Excellent, just excellent!

Mike Rinder, applause
Macallan Dave, martinet

Safety Guy,
Male Bovine Shit can be fertilizer.
Scientology TV is just your basic “holetrack”😉,nonrecycleable, toxic shit. Pigs are intelligent, too, unlike Scientology TV programming…

MB, Hubbard’s Scientology also requires acceptance of outright lies and counter-factuals, doesn’t it? The obvious falsehoods in Hubbard’s biography and claimed qualifications have to be regarded as truth, just for starters. And the CofS has to be believed to have millions of members and undergoing unprecedented expansion, even when the few and far between orgs are small, shrinking and failing – particularly compared to other obvious examples like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I have written the first few chapters. It is going to be a long book or maybe two.

They removed TVs from the Sandcastle so when we went for six month check I had to buy or rent one to watch March Madness. The staff didn’t seem to understand.

Hay, processed through the bowels of a male bovine. That’s what.

Great!

I took on the topic at length in a blog post.

When I started studying critical thinking seriously I ran into an hour long video by an expert on critical thinking in which he gave his take and it well frankly totally debunks Scientology as a serious subject and shows that Scientology simply is not compatible with critical thinking and further that Scientology is not a reality based subject.

Richard Paul pointed out many relevant issues regarding critical thinking in his lectures. One issue he dealt with is different degrees of understanding of issues.

One lecture in particular is worth serious examination.

It’s on YouTube with the Title Prove: Why Intellectual Standards ? Why Teach For Them ?

From CriticalThinkingOrg published on April 23, 2015 with a length of fifty five minutes and nineteen seconds. This post addresses the content of that lecture.

He described sophisticate believers and vulgar believers. He said vulgar believers really don’t understand the logic of the content, they don’t understand the ideology.

He pointed out that a person could be what he called a vulgar believer. He gave the example of a person who claims to be a Marxist who has a handful of slogans like “seize the means of production, power to the people, down with the bourgeois” and so on. The person never read Marx or any related authors or contemporaries of Marx. The person doesn’t understand ANY of the ideas of Marx besides these slogans in the barest manner possible. They don’t understand the terms in the subject or anything else. They may be willing to die for Marx or Marxism but don’t understand anything about it.

He described sophisticate believers and vulgar believers. He said vulgar believers really don’t understand the logic of the content, they don’t understand the ideology.

He said a step up from a vulgar believer regarding a subject is a sophisticate believer. The sophisticate believer understands the ideas in a subject far more than the vulgar believer. But they are predisposed to not understand how the subject they are aware of can be critiqued by other systems and interacts with subjects outside the one subject they defend. He gave the test that they don’t see the flaws and weaknesses in their system and the answers that other systems can give to incorporate them and improve their system. They are aware of no flaws in their system. They see no other system as necessary. He described them as being able to recite six volumes of very narrow minded reasoning that never entertains another system. Crucially they try to understand the system outside their own system to negate it and defend their own system. He defined this as apologetics and said you ought to apologize for it.

This is worth strong emphasis. He described it as trying to show everyone why you are right and everyone else is wrong all the time.

He described the challenge of critical thinking as trying to get students to not be vulgar believers or sophisticate believers.

https://mbnest.blogspot.com/2018/06/scientology-versus-critical-thinking.html

To: pluvo
From: David Miscavige COB RTC
Re: SPTV

Oh, yes, I have been watching your pathetic SPTV and all I can say is that your silly little show is nothing compared to our fabulous, awesome theta Scientology Network! It is only a matter of time before your putrid little show dies on YouTube due to lack of interest. And I will be rejoicing at its downfall!

ML,
Dave.

To: David Miscavige COB RTC
From: Alcoboy
Re: Scientology Network

Since Mike Rinder’s book is a bigger bestseller than any of your silly Basics books, I don’t think that SPTV is going to be the first off the air.
Just sayin’.

No love at all,
Alcoboy.

Amazing! Might make a post and/or video out of this!