As I said in my original post, my focus for the purposes of this discussion are not on WHAT crime is being committed in the name of “religion” but what template or yardstick is being used by our government in order to determine, or rather to differentiate between when and how to step in to protect the followers from themselves when they have been rendered unable to make cognitive, informed decisions on their own due to brainwashing and abuse. I completely understand that children are the most vulnerable and absolutely MUST be priority one. However at the same time, (and maybe I am looking at this through the eyes of a child abuse survivor here) what kind of lives are the children living within the walls of the CO$? From everything I have read these little ones are, for all intents and purposes being neglected by their parents unforgivably. The children are treated as adults in a child’s body because they have lived countless lives before. The responsibilities and chores expected of them cannot be age appropriate, nor are the punishments for perceived failure. The parents do not appear to be pivotal in the rearing, protection and nurturing of their children; ergo is someone who is raised to adulthood in such an environment truly equipped to make informed, reasonable decisions about their lives? Especially when that person finds him or herself locked in The Hole. How often do we see a woman in a domestic violence situation and think; “Girl you need to just leave him before he ends up killing you!” It isn’t that simple though. A person involved with an abusive partner lives with not just the physical violence, but also a daily torment of emotional warfare/blackmail, verbal abuse and controlling behavior. Often the victim of the abuse would say that she is somehow the cause of her abuse, that she deserved it. Just like someone in The Hole would say if asked by law enforcement. Yet there are domestic violence laws in place to try and help even if the woman cannot yet take those first steps. My original question is how our government decides what defines the illegalities that enable them to move in and do something about the various situations these cults create. How can our leaders grant religious protection to the abuses and human rights violations perpetrated by CO$ but decide to investigate abuses in some other cult? Abuse is abuse, I cannot believe that lawmakers are unable to define the line between religion and abuse in such a way that people can be protected. Especially when there are glaring violations such as the way people are worked and not paid and the way they are punished. What about OSHA laws and regulations for all the building that DM has unlicensed, unskilled people engaging in? In Amy Scobee’s book there were young people doing work that would get any other contractor fined into all of his future lives for. Scientology uses the “well the person knows what our rules are, they can leave if they want to” excuse. But can they really? No. Because of the manipulation and brain washing and further because Xenia help you if you do try and tap out.
Where does it become necessary for an outside force to step in? What amount of mind screwing does it take to render one unable to make logical, cognitive, free choices for oneself and when is it time for someone to step in and protect those who cannot?

Hey Roger, I completely agree with you. I am so grateful for all of my experiences.

All circumstance is the workshop of spiritual evolution.

Gratitude!

Thanks for posting that.

marildi, I hope that you recognize that last statement for the fallacy that it is 🙂

And I hope you’re actually still paying attention. I do wish you could find some way to be involved here, that was reasonably “workable” for all parties concerned. It seems to me that recently you’ve tried to avoid dragging things out endlessly (which is a kindness to our proprietor, if nothing else), but remain unwilling to accept that almost no one agrees that there is anything wonderful about Hubbard or Scientology to discuss.

I’ve got better things to do than to beat my head agains a couple of brick walls. 😛

That auditing supervisor was out-tech in evaluating what an overt is. What is an overt for one person may or may not be an overt for another. If it reads on the meter its an overt. Amazing out-tech, and this is Flag!
So glad I never had the money to go there when I was in.

marildi, an argument is simply a verbal attempt to persuade. Sometimes the absence of factors that constitute a valid argument means it isn’t an argument. It may instead be, 1. a suggestion, 2. an opinion, 3. a complaint, 4. an insult, 5. a joke, 6. scientology

BTW, an appeal to emotion is not a logical fallacy unless it is used instead of a rational argument. It can be included in a rational argument without breaking any ordinances.

Also, an analogy (for instance, about a N. Korean escapee who still thinks along the Party line) doesn’t constitute an argument. An analogy cannot prove or disprove an assertion and therefore doesn’t fall within the jurisdiction of logical fallacies.

And finally: a burden of proof is incumbent upon all who make an assertion, and that includes the assertion a logical fallacy has been committed. If you don’t prove it you commit the logical fallacy of ‘being awfully tiresome’.

I’m glad we had this talk.

marildi, please go back to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ – which I believe you have cited before, and to which I have previously directed you – and see the Fallacy Fallacy. It’s a fallacy itself to assume that the commission of a fallacy necessarily negates an argument; and perhaps more importantly, the burden is on you to explain why you think a fallacy has been committed, and how that applies to (and undermines) the argument being put forth, rather than just throwing out the claim of fallacious argumentation.

I agree that the comment that you referred to, is not itself a complete argument. I took it as sort of a summary of previous arguments made, but I’d be interested to see you critique it thoroughly so that we can actually know what your objections are.

“Harpoona is offering a suggestion, not advancing an argument…He does compare you to a N. Korean escapee who still thinks per the old regime indoctrination.”

That’s an argument by definition – an Ad Hom argument as well as the general Appeal to Emotion fallacy as in the rest of his post. And of course logical fallacies don’t come across as true arguments – that’s the point.

marildi, Harpoona is offering a suggestion, not advancing an argument and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of logical fallacies. He does compare you to a N. Korean escapee who still thinks per the old regime indoctrination. You have to admit the comparison is a valid one given his point of view.

He points out your proclivity to “pull some isolated nugget of wisdom…” in order to legitimize the entire body of Hubbard’s otherwise checkered work. That is an observation.

Harpoona is frying smaller fish right now than proving scientology is “applied mindfuckery”. He is merely referencing that local and widespread opinion in order to suggest, presumably for your own good, that you free yourself from it.

Clearly that advice is unwelcome to you but better to tell him off than to try to dead agent him, scientology style, with charges that don’t apply.