SuzanneMarie a
Scientologist on
OCMB in her lame attempt to prove that
Jonestown was a government conspiracy conducted by the CIA (links:
1,
2,
3) cited
Wikipedia as her source. If you know anything about the
internet you should know that
wikipidia is a good jump off point for information but should be taken with a grain of salt until further investigation. Mainly because anyone can edit it. Anyone. So entries that pertain to such things as as politically motivated issues, theology/religious topics, conspiracy theories, and other hotly contestable items are not to be taken as fact because of vandalism or incorrect information can slip it's way on there from time to time.
There have been at least
one court case I'm aware of which has thrown out
Wikipeida as evidence citing:
To establish the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia, the court cited a Wall Street Journal article, which said: "Anyone can edit [a Wikipedia] article, anonymously, hit and run. From the very beginning that has been Wikipedia's greatest stregth and its greatest weakness." James Glerick, Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt, Wall St. J., Aug. 8, 2008, at W1. That unreliability is highlighted by the extensive disclaimers contained on Wikipedia, including this one: "The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."
Anytime I read something and see that
Wikipedia is where they are getting the information, the text in question is immediately suspect. Whether I agree with the opinions in said text or not, if I see that as where the author is getting his information, I have no choice but to call into question the intellectual sloppiness or sloth of the author.
With that said; if I see someone doing this I always like to ask them to stop and use other
referances and citations in their work and correct the error. Some people are unaware; and that's fine. However, I get dumbfounded when I see a
Scientologist using it as a citation. Take for example the now infamous "Anonymous Frequently Asked Questions" flier Scientology handed to me (several times now) in order to enable distrust with my fellow picketers in hopes we just stop picketing and
downstating their church.
(note: This flier is a previous version; the most recent edition of this flier actually has MORE links to Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica)
What makes my head spin about this is the fact that if they do refer people to
Wikipedia, it's only going to make people who aren't aware of
Wikipedia's questionable content
inerested in Scientology and enter "Scientology" in the search field for Wiki. Which contains some wonder bits of information such as:
Scientology and hypnosis
-
Scientology literature claims that L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated his professional expertise in hypnosis by "discovering" the Dianetic engram. Hubbard was said to be an accomplished hypnotist, and close acquaintances such as Forrest Ackerman (Hubbard's literary agent) and A. E. van Vogt (an early supporter of Dianetics) witnessed repeated demonstrations of his hypnotic skills.[58] Licensed psychotherapists allege that "auditing" sessions are considered a mental health treatment without a license.[citation needed] The Church disputes these statements and says that its practice leads to spiritual relief.[citation needed]
The Anderson Report, an inquiry conducted in 1965 for the state of Victoria, Australia, found that the auditing process involved "command" hypnosis, in which the hypnotist assumes "positive authoritative control" over the patient. "It is the firm conclusion of this Board that most scientology and dianetics techniques are those of authoritative hypnosis and as such are dangerous… The scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute… which was virtually unchallenged—leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology. Many scientology techniques are in fact hypnotic techniques, and Hubbard has not changed their nature by changing their names."[164]
and:
Inflation of member statistics
In 2005, Scientology stated its worldwide membership at 8 million people, and that number included people who took only the introductory course and didn't continue on.[48] In 2007 the Church claimed 3.5 million members in the United States,[171] but according to a 2001 survey published by the City University of New York, 55,000 people in the United States would, if asked to identify their religion, have stated Scientology.[172] It has been estimated by another source outside of Scientology that adherents number under 500 thousand.[173]
Scientologists tend to disparage general religious surveys on the grounds that many members maintaining cultural and social ties to other religious groups will, when asked their religion, answer with their traditional and more socially acceptable affiliation.[173] Religious scholar J. Gordon Melton has said that the church's estimates of its membership numbers are exaggerated.[174]
Not to mention in the summary at the top of the page:
There are a large number of organizations overseeing the application of Scientology, many of which are separate legal entities.[10] These organizations have remained highly controversial since their inception. Most notable of these organizations is the Church of Scientology, whose primary concern is to uphold the belief system of Scientology. Former members, journalists, courts, and authorities in multiple countries have described Scientology as a cult [11][12][13][14][15][16] and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise. Critics claim that the organization has a history of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members.[14][16][17][18][15][19] Time Magazine describes Scientology as "a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner." [14] Scientology has consistently litigated most actions which it has perceived to be threatening. One major litigation point is that of copyright infringement.[20][21]
So way to go guys helping to spread more
entheta for us. Sometimes I feel I should add you to my Christmas card list for helping expose the Church's crimes sometimes on a larger scale than critics.
But let's delve further into this bullshit shall we? Now according to Hubbard,
Scientologly not only helps to think logically but also increases IQ! So if that is true was can make the following assumption:
Scientologists are smart, tend to think logically and refrain from so called "logical fallacies" which are errors in logical thinking.
However, they are breaking 2 of them by spreading these fliers in attempt to disprove
Anonymous's allegations against the Organization of The Church of Scientology International.
1. Hasty GeneralisationExplanation: A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.
Applied: Anonymous member X engaged in illegal activity. Ergo, all members of Anonymous are criminals.
Why it is wrong: The conclusion hasn't been proven. Because 1 or 10 members is not necessarily representative of such a large group.
Example of absurdity: Scientologists Mario
Majorski, Mary Sue Hubbard, and Reed
Slatkin have all been involved in criminal activity; ergo all
Scientologists are criminals.
2. Ad Hominem Explanation: An ad-
hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
Applied: Anonymous are criminals, terrorists, and they have a sick sense of humor. Therefore their claims against the church are untrue.
Why it is wrong: In some cases an ad-
hominim isn't a logical fallacy if certain character flaws could call into question the argument of the presenter. For example a recidivist child molester claiming that child molestation should not be a criminal offence. However as we pointed above that a small amount of members of anonymous aren't representative of the entire group; this would qualify as a logical fallacy.
Example of absurdity: Christopher Columbus tortured people, so his claims about the world being round is untrue.
As we can see; these fliers are nothing short of stupid and another
footbullet on behalf of Scientology. Unlike most anons I've talked to, I encourage their passing of these fliers. I think it does more damage to themselves than it does to Anonymous. It's also a giant leap of faith to ask the public to believe silly people in masks offering each other free drinks, cake, snacks and hugs a group of international terrorists because 5 people who claimed to be anonymous has committed a crime and they have a dark sense of humor. I think they underestimate the average intellect of the common "wog" by insulting their intelligence with such garbage.
In Kansas City yesterday, they didn't pass out these fliers to the public, they only gave it to 2 old guards (
marlysfan and I) and 2 anonymous girls. WHY?! Obviously they know what they are doing. If one person was actually involved in a criminal organization, I think they'd know. Police would have a much better time stopping the
mafia's activities by simply informing them they are in the mafia if this logic was plausible.
As far as the old guard goes; it's been 10 months now we've been aware of Anonymous. Obviously we've looked into both sides of the story and think your side is full of shit and aren't going to switch sides now that you have an updated version of the same flier we've been getting time and time again.
Scientology, give up. Just stop the fraud, abuse, dead
agenting, fair game...etc. If you want us to go away, that is your
only effective choice. The more you fight back, the more you will
downstat yourselves. If you put your hand on an electric stove and it burns; for the love of God don't keep putting your hand on it thinking it will eventually run out of heat. You've been trying to handle anonymous for 10 months now, time to shift gears. What you guys have been doing clearly is not working.
On a side note; if they are "religious bigots" how do you explain why they picket alongside of
protestant Scientologists in the
Freezone?
