The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Discuss]Anti-Scientology Activist... "suicide"?
VThornheart
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So today on Digg I saw this:
http://www.digg.com/people/Scourge_of_cien_ology_Dies_in_Apparent_Suicide
I'm kind of upset about this right now, so I figured I'd start a discussion to see what others thought of it.
Apparently he committed suicide by pumping his exhaust from his car into his house. That seems highly questionable to me, because if someone were to want to die that way, they'd sit in their car... but how much easier is it to kill someone with carbon monoxide by hooking up a hose to someone's car and sliding the other end through a cracked open (or forced open) window?
This doesn't sound like the way someone would kill themselves... it sounds like the way someone would kill another person while they're sleeping/watching TV/otherwise distracted. A hose put in through the window of an infrequently used area of a house, particularly if there's drapes in front of that window, would be hard to notice. And if he was asleep or doing something that took his attention, he wouldn't notice the odorless carbon monoxide poisoning taking effect until he started to already feel the dizzyness and loss of consciousness: in other words, when it was too late.
Maybe I'm biased on the issue, but I smell a rat. What do you guys think?
http://www.digg.com/people/Scourge_of_cien_ology_Dies_in_Apparent_Suicide
I'm kind of upset about this right now, so I figured I'd start a discussion to see what others thought of it.
Apparently he committed suicide by pumping his exhaust from his car into his house. That seems highly questionable to me, because if someone were to want to die that way, they'd sit in their car... but how much easier is it to kill someone with carbon monoxide by hooking up a hose to someone's car and sliding the other end through a cracked open (or forced open) window?
This doesn't sound like the way someone would kill themselves... it sounds like the way someone would kill another person while they're sleeping/watching TV/otherwise distracted. A hose put in through the window of an infrequently used area of a house, particularly if there's drapes in front of that window, would be hard to notice. And if he was asleep or doing something that took his attention, he wouldn't notice the odorless carbon monoxide poisoning taking effect until he started to already feel the dizzyness and loss of consciousness: in other words, when it was too late.
Maybe I'm biased on the issue, but I smell a rat. What do you guys think?
3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
VThornheart on
0
Posts
2) You'd be surprised how some people try and kill themselves
3) Carbon monoxide is odorless, car exhaust isn't
True about the car exhaust not being odorless, however. I wonder where they found him. It'd be useful to have more information than what was provided.
The question above brings up a failing of Occam's Razor.
Is it more unreasonable to infer that he was killed by a vast conspiracy, or that he killed himself in a last attempt to pin conspiratorial blame on Scientology?
I'm actually not sure the answer to that. They both have rational explanations: I could see where it seems like he might've been killed, and I could also see where his hatred was enough that he might do something crazy like that to try and start a conspiracy.
But it seems like a little bit of a larger stretch of the imagination for someone to kill themselves to start a conspiracy theory.
That being said, neither are well supported aside from suspicious circumstances. But to me, they seem damn suspicious. As someone pointed out above, car exhaust does have a scent, unlike carbon monoxide... but why not just sit in the car? And would a person notice the scent of exhaust before it was too late? The latter, I'm not sure of... there's many activities that could take place where a person wouldn't notice scents around them. Sleeping, cooking foods with strong scents, if you live near something that already smells bad, etc... but that goes further and further into the realm of speculation.
But yet, this event leaves me with an uneasy feeling.
Yikes... "fair game"? I haven't heard about that. Is that tantamount to putting a hit out on someone? I didn't realize they had an actual set of terminology for when someone should be killed. That's deeply disturbing.
The Fair Game policy is their approach to nay-sayers and dissenters. Basically, yeah, Hubbard said anything and everything should be done to anybody that says anything bad about Scientology.
There is also the "auditing process" known as R2-45, but there's still a lot of debate over whether or not Hubbard was serious when he described it. Also, I'm not sure but I think it's only supposed to be used on ex-Scientologists... or something like that.
That's... horrible. It seems to me like that would be something not constitutionally protected. Like how shouting "FIRE" in a crowded building isn't. Free speech that incites violence isn't protected speech... how do they get away with that?
Must be a conspiracy then. :roll:
There's a very, VERY fine line between "putting out a hit" and "terminology for when someone should be killed". The only appreciable difference is that in the former case, they're paying someone for it. In the latter case, they're saying the person "should be killed". I guess the difference is that no money changes hands?
But still, when you said:
Destroyed would be killed, would it not? I agree that, if your definition of it is true, it's not outright asking someone to kill. But it is condoning the action. Perhaps a lesser evil, but an evil nonetheless. It's still an inexcusable thing for anyone (individual or organized body) to say.
What bollocks. There is a large, thick, capacious line between the two. For example:
die plz kktnx
Is that nearly 'putting out a hit' on you?
"die plz kktnx" isn't close because:
A) It's obviously not meant seriously
In short, comparing "die plz kktnx" to "X should be killed" is invalid. They mean two different things.
Of course, this is all speculative. I thought his original entry said that it WAS "terminology for when someone should be killed," but reading it again I saw that he had said it was "not terminology for when someone should be killed," which renders my notion that the two are equivalent irrelevant to the discussion anyways, because that wasn't what he was originally saying.
You should be killed. I'm really, really serious. As serious as Mr R Serious, 10 Serious Lane, Serioustown, Seriousland.
Scared yet? Or am I just proving a point?
Point being that saying that someone should be 'destroyed' could be equally well argued to be:
Not serious
Refer to something other than physical destruction
Vague enough to not refer to killing
Just a metaphor to prove a point
etc
It is a religion after all [cough]. Do we shut down the Catholic Church or ban Bibles because the Old Testament advocates the smiting of heathen? In short: yes, it's really wild speculation of the kind that blooms on this forum whenever the S word is mentioned. The only thing stupider than Scientologists is the hysterical over-reaction to them.
On the other hand, it's not hard to find the last time the CoS engaged in Fair Game tactics.
Ahh, well at least now we've got the CoS on the right level. We'll put them just above Saudi Arabia. And far below any major Christian denomination.
Both are bad things in my mind. I've always found it disturbing that the Bible says to smite people in the way you mention, so I wouldn't go forgiving Scientology (or any religion) for doing the same thing. But the act of actively pointing to someone and saying it seems particularly disturbing.
Whether or not these are proclamations or just some rule written somewhere, I have no idea. As you might've noticed, I just heard about these right now, and in JUST now. I'd never heard of it before this forum, so this is all my gut reaction to it. Any misunderstanding I have about it is primarily because I've never heard of the damn thing before.
But also, with the arguments about what "destroyed" could be...
When it's a "rule" of the Religion, I don't think that can easily be argued as not being serious. Unlike a forum post, a rule in any organization is usually not written jokingly or lightly. I also don't know any other context that "destroyed" could mean in terms of a person... and if they mean it metaphorically, what kind of point would they be trying to prove with it?
Don't get me wrong here. If it seemed like I was just calling out Scientology on this, I apologize. It's a problem I have with any religion that'd recommend (or condone) someone's "destruction" for opposing it. Surely that's an indefensible stance for any religious group (or non-religious group, for that matter) to take.
EDIT: Aye Sarastro, I'd fault that group for smiting non-believers as well. That's just a dirty, reprehensible practice. Now, most followers of Islam I've met find the practice equally reprehensible, so given that I know that there's just a questionable sect that engages in unjustifiable behavior. What about Scientology? Is it just a rogue group or sect that follows this "fair game" policy? That I don't know. Like I said, I've only heard about it just now and I'm reacting to first hearing about it.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
So whilst a critic of scientology killing themselves doesn't not imply any wrong doing. I do believe it's worth looking into whether they were harassing him. In the way that all avenues should aways be expolored after a suicide. It's equally likely he was a nut.
Interestingly I'm pretty sure that site is quite pro-scientology. The tone of the article is off too. (EDIT: Hmmm, I think I'm reaching - that doesn't seem to be the case)
Still either way a suicide is a serious issue, and not something to make like off. Or too start putting conspiracy caps on about.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Not that there's any evidence for this just that it sounds more plausible than CoS killing him.
I'm not going to get into it with anyone here, not about this. It's a tragedy that this man killed himself, but I can't ever see the CoS being involved. Fair Game or no, they're still people. I hate to say it, but this seems like a textbook case of a lonely person getting too attached to something that failed him in the end.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
They're still people?
What a coincidence so are all murderers.
lots of people including mark bunker suspect that quenten was murdered by the OSA (scios's personal task force) because of speaking out against his father and being gay
So I would probably chalk this up to suicide by some dumbass with a martyr complex
BUT someone wanting to make one final point would indeed use some prior event of historical significance to make that point. Hmm... well, whatever happened to this guy, it's pretty crazy (whether he did it himself as some insane last attempt at casting doubt, or whether he was actually killed).
Barrel well and truely scraped.
@VThornheart
re: smiting
Point is not whether religions demonising the heathen is morally right. It is: one, there is nothing new or different about Scientology writings calling for hurting the unbeliever, and two, if I posted a thread the next time someone blew themselves up in Israel, talking about a massive Muslim world conspiracy & how they were all evil, how quickly do you think it would be shot down?
This constant anti-Scientology hysteria is massively exaggerated, and gives them way more credit than is due.
I'd need something more to tie this in with Scientology.
I would say all I'd need would be like, evidence.
Like physical evidence, not circumstantial. Maybe a video recording of CoS members admitting to the plot. In detail, with video of the crime, and maybe David Miscarriage laughing maniacally.
I think the difference with Scientology is that the person we know to have founded the religion has been quoted as saying as much repeatedly, whereas orders to kill in other religions are buried in centuries-old books that could be just ignored by practicioners or interpreted any number of ways. An SP to a scientologist of OT-whatever's-not-entry-level or higher is basically any non-Scientologist.