the information is in the book?
Question answered by honorarykid in Scientology
remiel asked this question on 8/18/2000:
freedom of religion denied me the right to response by closing
his question. This is the answer I gave to his question about
people 'dissing' scientology, plus his response to me.
'People should know the truth about everything.
However, what you are implying is that the critics have some
form of 'dark past'. THey do not. This is a standard technique
of the church called 'black PR', attacking the source, not the
information. It is fairly disgusting, if you ask me.'
His answer was: 'The information is in the book
Dianetics. That is what you are denying people.'
freedom of religion appears to be responding to something I
haven't said. Can anyone tell me where I was 'denying people'
the information in Dianetics? I've never opposed its sale, I just
personally think it is hogwash. I also think Roger Scruton's
works on political theory are hogwash. I have no problem with
people buying, reading, or believing works by L Ron Hubbard or
Roger Scruton. I do however have a problem with
organisations or individuals hurting people and breaking the
law. Therefore, I oppose a lot of Roger Scruton's 'new right'
associates and their incitements to racial hatred. Therefore I
oppose the exploitation that takes place within the Church of
Scientology.
Anyway, my question: Is it fair to deny someone the right to
respond to a question you yourself have asked?
honorarykid gave this response on 8/18/2000:
No, it's not fair. But then, you know and I know that the
question was not asked in order to solicit serious responses
or generate an honest discussion. We know that like so
many other Scientologists, this particular questioner merely
wanted a one-way communication session, merely wanted
to preach at people without listening to them, merely
wanted to spread implications and innuendo to sully the
names of and/or positions taken by critics of Scientology
with no opportunity for rebuttals.
That's a funny thing, I really don't think the questioner
understood at all that their are many ways to answer
leading questions. When he/she saw that people were
answering in ways that defeated his/her purposes, the
question was abruptly ended.
Is this yet another example of Scientology's definition of
being better able to communicate? ;-)
And obviously, you've defeated that technique. You can
post follow ups and "questions" in this new thread till the
cows come home! ;-)
By the way, my answers also started to receive the
boringly familiar and non-sequitur rebuke that all of lifes's
answers are found in the book "Dianetics" and I ought to
read it.
To the questioner who so generously seeks to inform me
about the wonders of Dianetics, let me assure you that I
HAVE read it! I know what it says. Dianetics is complete
hogwash. And it's sexist, belittling, misogynistic hogwash at
that. I urge you to please pull your head out... of that
particular book, and read a different book. For example, you
might read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World -
Science as a Candle in the Dark."
G'day!
remiel rated this answer:
I too have read Dianetics. I have almost certainly read more
Scientology texts than the individual in question. For example,
the OT levels and the NOTs
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.