Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.

But what is their viewpoint?  "All black people must die"?  How is that not going to become violent?

Truth.

[Vattic]

I agree with freedom of speech but as for France banning Scientology I cant help but laugh. Then again the Church of Scientology is scam for the most part primarily because it uses its status as a religion to avoid tax among other things. From what I have read they didn't ban the faith as such but the organisation known as the Church of Scientology which they decided was a fraudulent and dangerous group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Dispute_of_religion_status

[Jackrabbit]

Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.

But what is their viewpoint?  "All black people must die"?  How is that not going to become violent?

Truth.

Hell yes it's the truth.

[Vester]

Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.

But what is their viewpoint?  "All black people must die"?  How is that not going to become violent?

Truth.

Hell yes it's the truth.

Quoted for further truth.

This is why I like where I live. All the racists are too passive-aggressive to do any actual harm. The gangs, on the other hand...

Speaking of which, is Scientology a true cult, or just a multinational organization bent on financial gain? There is a difference.

[Zangi]

Speaking of which, is Scientology a true cult, or just a multinational organization bent on financial gain? There is a difference.

Really there is a difference? 
1. The heads of Scientology are profiting from the believers... or customers if you will... 
2. Scientology sells the "Stay out of Hell Card".
3. The customers, they pay with money and their devotion to Scientology.
4. Customers are required to segregate their lives from non-customers.
5. Customers are encouraged to harass non-customers who give bad reviews for the services provided by Scientology.
6. Customers can, under the supervision of Scientology 'employees', kidnap non-customers who are deemed to be more of a nuisance then just the regular bad reviewers.

What else?  I think I'm missing stuff.

[ChairmanPoo]

What was of the dwarves of yonde?

[G-Flex]

Speaking of which, is Scientology a true cult, or just a multinational organization bent on financial gain? There is a difference.

Really there is a difference? 
1. The heads of Scientology are profiting from the believers... or customers if you will... 
2. Scientology sells the "Stay out of Hell Card".
3. The customers, they pay with money and their devotion to Scientology.
4. Customers are required to segregate their lives from non-customers.
5. Customers are encouraged to harass non-customers who give bad reviews for the services provided by Scientology.
6. Customers can, under the supervision of Scientology 'employees', kidnap non-customers who are deemed to be more of a nuisance then just the regular bad reviewers.

What else?  I think I'm missing stuff.

Of course there's a difference. Even some of the worst multinational corporations don't do some of the stuff you're mentioning, nor do they attempt to control your ideology, per se.

[LegoLord]

I think the key problem is that they quite literally sell the "Stay out of hell" card.  And the cure-all-diseases-at-various-prices-because-medicine-doesn't-work card.  The latter can actually be fatal to the children of members.  Frankly I'd be a hyperactive idiot if I were a Scientologist's son (the zealous kind, anyway). 

[Jude]

The problem being that no government has a true democracy. A true democracy would never work, the same way communism just doesn't work - people are too fickle to govern as a mass body, for which reason there are prime ministers and presidents, and on another level, the Congress and Senate, and the courts.

OK well, that has nothing to do with what I said...

You actually don't have the right to threaten people in the U.S.  You can get in big trouble for it.  A viewpoint that is as good as a threat towards a group . . . tricky grounds there.

The KKK mostly marches around talking about white pride. If they make a real threat against a specific person then that's one thing, but you can't outlaw them saying white people are better than black people, or even that black people should leave the country/be slaves/die. That's not a threat. A threat is saying to somebody, "Leave town or we will lynch you." And they don't do that because they don't want to get arrested. And it's not illegal for them to think white people have the sun shining out their ass, so the rest of us put up with it, because it's better than giving the government the right to outlaw certain opinions.

But what is their viewpoint?  "All black people must die"?  How is that not going to become violent?

First of all, I don't really think that's their expressed viewpoint. Wikipedia could probably tell you more but either way it's irrelevant, because second, even if they think all black people should die, it's not illegal to think that, or to think anything, or to SAY that you think it. Once they start actually actively inciting riots or making death threats or damaging people's property or harrassing someone, then that's a crime and you can prosecute them. But you can't shut them down for voicing their opinions. Hell, there are lots of right-wing radio talk show hosts in America that make their living talking about how liberals are horrible and hate America and are all Muslim terrorists, but that doesn't even count as inciting violence and the KKK is really no different.

[LegoLord]

I think he means true freedom, not democracy (democracy=freedom to an extent, freedom =/= democracy), as freedom fits into that statement a bit better and is more noticeably relevant.

Somewhat off-topic thoughtfodder:  Can one really rely on a wiki article about an extremist group?

[Vester]

I think he she means true freedom, not democracy (democracy=freedom to an extent, freedom =/= democracy), as freedom fits into that statement a bit better and is more noticeably relevant.

Somewhat off-topic thoughtfodder:  Can one really rely on a wiki article about an extremist group?

Fixed for gender correctness.

No, I really was referring to democracy. A pure democracy is the rule, literally, of the people, where the people are themselves the governing body rather than having representatives for them (like the Senate). It's a greek idea that didn't work, which is why they ended up with oligarchies multiple times.

Buuuuuuut freedom works better in the statement, yeah.

Also: I tend to take wikipedia articles with a grain of salt, especially if they're about something controversial.

[sonerohi]

hOW'D POLITICKIN GET IN MAH SCIENTOLIGICAL THREAD? BATSHIT CRAZY PEOPLE WORSHAPPIN HUBBARD'S PAPER-WORDY'S =/= POLITICKIN.

[ChairmanPoo]

[G-Flex]

Will you guys please not try to derail the thread with your shenanigans? Last time I checked, people here were actually trying to talk about something.

[ChairmanPoo]

When you acknowledge that John Locke is actually Titus Flavius Vespasian. And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next.