Scientology Protest Jan 25

Doctor Jimbob

themadhair wrote: »

@ Doctor Jimbob

It seems clear that you are going out of your way to misrepresent what I am trying to say, so I'll state my position here clearly and concisely to prevent you from continuing to misrepresent it.

Does it? Even in the explanation you offer in the rest of this post you don't seem to be able to make it clear what you're saying exactly.

- I am saying that Scientology is a dangerous and deeply harmful organisation, and I base that opinion on a) the hundreds of ex-members of who described being abused in detail, b) the thousands of pages of leaked internal Scientology documentation that lays out the policiess behind these abuse, c) the thousands of pages and hundreds of hours of audio/video from investigative journalists and d) my own researchers into the organistion and contact I have had with current members.

Agreed.

- I have no love for the Catholic Church and strongly believe the organisation should be dismantled for its history, its corruption and the fact that it has lost the moral authority to possess any role of power whatsoever within our country.

Perhaps not dismantled but certainly reduced in power and made to answer for its crimes. Again though, agreed, but then you go on to say this:

- I am saying that people raising the Catholic Church as some sort of reason for why the Scientology organisation should not be protested are either a) totally ignorant of the severity of harm the Scientology organisation causes, or b) forwarding an anti-religion agenda that blinds them from seeing the difference between extremely harmful organisations and other benign (or at least non-harmful) organisations (the vast majority of groups tend not to be harmful, it is only relatively few that develop harmful practices).

Who is saying this? You say I'm misrepresenting what you say, yet go on to make this point. I've never said scientology should be ignored because of what the church has done in the past. Then, despite claiming earlier that you think both organisations are bad, you go on to say this:

- I am saying that, in terms of severity, in present day Ireland when the Scientology organisation ruins a person's life they do so far in excess of almost any other groups, and that in the present day the Catholic Church (despite its horrific, detestable, grotesque history) does not harm an individual as thoroughly as the Scientology organisation does.

You again try to play down everything one organisation has done wrong to focus on your dislike of another. I have no problem with your wish to get rid of scientology. Nor do I expect some kind of all or nothing protest. But this need you have to play down one organisations crimes compared to another just seems bizzare to me.

I think these should be sufficient clear for you.

Alternatively you could just accept the fact that I don't agree with your views and leave it at that.

Brian Shanahan

weisses wrote: »

Problem with that comparison is that the Dunnes workers are not members of a potentially dangerous group, same goes kinda for the palestinians,

Ddos attacks done by people affiliated to Anonymous caused millions off dollars worth of damage and people went to jail for it

I think your possible flawed comparison is the main reason for your confusion

So protesting scientology is wrong because somebody else did something illegal totally unconnected to protesting scientology.

And may I also remind you that just because something is illegal it doesn't mean that it is either wrong or immoral. By your specious reasoning, the Weiße Rose movement was wrong and immoral, simply because, under German law at the time it was illegal.

weisses

themadhair wrote: »

There two few serious misconceptions in this that are worth clearing up.

First, think of 'Anonymous' as a methodology rather than an actual group. Any group of people who use the internet combined with anonymity could be said to be 'Anonymous'. The causes that have utilised this methodology are diverse, ranging from protesting Scientology (which we do at anonireland.org), open source projects, outright trolling, leaking public-interest information, to retaliatory attacks. There is no connection between the different causes other than the methodology.

To me its another way of shifting responsibility

themadhair wrote: »

Second, the claim that DDOS attacks caused 'millions of dollars worth of damage' is laughable. A computer server that hosts a website can only accommodate a finite number of visitors at any one time, and a DDOS uses up the server resources by making bogus requests for website information - the effect of which is to make the website inaccessible to genuine users. The website becomes live again the moment the DDOS stops, but that hasn't stopped many people claiming outrageous damage figures to scare judiciaries. A good analogy would be if enough people protested a shop and jammed the doors. As soon as the protest stopped the doors would be accessible again, with no actual damage causes. A DDOS is, in effect, the online equivalent of en-masse protest that temporary denies access.

so Paypal lied in court ?...

http://www.itpro.co.uk/644308/anonymous-ddos-attacks-cost-paypal-35m-court-hears

And all these company's are exaggerating as well ?

http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/what-a-ddos-can-cost/240000446

weisses

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So protesting scientology is wrong because somebody else did something illegal totally unconnected to protesting scientology. And may I also remind you that just because something is illegal it doesn't mean that it is either wrong or immoral. By your specious reasoning, the Weiße Rose movement was wrong and immoral, simply because, under German law at the time it was illegal.

No the Scientology movement are retards imo and Anonymous is linked with criminal offences

One taking the high road over the other is laughable

And stop making ridiculous comparisons