TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- War on Scientology
Pages (10): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »


Posted by jonze on Jan-24-2008 20:54:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
So your opinion is freedom of religion/freedom of speech should only apply to certain folks beliefs and not others?



I'm certainly no fan of Scientology, but people are more than welcome to make their own mistakes as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think I like the idea of a group of pissed off/bored internet kids deciding what is or is not socially acceptable.

Fucks sake, think about what kind of world that would be.




i hate scientology too. but i think their reasoning has something to do with scientology trying to censor other peoples' freedom of speech.


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 20:56:

quote:
Originally posted by jonze
i hate scientology too. but i think their reasoning has something to do with scientology trying to censor other peoples' freedom of speech.


To be honest, the legal system in this country has done a pretty good job at bitch-slapping the frivolous lawsuits Scientologists have filed right back to whichever absurd planet Xenu came from. I really don't think we need a bunch of douchebag, wannabe cyber vigilantes playing police.


Posted by wizniz on Jan-24-2008 20:59:

but its funneh


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 21:04:

quote:
Originally posted by wizniz
but its funneh


It's only funny because Scientologists are near universally despised - if it were Catholics, people from Africa, the government of Iceland, white males ages 18-34, etc., people would be furious - they would demand that these "anonymous" individuals be hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

All I'm saying is that it's very easy to read this story and go "Haha, stupid ass Scientologists getting what they deserve" without thinking at all of the implications of saying such things.


Posted by mezzir on Jan-24-2008 21:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Spacey Orange

for some reason, that picture always, ALWAYS, cracks me up

hahahah found it
i had to coutn the number of s's in beat blog's post from this pic to search for it


http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...=yesssssssssss.

the first three posts of that thread should be moved to classics


Posted by Ygrene on Jan-24-2008 21:10:

quote:
Originally posted by wizniz
but its funneh


quote:
Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed.


There are many things about that statement that takes it way beyond funny, I think.


Posted by bas on Jan-24-2008 21:14:

Wouldn't life be grand if Anon just took care of everything? I can't wait to get started on my collection of underage midget mule porn.


Posted by nchs09 on Jan-24-2008 21:18:

I hear they get epic lulz from doing this...


Posted by nefardec on Jan-24-2008 21:39:

to me it seems the "war" is more of a war of information, and these annoying 4chan types have every right to conduct such a war for the same reason scientology has a right to do what it does




also:

http://brandonbird.com/ron.html

(brandon bird, hilarious and clever little artist with whom i had the pleasure of living with for a year)


Posted by idoru on Jan-24-2008 21:43:

They've declared "war" on many, many different things before. Scientology just happens to be at a really high point in the limelight right now, so this "declaration of war" is going to receive more publicity than everything else they've done. It'll probably continue for about a month before they get bored and move on to another target. That's usually what happens.

Big whoop.


Posted by noikeee on Jan-24-2008 21:45:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
So your opinion is freedom of religion/freedom of speech should only apply to certain folks beliefs and not others?



I'm certainly no fan of Scientology, but people are more than welcome to make their own mistakes as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think I like the idea of a group of pissed off/bored internet kids deciding what is or is not socially acceptable.

Fucks sake, think about what kind of world that would be.


And you think 4chan kids will ever become an organization powerful enough to influencing the world on what is or isn't socially acceptable?

I think you might be overestimating them...


Posted by Dr. DAS on Jan-24-2008 21:48:

If only we could contact 'anonymous' and sick them on WBC...


Posted by Moongoose on Jan-24-2008 21:56:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT

I don't think I like the idea of a group of pissed off/bored internet kids deciding what is or is not socially acceptable.

Fucks sake, think about what kind of world that would be.


What, worse then now when a bunch of old farts are doing it? At least this has potential to be for for the res of us who aren't directly involved. sit back, open up a can of your favorite beer, reach for the popcorn, watch how the situation develops, enjoy it, and if opportunity arises, exploit it.


Posted by Lira on Jan-24-2008 21:57:

No, I don't think this is right. Freedom of expression/thought/assembly... should be respected, and "declaring war" on an organisation simply because their beliefs are considered bizarre is not all right.

This, however, could be a source of epic lulz, and I'm really curious to find out how the said church is going to deal with it. Are they going to sue Moot? Can he even be blamed?


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 21:58:

quote:
Originally posted by noikeee
And you think 4chan kids will ever become an organization powerful enough to influencing the world on what is or isn't socially acceptable?

I think you might be overestimating them...


Not at all, I just think there's a bit of a double standard to this issue because it's Scientology and not something else, and I think it's dangerous to just say it's cool because it's Scientology - it just seems like a slippery slope.

And I hardly see how what they're doing (shutting down websites) is limited to a war of information. Exposing lies is one thing, maliciously attacking an organizations infrastructure is quite the other.


Posted by noikeee on Jan-24-2008 22:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
No, I don't think this is right. Freedom of expression/thought/assembly... should be respected, and "declaring war" on an organisation simply because their beliefs are considered bizarre is not all right.

This, however, could be a source of epic lulz, and I'm really curious to find out how the said church is going to deal with it. Are they going to sue Moot? Can he even be blamed?


I just hope this won't suddenly raise scientology's awareness for the internet, and they won't start persecuting people everywhere in the internet for saying shit about them.

Protect j00r ip'z!!!!111


Posted by Lira on Jan-24-2008 22:04:

quote:
Originally posted by noikeee
I just hope this won't suddenly raise scientology's awareness for the internet, and they won't start persecuting people everywhere in the internet for saying shit about them.

Protect j00r ip'z!!!!111

You know, a Brazilian model once managed to block Youtube here in Brazil simply because of a sex video (despite of the fact that she was on the beach, which is a public area).

I'm afraid scientology might try to shut the internet down


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-24-2008 22:08:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
So your opinion is freedom of religion/freedom of speech should only apply to certain folks beliefs and not others?



I'm certainly no fan of Scientology, but people are more than welcome to make their own mistakes as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think I like the idea of a group of pissed off/bored internet kids deciding what is or is not socially acceptable.

Fucks sake, think about what kind of world that would be.


but scientology wields power in the public realm, thus its far from just a "belief" that minds its own business.


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 22:10:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but scientology wields power in the public realm, thus its far from just a "belief" that minds its own business.


It's called "natural selection" - let them cull the herd for the rest of us a bit. After all, thanks to Scientology - you have a foolproof method for idiot detection.



After all, it's not like they hold any influence with anyone who matters.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-24-2008 22:14:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
It's called "natural selection" - let them cull the herd for the rest of us a bit. After all, thanks to Scientology - you have a foolproof method for idiot detection.



After all, it's not like they hold any influence with anyone who matters.


any large corporation wields power over people that have nothing to do with it. any business that wields power and is as secretive as this "church" is gonna win my ire

if you tolerate these things for too long they get a foothold in areas like politics, somewhere religion should never go.

but i agree, the idiot detection is certainly handy!


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 22:17:

You see, the great thing about Scientology is that it's so fucking crazy that other than funding it's own legal team and publications, they really don't have a ton of extra money to "buy" influence just laying around - so while they manage to maintain their own existence, it's actually by far less than most people realize.

I say let the idiots play together, I think it's cute.


Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Jan-24-2008 22:21:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
You see, the great thing about Scientology is that it's so fucking crazy that other than funding it's own legal team and publications, they really don't have a ton of extra money to "buy" influence just laying around - so while they manage to maintain their own existence, it's actually by far less than most people realize.

That's a lot like Westboro Baptist, actually. The church consists mostly of Fred Phelps's kids and their families. Most of them become lawyers so that they can sue people who try to stop the silly protests.


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 22:24:

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
That's a lot like Westboro Baptist, actually. The church consists mostly of Fred Phelps's kids and their families. Most of them become lawyers so that they can sue people who try to stop the silly protests.



Yup - they're some of the worst kind of irritants because you just can't get rid of them, but they don't really do all together too much real harm. They're just very, very annoying.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-24-2008 22:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
No, I don't think this is right. Freedom of expression/thought/assembly... should be respected, and "declaring war" on an organisation simply because their beliefs are considered bizarre is not all right.

This, however, could be a source of epic lulz, and I'm really curious to find out how the said church is going to deal with it. Are they going to sue Moot? Can he even be blamed?


disagree completely. ANY idea should have to justify itself rationally and those that dont stack up should be met with mockery and attack. this whole idea that ideas should be respected a priori is how stupidity gets a foothold in the first place. if we hadn't given religion a free pass centuries ago perhaps some of today's problems wouldn't be so bad.

quote:
Originally posted by RJT

I say let the idiots play together, I think it's cute


that's because, like lira, you're a nice, tolerant and understanding young man. whereas im an intolerant prick who refuses to yield to ideas i find damaging to the human condition.

somewhat paradoxically, i feel some sympathy for the intellectually challenged that are taken advantage of by big business.

who knows what social evils are propogated by scientology that fly under the radar. plus, don't get me started on the tax breaks


Posted by RJT on Jan-24-2008 22:26:

I just feel a need to remind you how much I like your posts, PKC.

I don't think I've ever both agreed and disagreed with a single person more, and when we disagree I generally walk away thinking "Well fuck, that doesn't sound that dumb an idea..."


Pages (10): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.