Hacker V. Scientology

[Boyar Son]

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=36094&comments=1#comments

AH!!

I relish in this (Holy War!)

or will they fight? maybe this is a false threat from the hackers? anyway I hope its not...

What is your opinion on scientology?

Remember fear stems from ignorance (ignorance=unkown). Keep that in mind.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Call me ignorant but scientologists are idiots.

[Sebdeas]

Call me ignorant but scientologists are idiots.

Calling Scientology not idiotic is ignorant.

[Richard]

Calling Scientology not idiotic is ignorant.

Until the existance of Xenu is proven, of course.

ALL HAIL XENU.

[Irishman]

I think that Scientology has many flaws, and is a corrupt and brutal organization. Suppression and criminal techniques are common in their ranks, yet, I do not think the actual beliefs they espouse are any more ridiculous than other more accepted religions.

Of course, their practices are more reminiscent of the old catholic church than the new one, but both sets of beliefs are as absurd.

[Boyar Son]

I think that Scientology has many flaws, and is a corrupt and brutal organization. Suppression and criminal techniques are common in their ranks, yet, I do not think the actual beliefs they espouse are any more ridiculous than other more accepted religions.

Of course, their practices are more reminiscent of the old catholic church than the new one, but both sets of beliefs are as absurd.

No I think some somethings are much more foolish than others

[Sher Khan]

Hackers?


Just a band of 13-year-olds banned from 4chan trying to live a 'raid' that only happened once, and only once.

Security experts monitoring the attacks said that the Church's servers were not likely to suffer for more than a couple of days, and that the attacks were "amateur by hacking standards."

"It's a bit like the internet equivalent of kicking in a phone box," one said. "It's not that professional. In the forums where they're discussing it, some are wondering whether it will be possible to trace what they're doing."

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle3250934.ece

[Ummagumma]

"It's a bit like the internet equivalent of kicking in a phone box," one said. "It's not that professional. In the forums where they're discussing it, some are wondering whether it will be possible to trace what they're doing."

So they have 2-3 folks that know what they are doing and a horde of 'cool kids' behind them?

Fight the power!!! Grrrr!!

[Sidmen]

My favorite part of Scientology is that they refuse to tell you everything right away, and wait till they indoctrinate you in the lower levels before they pull out the big guns.

[boofhead]

Awesome vid. And don't forget scientologists have a mantra something along the lines of "Litigation is not about winning or losing, but about intimidation and harrassment and wearing down your enemy".

I hope millions take up this call, as



But then again, maybe it is funny:

[Tankbuster]

I detest Scientology, but I think this is not fair. They have every right to believe in their stupid Lord Xenu. I mean, launching a campaign to eradicate all Scientology's websites, that's really lame and fully contradicts freedom of speech.

I mean, it would be the same thing as launching a campaign against the Amish and kill all their horses and donkeys!

[Denny Crane!]

No it would be the same as launching a campaign to get rid of a nazi organisation.

Scientology is criminal, subversive and dangerous. Not only do they brainwash people or intimidate them to the point where they can maliciously steal their funds and in even worse cases cause the deaths of people. Is it not one of their policies to infiltrate government?

Sounds hilarious but I don't take it to lightly. Fortunately its not in the UK in any great way.

[Tankbuster]

Didn't know it was that bad...

Still, aren't there still Nazi organizations all over the world?
If there are people who are willing to be intimidated and manipulated by these people, then they're just stupid. Then the question is: "Do we have to protect grown-ups from the decisions they might make?". I'm not sure about the answer.

[Denny Crane!]

Didn't know it was that bad...

Still, aren't there still Nazi organizations all over the world?
If there are people who are willing to be intimidated and manipulated by these people, then they're just stupid. Then the question is: "Do we have to protect grown-ups from the decisions they might make?". I'm not sure about the answer.

It depends on the activities of the organisation. Protecting grown ups from decisions depends on how much will is involved in their actions, do we protect citizens in other ways? Undoubtably so the question is one based on the malolevence of the entity and the capacity of will a person is able to exercise but also the harmful effects of the entity or concept on society as a whole.

[Tankbuster]

It depends on the activities of the organisation. Protecting grown ups from decisions depends on how much will is involved in their actions, do we protect citizens in other ways? Undoubtably so the question is one based on the malevolence of the entity and the capacity of will a person is able to exercise but also the harmful effects of the entity or concept on society as a whole.

There is quite a lot of free will involved in their actions!
New members have to come over, then subscribe, then they have to be willing to go to each new 'level', as I think they call it. Those people who become Scientologists, they know damn well what they are doing.

And are they malevolent...? They are just as malevolent as the Christian religion, or Islam was in the first years of it's existence. They are a new kind of sect, but as long as that sect does not attack us in any way...
They might want political power, but so do the free-masons!

I'm just so against the idea of physically attacking an organization like that (I mean that hacking their website, and kicking them off the web, is quite an agressive act). Mentally attacking them, by ads on TV or on the Internet, I could take that, but this...

[Denny Crane!]

There is quite a lot of free will involved in their actions!
New members have to come over, then subscribe, then they have to be willing to go to each new 'level', as I think they call it. Those people who become Scientologists, they know damn well what they are doing.

The blackmail, brainwashing and threatening behaviour which they have propogated?

And are they malevolent...? They are just as malevolent as the Christian religion, or Islam was in the first years of it's existence. They are a new kind of sect, but as long as that sect does not attack us in any way...
They might want political power, but so do the free-masons!

That combined with criminal behaviour they have exhibited does not bode well.

I'm just so against the idea of physically attacking an organization like that (I mean that hacking their website, and kicking them off the web, is quite an agressive act). Mentally attacking them, by ads on TV or on the Internet, I could take that, but this...

If I'd had a member of family or close friend manipulated/brainwashed or whatever I would probably be one of the ones doing it.

[Denny Crane!]

I suggest you look at Lisa Mcphersons tale. The open game policy and its two most high profile results which you have listed.

Stephen A. Kent wrote: "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious."

Now you seem to think we should be laissez faire with religious organisations and that anything under that term seems to get blanket acceptance from you. Al Queda is ok? They also have been known to brainwash and use any means to prevent members leaving. If the issue is in terms of harm, they pose a greater harm to the public than scientology? Well at present and probably in the future that will hold to be true but it is merely a matter of shifting lines between what is and what is not acceptable.

I can't find anything on them blackmailing or threatening new members though...

Keep reading.

Although I can't believe how people are so stupid to believe in stuff like this, how can we, through violence, un-brainwash them again?

You can't how do you stop more people falling victim, by allowing them to proliferate?

And also, where do we draw the line, if we choose to intervene violently?

I wouldn't call bringing down their websites violent.

It doesn't justify what these guys are doing
If I've got a close friend brainwashed by the Opus Dei, does that justify me to hack their sites? I can do peaceful protesting, and hacking is not part of that.

Have you? Are they still operating? Are others falling victim to this cult?

[Tankbuster]

Stephen A. Kent wrote: "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious."

Very helpful indeed...

Now you seem to think we should be laissez faire with religious organizations and that anything under that term seems to get blanket acceptance from you. Al Queda is ok? They also have been known to brainwash and use any means to prevent members leaving. If the issue is in terms of harm, they pose a greater harm to the public than scientology? Well at present and probably in the future that will hold to be true but it is merely a matter of shifting lines between what is and what is not acceptable.

If we were to do what I wanted, I'd get rid of all religious organizations, Scientology, Raelism, Christianity, Islam, the whole gang.
But since this is not possible, I find it EXTREMELY hard to judge other people's beliefs. If we would abolish all such beliefs, that would be easy. If we tolerate them all, that's easy as well. But everything in between...
Why should we not allow Scientology, but we should allow Opus Dei?
Why the Jehova Witnesses, but not Al Queda?
Why the Westboro Church, but not Scientology?

I don't know how to distinguish. If you have a good way, please tell me, I'm very eager to know.
The only way I can find, is if they use DIRECT violence, then we can abolish them (like Al Queda).
If they brainwash, manipulate,... I would also like to abolish them, but then I always come up with another organisation that IS accepted (Opus Dei, Westboro Church), but is just as bad. And if I'm objective, then either I have to abolish them both, or tolerate them both. Most of the time, I'm obliged to do the latter.


However, the more I read about Scientology, the more I see that they are a dangerous organization... blackmailing and stuff, not cool. But then we should sue them for blackmailing and threatening. We don't want civilians to take the law in their own hands, now do we? You're a moderator, Seneca, you wouldn't want that!
And also, you can take down the organization, but I'm pretty sure the sect will survive anyway, because of its members. Then, if they want to make a site, merely to gather their followers (and nothing of blackmailing around it), then you should be obliged to give them a chance, again. :hmmm:

You can't how do you stop more people falling victim, by allowing them to proliferate?

How do you stop people's stupidity without abolishing freedom of speech? I don't think there is a way.

I wouldn't call bringing down their websites violent.

Sabotaging an organization's means of communication is quite a violent death.

Have you? Are they still operating? Are others falling victim to this cult?

I am extremely happy that I don't know such people.
I DO know people, however, who are completely brainwashed by Jehova's Witnesses. Should I launch a full-scale revenge attack?

[Denny Crane!]

Very helpful indeed...



If we were to do what I wanted, I'd get rid of all religious organizations, Scientology, Raelism, Christianity, Islam, the whole gang.
But since this is not possible, I find it EXTREMELY hard to judge other people's beliefs. If we would abolish all such beliefs, that would be easy. If we tolerate them all, that's easy as well. But everything in between...
Why should we not allow Scientology, but we should allow Opus Dei?
Why the Jehova Witnesses, but not Al Queda?
Why the Westboro Church, but not Scientology?

I don't know how to distinguish. If you have a good way, please tell me, I'm very eager to know.

When they engage in embezzling, blackmailing and even in organising attacks on persons, if they pose a risk to the people that they might subjugate.

If a non direct action that causes damage such as hacking that damages property is considered violent then I will consider Scientologies actions violent and in some cases extremely so. Brainwashing someone and forcing them to hand over their life savings is causing irreperable harm to that persons life.

Its not very often Europe will ban a religion, it is considering it with this one. When I say Europe I am generalising for the larger EU nations that have all toyed with the idea. I think Belgium would be the best example.

The only way I can find, is if they use DIRECT violence, then we can abolish them (like Al Queda).

But you just said hacking was violent.....?

If they brainwash, manipulate,... I would also like to abolish them, but then I always come up with another organisation that IS accepted (Opus Dei, Westboro Church), but is just as bad. And if I'm objective, then either I have to abolish them both, or tolerate them both. Most of the time, I'm obliged to do the latter.


However, the more I read about Scientology, the more I see that they are a dangerous organization... blackmailing and stuff, not cool. But then we should sue them for blackmailing and threatening. We don't want civilians to take the law in their own hands, now do we? You're a moderator, Seneca, you wouldn't want that!

Umm no comment

And also, you can take down the organization, but I'm pretty sure the sect will survive anyway, because of its members. Then, if they want to make a site, merely to gather their followers (and nothing of blackmailing around it), then you should be obliged to give them a chance, again. :hmmm:

Not really if they are banned by the government then they can be acted upon. Remenants would survive and proliferate but never to the kind of levels they have reached now minimising the harm posed to the public.

How do you stop people's stupidity without abolishing freedom of speech? I don't think there is a way.

We've done it with organisations in Britain, radical muslim ones. Seems to do the trick really.

Sabotaging an organization's means of communication is quite a violent death.

I am extremely happy that I don't know such people.
I DO know people, however, who are completely brainwashed by Jehova's Witnesses. Should I launch a full-scale revenge attack?

Perhaps. I wouldn't say you weren't justified. Are they actually brainwashed? Jehovas witness' are known for being a bit nuts but not for brainwashing surely.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Personally I think all countries should remove the "religion" tag on Scientology.
While they might be as legitimate as any other religion, Christianity and the others don't require you to pay them a monthly fee.
They survive because of donations and donations are tax-free.
Fee's however are not.