Goldman Sachs is sponsoring a Scientology-based jail ‘re-education’ program

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Kandinsky

I remember seeing ads for Narcanon on TV. Had no idea it was bat crap crazy scientology nonsense.

My understanding (and I may be wrong) was that they would take people, lock them up and pump them full of vitamins and Scientology literature.

When I was younger and they played Scientology commercials, I thought it was Christianity mixed with science, and it seemed pretty innocuous (it's not). If you go look at videos of these people you can tell something is very off, and that they get taught a certain script. WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES!!!!!

A lot of religions get a bad rap, but you can attend pretty much any church for free. You don't have to drop a few bucks in the basket, and you certainly don't have to pay to get to the next level.

Scientology blows my mind. The founder of it wrote science fiction. I have too much time on my hands.

Is your argument this?
Premise 1: Hubbard wrote science fiction.
Premise 2:Hubbard started Scientology.
Conclusion:Therefore, Scientology is science fiction.

By the way. Narconon has a 75% success rating.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Aristotelian1

But that's so petty and you didn't give them a cogent response. I'm with them, Scientology can spend its money however it pleases so long as it doesn't break the law. That goes for Goldman Sachs too.

Here you go:

www.thedailybeast.com...
www.theblogmocracy.com...
tonyortega.org...
theyshouldnothavedied.wordpress.com...
facts.randomhistory.com...

WAY TOO EASY

What? I'm talking about your OP. None of those have anything to do with your OP.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Here you go bro:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seriously, go peek through that thread for a little bit before you come back to post in this one.

I'm ready and willing to have an intelligent conversation about the topics discussed in my OP. If you have any questions that are intelligent and meaningful, any questions that promote healthy discourse, I am here for you.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Here you go bro:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seriously, go peek through that thread for a little bit before you come back to post in this one.

I'm ready and willing to have an intelligent conversation about the topics discussed in my OP. If you have any questions that are intelligent and meaningful, any questions that promote healthy discourse, I am here for you.

I'm very familiar with that thread, although it has nothing to do with the OP at hand. Here's a question. As it pertains to the OP, what has Scientology or Golman Sach's done that is illegal?

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I'll just pick one and let you run with that for a while.

FORCED ABORTIONS

abc7.com...
christiannews.net...
broadly.vice.com...
www.christianexaminer.com...
www.mirror.co.uk...

And just for piece of mind I give you a bonus, the archetypal example of Scientology's willingness to break the law in order to achieve world domination.

I am speaking of course, about Operation Snow White.

Are you familiar? It was the largest FBI bust on an internal espionage organization in US history, to this day.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Aristotelian1

I'll just pick one and let you run with that for a while.

FORCED ABORTIONS

abc7.com...
christiannews.net...
broadly.vice.com...
www.christianexaminer.com...
www.mirror.co.uk...

And just for piece of mind I give you a bonus, the archetypal example of Scientology's willingness to break the law in order to achieve world domination.

I am speaking of course, about Operation Snow White.

Are you familiar? It was the largest FBI bust on an internal espionage organization in US history, to this day.

These are red herrings. I said "as it pertains to the OP."

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: SpecialSauce

You're just spewing religious hate. They can use their money how they want to, they don't require your permission. What experience do you have in rehabilitation? What makes you the expert, because you read an article and parrot it as fact?

Now why don't you go ahead and tell the whole forum that you're a member of Scientology? Because I'm definitely not going to.

Oh wait...

Not a member, don't work for them or volunteer for them. To be honest it looks like this technique is conditioning them but it happens to be a proven technique. In dogs positive reward conditioning works, but we're not dogs, negative conditioning is what's proven to work in humans.

There was just a product on shark tank that used this very technique, mr wonderful made an offer on it.

And yes Scientology like every human on earth is imperfect. I don't agree with everything they publish but yeah I've read Dianetics, I've even read bug psychology, did you know an ant can do math?

a reply to: Aristotelian1

So you're asking me what they did that was illegal in regards to what I mention in the OP?

Well at the moment, nothing that I can prove.

But that doesn't mean that their efforts to integrate a pseudoreligous rehabilitation system into the prison industrial complex in order to make a profit and push their backward dogma isn't morally corrupt and completely nefarious, now does it?

double post

a reply to: SpecialSauce

That # was on Shark Tank? For real?

Well then... I hereby retract all of my previous statements in this thread, including all three OPs.

/sarcasm

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: SpecialSauce

That # was on Shark Tank? For real?

Well then... I hereby retract all of my previous statements in this thread, including all three OPs.

/sarcasm

I'm sorry to say it, but this is another garbage post. No substance, all snark.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

We can dance around this issue all day or we can talk about how Scientology colluded with Goldman Sachs to profit off of the prison industrial complex and subliminally push their backward dogma to at risk youth.

That is a subject that is ripe for ATS inquiry.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

About the abortion thing, in Dianetics Hubbard very explicitly says having children is among the greatest things one can do. The survival of self being the lowest need and mankind's survival at the top with familys survival in between. Self, family, country and then species is the order I think.

Stop talking like you're an expert in something you never studied.

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: ColdWisdom

About the abortion thing, in Dianetics Hubbard very explicitly says having children is among the greatest things one can do. The survival of self being the lowest need and mankind's survival at the top with familys survival in between. Self, family, country and then species is the order I think.

Stop talking like you're an expert in something you never studied.

Yes. In Dianetics Ron states explicitly that abortions are unethical. ColdWisdom has no idea what he is talking about.

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I read the whole thing. You're answering a question with a question. Typical deflection technique yet you accuse them of trickery.

I doubt you did. If you did in fact read all of the OP's and you remain having this opinion then perhaps you need a bit of MRT your self.

I think some people here are misreading the OP (or only reading the first paragraph or so) and are being quick to judge on that little bit.

I concur with ColdWisdom (the OP) when he says you are making yourselves look very foolish.

My opinion on the OP is that I agree with Scientology as being a ponzi scheme. The OP's take on Scientology is a very good way of looking at it.

Also there is this questionable application of questionable morals. I think the same questions and concepts derived by this brilliant OP can very well be applied to most other religions as well.

If you think this is bad...imagine a nonreligious, non moral , state sanctioned institution that supposedly has the same goals as the nice moral religious ones...cold , heartless, lifeless, emotionless living conditions for the unfortunate ones who are unlucky enough to come into any kind of influential contact with such an entity.

I think some people are unconsciously desperately yearning to experience rock bottom...be careful what you wish for...even subconsciously.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I read the whole thing. You're answering a question with a question. Typical deflection technique yet you accuse them of trickery.

I doubt you did. If you did in fact read all of the OP's and you remain having this opinion then perhaps you need a bit of MRT your self.

I think some people here are misreading the OP (or only reading the first paragraph or so) and are being quick to judge on that little bit.

I concur with ColdWisdom (the OP) when he says you are making yourselves look very foolish.

My opinion on the OP is that I agree with Scientology as being a ponzi scheme. The OP's take on Scientology is a very good way of looking at it.

Also there is this questionable application of questionable morals. I think the same questions and concepts derived by this brilliant OP can very well be applied to most other religions as well.

If you think this is bad...imagine a nonreligious, non moral , state sanctioned institution that supposedly has the same goals as the nice moral religious ones...cold , heartless, lifeless, emotionless living conditions for the unfortunate ones who are unlucky enough to come into any kind of influential contact with such an entity.

I think some people are unconsciously desperately yearning to experience rock bottom...be careful what you wish for...even subconsciously.

None of this was an argument. You didn't give a logical argument.
Argument-"a process of reasoning."

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
“clients enter treatment with low levels of moral development, strong narcissism, low ego/identity strength, poor self-concept, low self-esteem, inability to delay gratification, relatively high defensiveness, and relatively strong resistance to change and treatment.”

According to this theory, these traits lead to criminal activity.

That describes Lafayette Ronald Hubbard!

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
By the way. Narconon has a 75% success rating.

No, that is what the scientology liars claim!

www.cs.cmu.edu...

The Swedish Study ........
In other words, 78.6% of the 61 drug abusers had become drug-free. Simple arithmetic shows that this cannot possibly be correct - 78.6% of 61 is 47.946 people - and a closer examination of the study reveals the true facts, which are very different to how Narconon presents them....
.... In fact, the Gerdman study showed that only 6.6% of Narconon Huddinge clients "remain drug-free permanently" - if this is any way typical, it represents a success rate only one-eleventh of that which is claimed

The Spanish Study
However, the raw figures reveal considerable statistical creativity. For a start, it is impossible to derive a figure of 78.37% from a sample of 52 people; that corresponds to 40.7524 people, an obviously impossible number (what is 0.7524 of a person?....
The extremely strange statistical figures given in this study make it difficult to take its findings seriously, and the obvious methodological flaws do not help either. Without actually having a copy of the study report - Narconon claims to have it "on file" but it does not appear to have been made available anywhere, either in print or on the Web - it is impossible to evaluate the methodology used. In terms of providing a satisfactory analysis of Narconon's efficacy, it is effectively useless.

The Oklahoman Studies
There are literally hundreds of instances on Narconon's websites of the claimed Oklahoman success rates being presented in a very misleading and occasionally downright untruthful fashion. For instance, the websites of Narconon Sydney and a number of other Narconon organisations declare that "76% of Narconon® Clients remain drug-free permanently!". If around 45-50% of its clients drop out, which Narconon's own figures suggest, this cannot possibly be true. Likewise, the Oklahoman results are treated as being universally applicable. The official Narconon FAQ, which appears to be a standard pro-forma document disseminated with minor changes by Narconon branches as far apart as Oklahoma and New South wales, declares bluntly that "Our success rate is 76%" (where "our" is clearly meant to refer to the local branch).

We can clearly see why nothing $cientology claims should be treated as fact.

As expected when the bloke who started it was a well known liar!

a reply to: hellobruce
Great find but these two troller will ask for evidence

a reply to: ColdWisdom
Just ignore these two teats. You keep providing information and they respond quicker than they could have read it. Others find the OP very well constructed and informative. The fact they believe the 75% says it all.