT of them, or suppressed to the point where they can’t even be experienced anymore – which makes them, effectively, robots.

@wynski

What does that even mean? Take responsibility for what? One’s own brand of morality is not necessarily universal. It’s not one size fits all. Assuming it is shared by those clouded by ideology seems rather pointless, especially if one’s purpose is to reach them and “impinge.”

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of scientologists walk away only after suffering abuse, injustice or shitty service. When the threshold for their own discomfort is passed. When the placebo no longer has any effect. It’s rarely altruism. It’s not by “taking responsibility” for something they have yet to perceive.

The guilt, shame and amends come afterwards, when the ideological roots begin to unravel.

“You’re arguing points I never made.”

You defended Joe’s “…current Scientologists are DEGRADED BEINGS” comment, claiming “no one is writing these people off.”

You then stated “…you’re dealing with an amoral being, a robot, a machine”, that scientologists are “non human” and “soulless” – which imho is dehumanising terminology based on absolutist morality and an obvious hierarchy of human worth.

“WHO YOU ARE MEANS NOTHING TO THEM” is further evidence of this, as it reduces the complexity of human psychology, individuality and ideological possession into a one-size-fits-all absolute. It is also untrue – from my own experience anyway. When I argued this point, you dismissed it as being irrelevant. 🤷‍♂️

In another comment you said that “none of any of this absolves them from their own personal responsibility for what they created and continue to create in their lives, whether knowingly or unknowingly.” Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe this is a multifactorial issue. Maybe there are shades of responsibility influenced by multiple variables. As I said before, you allow your government to spy on populations, meddle with foreign elections, arm terrorists and murder millions of innocent men, women and children in Africa and the Middle East. Where is your personal responsibility? Does it mean anything to you? Or are you also “non human?”

You may think I’m being pernickety but this is where your argument leads if you keep following it. 😣

Wrong mwesten, Aqua is actually HUMANIZING them. You see what separates us from animals is that we are sentient, self aware. We know our actions have consequences beyond what is within arms reach when we do something. She is pointing out that they are in a group that is CLEARLY destructive and since they ARE human they HAVE to take responsibility. ALL those arguing otherwise are the ones dehumanizing the members and pushing them down to animal level of responsibility for actions and inaction’s.

Jere. Really similar, this tells us the need of controlling others

mwestern,

I “appeared to be assigning Scientologists as a group subhuman status”.

What?

Where did I say or even imply that?

Not sure how you extrapolated THAT from anything I wrote!

“And so any individual scientologist is automatically subhuman, simply because of his group’s status”.

Again, where did I say or even imply or infer that?

Seriously, I think you should re-read what I wrote.

You’re arguing points I never made.

Points I wouldn’t dream of even TRYING to make!

Seriously, if THIS is what communicated to you, out of what I wrote, then I don’t blame you for disagreeing, strenuously. 🙂