Anon hypocrits to support Sen Xen's call for CoS to agree to inquiry

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Good point.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Your argument is a non-sequitur. Whether or not "we" are criminals has no bearing on the Church of Scientology's status as an organization promoting criminal behavior.

Cases must be tried one at a time.

Maybe you grew up within Scientology and drank deeply of the "what are your crimes" philosophy. If so, I'm truly sorry your mind was crippled in that way.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

I never said it did. I simply said that we have secrets we hide, particularly our identities, not because they involve illegalities, but because we simply would not want them to be public knowledge.

Again you all seem to be missing the point that they are not being required to submit to a parliamentary investigation (yet). Xenophon asking them to voluntarily expose their secrets is at this point not legally different from the CoS or Tom Newton or anyone else asking us to expose our secrets. It is hypocritical of us to act like it is.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Speaking for everyone again, I see. There is no "we." Speak for yourself and speak to individuals. There is no "Anonymous" as an entity which is responsible for ANYTHING.

You attempt to equate remaining anonymous on a message board with "hiding secrets" and other intimations of guilt which DO NOT FOLLOW.

And again with "hypocritical" bit? You admit that charging hypocrisy is a fallacy, yet continue with it. As I and others have pointed out: not only can you NOT charge an entire mass of anonymous people with hypocrisy due to a hypothetical not in evidence, but even if your charge were valid it would have nothing to do with the validity of the claims against Co$.

rofl... just come out with "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES? ONLY CRIMINALS NEEDS MASKS!" and be done with it already.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

There is no "us".

We are all individuals. We are not responsible for the actions of others that happen to have the same aims as we do. We will all agree with some people on some issues, and disagree with some people on other issues.

Therefore, unless there is specific evidence against specific individuals, then they may of course be investigated - but that doesn't mean the rest of us are guilty and worthy of investigation.

Remember, the problem at the moment is not specific individuals within Scientology (although of course people like David Miscavige is ultimately responsible for those under him) but the unlawful practices of the cult itself, as described in various Hubbard policy letters, which have resulted in forced abortions, imprisonment, disconnection, human rights abuses, human trafficking, tax evasion and many other things.

Once the cult as a whole has been convicted and found guilty, then the courts will go after the individuals responsible for the illegal acts committed.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

And finally, let's look at your first argument, which has in fact been a Straw Man the entire time. When you posted the above, nobody had made the claim you attack. Nobody had said "Scientology should voluntarily submit to an investigation."

You didn't just misrepresent an opposing argument to attack, you CREATED one.

Edit: Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Protip: Brushing up on your logic won't help if you're a Hubbardian. His scripted nonthink won't allow it.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Leader of Anonymous!?

Madness, madness indeed.

You forget yourself.
The entire reason anonymous protesters stay anonymous is not to hide from the law but to protect themselves and their families from Fair Game.
How many times have you seen an anonymous keep their mask on when an officer or any member of the law tell them to take it off?
I've seen 100% compliance with all cases pertaining to the anonymous when it comes to the law.
Whats so wrong about holding Scientology to the same standards and expect them to be in 100% compliance with the law?

Scientology has in the past broken the law and according to testimony broken the law again. If this is true, they need to be brought out and face justice.
IF Scientology accused me of a crime and the police asked me "did you do it? do you mind if we search you?" I'd say, "go right ahead."

I don't understand what you're trying to say, I think you need to reevaluate this situation and think about the crap you've been spewing.

The anonymous aren't being accused of anything, they're not the ones in court, and if they were, you could probably expect 100% compliance if they were indeed loyal to the cause of fighting Scientology.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

In respect to this, all of us should be continually harpooning any relevant and detailed information of abuses/incidents as mentioned before. Never stop doing so, but make sure it is not moonbatty or repeated to any large extent.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Flunk!

You're not playing devil's advocate, you're playing ignorant, logic-handicapped scientologist without a clue about anonymous.

Start again.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

You discount the accomplishments, and in fact the very existence, of the people from this website? Am I wrong in assuming that the one thing that bind "Anonymous" is that we are, or at least wish to remain, anonymous?

This is precisely my point. I don't equate hiding secrets with guilt. I equate hiding secrets with hiding secrets.

I never meant that my initial point was fallacious. I meant that you could reasonably defend the inherent hypocrisy by saying "YEAH SO?"

And thus we come to the one single biggest problem with WWP. If you don't agree to the letter of the hivemind you are accused of being a scientologist spy. I never said we don't have good reason to wear masks and hide our identities. Not once.

If you're going to throw wikipedia articles about logical fallacies at me why don't you look up Ad-Hominem, or No True Scotsman.

You're correct. I was the one who brought it up, but I wasn't the one who decided to defend it.

Hiding secrets? LOL. If there's anything you want to know about Anonymous, go look on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Our memes are there, including their origin and why we think they're funny. It also includes the history of Anonymous and our raids. Really, if there's anything you want to to know about Anonymous, it's on the internet.

Or were you talking about our identities?

So, we're hypocrites for hiding our identities? Go look up "Fair Game", "Operation Freakout", and "Scientology and the legal system" and tell us that there's no reason why we should hide our identities. Beyond that, there is no secret about Anonymous, other than the fact that we are anonymous in nature. Or are you chasing the whole "leader of Anonymous" conspiracy theory again? Didn't OSA already determine that it was Marvin Gaye?

No, but you kept pointing fingers at us and demanded to know our secrets. The only secrets we keep are our identities. Unlike Scientologists, we don't have a long list of government infiltrations, murders, or abuses we'd like to keep quiet about. The only thing that even remotely resembles the skeletons in Scientology's closet that we have are raids, which, again, you can plainly see on the internet. No reason to hide those. In fact, go look up "GoddessMine". That one was one of my favorites.

tl;dr

So, you admit you made a staw-man? Flunk. gb2/rpf

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

You continue to fail, you continue to make veiled assertions that "Anonymous" = "hiding" and "secrets" and other loaded language.

You continue to speak for a "we" that does not exist.

You say I engage in an ad hominem by accusing you of being a Scientologist Spy due to your arguments. I never accused you of either thing. I have no idea if you are a Ronbot and there is nothing to "spy" on. More of your loaded language and dishonesty.

You do, however, certainly argue with the logical disregard of a Hubbardian, and so I point this out. You are in fact engaging in an elaborate "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?" circle. It's up to you to say whether you are a $cientologist or not. I don't care either way.

You make yet more sweeping, false generalizations like:

There is no hivemind. There is no "we." There is no monolithic central thought control, as you continue to imply without foundation. This is a gross false generalization, and you follow it up by once again speaking for "we" and then executing a twisted straw man AGAIN. I never argued that you made claims that people should not wear masks. I argued against your illogical attempts to link anonymous posters with Co$ in terms of being "investigated."

And I've never said you did, though you strongly imply it. What I do attack is your implications that anonymity online is some sort of "hiding secrets." Not having chosen to make oneself a public figure is NOT the same as "hiding." But I do see why you try to plant all the assumptions you do.

BUT... at least you finally admitted that your entire point all along was a straw man. You admit that you created an argument that nobody had made so that you could engage in the VERY Hubbardian tactic of turning things into an attack on the accuser, as you spoke for "we," of course.

This admission is your surrender. Or should be.

Edit: And to summarize why you seem so Hubbardian in intent, along with your Hubbardian argumentation style, here are the themes you keep pounding:

1."Anonymous" is one thing, therefore "Anonymous" has responsibilites.

2. Anonymity = "hiding secrets" and "hypocrite"

3. Anonymous posters who think Co$ should voluntarily submit to investigation are hypocrites if they don't post their identifying info.

(even though not a single Anon said "Co$ should voluntarily submit to investigation")

4. Speak for "we" (see: 1) and the "public at large."

5. Overall, attempt to equate the nonexistent, single-entity "Anonymous," as well as anonymous posters, with Co$.

6. Focus only on the "accuser," ignoring being busted for fallacies, and ignoring discussion of the original post, which was a REQUEST (not accusation or demand) by SENATOR XENOPHON (not an Anon) to submit to a voluntary investigation.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Obviously I was.

You're really accusing me of being a Scientologist and saying I'm pointing fingers in the same breath? You have to at the very least see THAT as hypocritical. I never demanded anyone's secrets, I merely pointed out that we have them.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Please link where that poster accused you of being a Scientologist. Or are you going to try running with your third (at least) Straw Man argument?

And you continue to call people hyprocrites, which is neither substantiated nor relevant.

And you STILL keep talking about "we" and "secrets." Speak for yourself. Or keep going. You work for me either way.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Hey, look, yet another Straw Man argument. Fail.

Those secrets being our identities, which are trivial and irrelevant when compared to Scientology's secrets that they clearly don't want the Australian Senate to know. I, for one, would welcome them looking into Anonymous. Unlike the cult, we have nothing to hide.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

So you're trying to claim that remaining anonymous requires you to hide your identity or in other words keep it secret?

Do you not see that little box there on the left that says "Anonymous?"

I didn't realize that there were people who used the "what are your crimes" mantra aside from scientologists. Who are these "Hubbardian" people you speak of that are not scientologists that you continue to accuse me of being?

I'm sorry but I still fail to see the difference between "remaining anonymous" and "hiding your identity"

I said that I brought up the entire discussion. I never once claimed it was an argument that anyone held before they defended it.

never said it

I said that hiding secrets when expecting other people not to is hypocritical

yeah so?

Anonymous, CoS, Xenuphon, do not exist in a vacuum.

What noun would you use to describe the people who post on this website?

never happened

which was exactly what I've been saying the entire thread?

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Yeah, I'm sure that's what one of the users in question would like for the average thread-scanner to see: a bunch of arguing back and forth with nothing achieved, which is all tl;dr.

I think those who read it see something else, though.

I'd say it's one user who was listened to more closely than he'd like, and who then refused to listen to anyone else or argue honestly. It might have been intended as derailment, but I think it's never a waste to expose such tactics.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Yes. Only a Scientologist would ask an Anon to reveal his or her identity. Either that, or someone who is completely new to fighting the cult.

Scientologists have a long, well-documented history of relentlessly attacking their critics, trying to destroy their lives, and even going as far as to inflict bodily harm on them. We hide our identity for our safety from these vicious, amoral, and illegal tactics. While we're on this subject, that should be one of the first things the Senate looks into.

Yet another Straw Man. That brings us up to... four?

There is no difference, but again, that isn't the point. I defy you to tell me how our identities, being kept secret for our safety, are even remotely comparable to Scientology's dirty little secrets like Lisa McPherson, Uwe Stuckenbrock, the child labor in the Sea Org, and forced abortions.

See the above.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

ok you won the arguement. feel better?

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

fail for not hitting Anon button

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

wasnt me he was arguing with but it looked like he needed someone to say he won.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Only Herro could make this thread readable.

This is some epic faggotry.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

So annteristing.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

This thread = Epic Lulz

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

^
yep

Classic diversion technique in action. Works well.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

I read the challenge to the CoS, as having a layer of rhetoric - aimed at fellow senators. Like "hang on a sec, why ARE they fighting so hard against an inquiry?"

Even if they don't know what to make of what Xenophon's presented, the CoS's objections to an inquiry coupled with what I'm guessing was some ill-advised (and rejected) submission material, might make the reluctant senators think again about an inquiry.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

I <3 horses

Anonymous>Chanology>Anonymous=/WWP<Chanology=/Anonymous

Now fuck off

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

It would seem that Herro has found the "make post anonymously' button.
suitable to ignore

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

you'd be surprised. Herro hasn't even read this thread.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Hey thread:

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

yeah i noticed, we havent been graced with "the devils advocates" presence. did one of you modfags finally grow a set and ban him?

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Y'know, if one of our clever moderators split off all the whiny "Y U WEAR MASKZ? BAAAWW!!" posts arguing about issues that were beaten into the ground at least two years ago (e.g., why Anons wear masks to prevent Fair Game), then the pathetic attempts in this thread to distract from the point Xenophon made (that Scientology should be willing to be examined and questioned if it has nothing to hide and if it can prove their assertions that the claims Xenophon revealed publicly from ex-Scientologists are false) will fail and that will REALLY piss off the troll(s) trying to distract us from that.

Let's repeat it, to make them even more pissy: If Scientology has nothing to hide, and if Xenophon's statements were in any way false, then Scientology should not have any problem being questioned publicly and providing verifiable proof and relevant records to back up their claims.

''I challenge the Church of Scientology - if they are so confident of their position, they should welcome a Senate inquiry where they can give evidence,'' Senator Xenophon said.

They can't do this simple thing, because Xenophon was CORRECT, so we have no Scieno dare-takers in Oz, and we have trolls here trying to make Anons defensive about masking up...even though we have beaten that particular subject into the ground, and even though quite a few Anonymous protest groups don't even bother with masks.

Some of you need to learn to be less easily distracted by tards, whereas other Anons clearly get it (kudos to grumpus in particular).

Well, a plus here is that we know that the question apparently makes SOME people VERY uncomfortable: uncomfortable enough to troll with old, stupid questions we have already discussed to death and argued with retards about, but not uncomfortable enough to do some self-examination and independent research into Scientology by, say, going to "entheta" critical websites that s/he is not supposed to read or contacting an ex-Scientologist to ask pointed questions.

Also, re: henways: a hen's weight depends on what species of bird you might be referring to and the age of the bird in question; we probably shouldn't assume it's a female chicken that we are talking about. When I visited London, I met some birds who weighed, on average, about 130 pounds.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Y BOLD IF U HAVE NuTHING TO HIED hURRRRRRR

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

I'm not.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Yes we are.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

wat

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

OMG I <3 ponies

Almost the same thing, except not.

Now fuck off

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Herro enjoys periodic bans whenever his infractions accrue to the autoban level "10" - just like the rest of us.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

Beat me to it.

Those Britfags and their damn Monty Python! What did we get for comedy troupes over here? "Hee Haw" and NPR.

Re: Xenophon challenges CoS to agree to senate inquiry

They wouldn't ban their favorite sock.

Man, this is some bullshit. Fuck you xenophon. Since when are citizens supposed to bend over and let their government fuck them just because somebody accuses them of something? "If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind an investigation." Screw that. If xenophon wants to investigate Scientology then he can follow whatever the due process of law is in Australia and get an investigation launched. I hope the CoS does the right thing and tells this clown to go fuck himself. That should be the response to any politician in an ostensibly democratic state pulling this kind of crap.