Scientology

Post Reply New Topic

You restated the incident from "hacking" to a "prank", you were engaging in grammatical semantics.


You are right, it's not a group. Hence the reason i said the individual responsible should recieve jail time. Your point was not ignored otherwise i would have called on a group of people to be incarcerated.


And cognito even clarified that we are talking about one person as opposed to a group.

You were minimalising the actions taken by the individual in your original post and i was asking you to clarify them. You seemed to be suggesting that intentionally triggering epileptic seizures is okay. This probably wasn't intended, hence the reasion i was questioning instead of labasting your veiws.


And yet again, this generalised statement includes said individual which only re-enforces my original assumption.


And this is called shielding. You also seem to misunderstand what context entails. Now how about we try this again...

Why did you refer to the Epilepsy board thing as a prank?

Ok, prank, assault, either way, you don't know the intention of the person who made the post on the forum, you think it was an assault, I see it as being meant as a prank, our opinions differ, and I think that's been established. The point of my earlier post was to say that posting a graphic to a forum is not hacking, it's posting a graphic. For it to be hacking, the person would've had to find an exploit in the coding of the forum to get the forum to do something it's not designed to do. Posting an animated gif file is something the forum was designed to do, and thus it is not hacking, regardless of the nature of the graphic. The thing is that when you quoted my earlier post, you cut out that part and focused entirely on the word "prank" which clearly was not the intention of my post, thus meaning that you took it out of context.

As far as me "minimalising" (not even a real word) the actions, a prank doesn't necessarily mean something that's harmless, it's something that's intended to be funny to certain people, and since there are people out there that find that kind of thing funny, and most likely he was targeting that audience, I don't see this as an assault. An assault would be directly targeting epileptic people with no other intention than to cause harm. The person who made that post was most likely intending for it to be a sick joke, that doesn't make it any less of a serious issue, but the intention is what makes the difference, and since neither of us know the true intention, you can believe it was an outright assault, but given the nature of the people that tend to use the forums like 4chan, 420chan, 711chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. I'm inclined to believe that the intention was for it to be a joke, not a good one, but a joke nevertheless.

Don't assume that my belief that it was intended to be a joke would mean that I condone his actions, jokes aren't always funny to most people, especially those who they're targeted against. I've heard plenty of seriously racist jokes, I've heard plenty of jokes making fun of people with disabilities, etc. There are people that find these kinds of jokes humorous, and that's who jokes of this nature are intended for.

This kid was most likely just trying to fit in with a group by trying to out-do their pranks with one of his own. Ever do something really stupid that you would later regret while trying to fit in? If not, then you're the epitome of perfection, unfortunately for him, me, and everybody else in the world, we're not that lucky. I've done plenty of things I'm not proud of while trying to make friends, I've lost plenty of friends due to things I've done. NTs aren't perfect either, everybody does stupid things to try and impress their peers, that's part of life. I don't condone what this kid did, but I also don't think he did it with the intention to cause harm, I think he did it with a misunderstanding of what it means to have an Epileptic seizure, thinking that it would be something that his peers would find funny and would be impressed by his ingenuity. If it looked like he did it for the one and only one intention to cause harm out of a hatred of the Epileptic, then yes, it would be an assault, but I believe that his reason for doing that was to be nothing more than a way to impress his peers, thus I see it as being intended as a prank, and will continue to refer to it as such.

As far as my response to the comment by MattShizzle:

MattShizzle didn't refer to that one and only one person who carried out the prank, (s)he refered to ALL members of the 4chan forum group who identify themselves as Anonymous. To jail ALL members, including the majority which was not involved in the prank would be a blatant disregard for the freedom of speech. Thousands of people gave their lives in battle for us to have this freedom of speech, I have two cousins and 3 good friends in Iraq defending that freedom right now (whether I agree with this war or not) and unlike those who take this freedom for granted, freedom of speech is something I take VERY seriously.

since I actaully know what I am talking about, the guy who did it was a grey hat and soon after he did it, he posted a guide to safe web tips for the same site he pranked. He was making a point about the fact that epileptics need to be more careful online.

I suppose you're either Judeo-Christian, Pagan, or you have no religion? Is this what you're saying?

Believe it or not, you don't know everything about religion, nor do you even seem to know a small portion more than most people. The views that you have on religion have been said many times over by many people who don't even know what Sikhism is (no I'm not endorsing it), let alone the multitude of religions of East Asia, Africa, or early America.

Agnosticism is all well and good, as long as you actually know about religion. Just studying a few Judeo-Christian religions, maybe some Wiccan, and then discarding religion as a whole does not make any sense at all.

Sounds like something a lot of Christians do. I have a few gay friends that get told constantly by Christians that the bible condemns them to hell, but when they ask where it says it in the bible, the antagonators can't give them an answer aside from Leviticus 18:22 which only condemns the act of a man sleeping with a man the same way he would with a woman (which is of course, impossible).

I never claimed i knew everything about religion, i'm not exactly sure why you are stating the obvious.


Actually, i am sticking up for religion. My basic point was, there are people who use religion for good things, there are people who use religion for bad things. Both groups of people are present in pretty much every religion.


I'm agnostic.

I've read about confucism and taoism as well, although i consider them to be philosophies.

L Ron Hubbard did well. Do you think he was an aspie?

I would like to start my own religion too. Not to make money but just to get everyone to conform to my rules.

Scientology is such a good name too. After all, it's an "ology"...

he was NOT aspie,
he was a liar and a con man
he never got a college degree
barely graduated high school
a narcissistic egotistical prick

The first one is the only one that can't be proven, not that it makes any difference since the latter 4 are what count.

Anyone want to join my religion?

You don't need to give me any money, but must agree never to wear sandals or flip-flops

First, you said that all organized religion is about either money or power. That's not sticking up for religion and that's making a judgement about religion as a whole. The only way you could logically make such an argument is if you knew the goals and aspects of every organized religion.



This is kind of proving my point. Agnostics have no religion, and you view Confucianism and Taoism as philosophies despite the fact that they are actually organized religions. What makes you call them philosophies? What have you read about them? Can you even name the two most common schools of Taoism in China today? What physical arts (sword, spear, empty hand martial, etc) was Confucius skilled in? What effect has each had on each other? Buddhism? What effect has Buddhism had on Taoism and Confucianism?

Organised religion is about money or power, perhaps i am using the incorrect word in organised... Any religion with any type of heirarchical system is clearly about money or power. And i've just stated my veiws clearly in another post. You know? clarifying? So why are you sticking to the first post?


Incorrect. Believing there is no way to proove their is a god, is a religion of sorts, with it's own belief system. Of course, i could claim science backs up my beliefs as being the most likely, but then i'm sure individuals of other religions make the exact same claims.


What makes you think they are religions?


I have no idea why you think any of this is relevant and if you had read any of my posts regarding my autism you'd know it's almost impossible for me to remember specific details about anything. Why do you believe i would mention two religions/philosophies in a post that has not previously mentioned them if i had not read about them previously?

How does any of your post have anything to do with scientology either? My posts were painting a general idea, that it is unfair to state something is not a religion, especailly when the traits being used to justify the statement are found in other organised religions. Instead of picking at the semantics of my posts (that word is being used far too much in this thread), how about you attack the general idea i am painting?

trust me, COS is a cult, and only wants to be known as a religion to gain tax status and play the victim card

My problem, as I have stated before, is that you make a claim about organized religion while knowing only a few of such religions. I pointed out that Taoism is an organized religion (maybe not so much Confucianism), but so are Buddhism and Hinduism, and let's not forget Shintoism. You know very little about these organized religions, yet you feel that it is alright to judge them based on how you feel about Judeo-Christianity.



Agnostics have no religion because they have no religious affiliation. Hence, no religion. Moreover, there is not any set of beliefs that are universal through agnostics. Even why agnostics turn from religions is different.



Not to sound childish, but I asked you why you called them philosophies for a reason. I know a considerable amount about the religions I have researched (more than most practitioners of said religions, for that matter). I know why Taoism and Confucianism are religions because I've studied them (as opposed to reading about them), but I don't know why you think they're philosophies. Thus, I can only correct your assumptions if you explain to me why you think they're philosophies.



What I was trying to point out is that you're making judgements on religions that you don't know about.



This isn't about semantics. This is about your view of religion as a whole. As far as it relates to Scientology as a religion... I'm getting to that. I'd like to deal with this first, however.

No, i'm making generalisations, because i am unable to create specific details from my own mind. An analogy of my perception of the world would be numerous pictures, all overlapping to various degrees.

Nothing "stands" out. Just as an individual with aspergers struggles to piece details together, i am unable to dissociate things from each other. I dance around what i mean, because i am unable to percieve what it is i mean directly.

However, after a few posts i now believe i have represented what i wanted to. That's what you should comment on. Refusing to do so would be pedantic.

Michjo, Judeo-Christian religions are not the only organized religions, nor are you presenting evidence from even close to a majority of them.

There are people who say that, because marijuana causes less damage than drinking, it should be made legal. Yet, they fail to recognize that that isn't a good argument for legalizing marijuana. It's a good argument for the illegalization of alcohol. The same holds true for your argument of a few sects of Christianity and Scientology.

Moreover, you've taken the various aspects of a cult that Scientology has, and you've assigned a specific aspect to one religion, another aspect to another.

Personally, I don't believe in Scientology, but I've never let my belief or disbelief in any particular religion or philosophical belief interfere with my defense of it. Is your argument based on the fact that you don't believe that any religion can be proven or disproved?