Chronology of a defoo

Conrad · Subject: Re: Chronology of a defoo Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:57 pm

mmvrs wrote:

2. Unlike FDR, scientology does involve quite a bit of actual coercion, so the comparison there is fairly invalid.

they've been convicted for actual coercion against members?

If not, then what you're saying is libelous in the Steffian sense, no?. And if you don't have evidence for such coercion (violating the non-aggression principle) then all the points about 'voluntarily made decisions' applies to them just as well as in your eyes they apply to FDR

[update: I've spotted one conviction for inflicting severe emotional distress and one conviction for involuntary manslaughter.]

_________________
My Blog

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Notice in the first thread that in Nightpotato's first posts, he is expressing curiosity about his father's behavior. His final post begins with, "I don't know if I'll need to defoo them both at the same time". It's a very subtle process that has taken place, and I'm sure it is not just within this thread, but also has possibly been the result of listening to podcasts, etc.

The other two threads that I posted are not as subtle.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

The very idea that kids are encouraged to consider people who are religious to be "corrupt" stands in stark contrast to your request that people should "live their own lives" and not judge others.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Conrad wrote:

mmvrs wrote:

2. Unlike FDR, scientology does involve quite a bit of actual coercion, so the comparison there is fairly invalid.

they've been convicted for actual coercion against members?

If not, then what you're saying is libelous in the Steffian sense, no?. And if you don't have evidence for such coercion (violating the non-aggression principle) then all the points about 'voluntarily made decisions' applies to them just as well as in your eyes they apply to FDR

[update: I've spotted one conviction for inflicting severe emotional distress and one conviction for involuntary manslaughter.]

It is well known that they do, in fact, use violence. L. Ron Routinely threw members of Sea Org off the boat as a punishment. They didn't even get to walk the plank, he'd just pitch them over the side. They were then immediately fished out of the cold blue deep, but they'd learned their lesson. Miscavidge has boldly retained and expanded upon these brutal disciplinary measures.

They call it "overboarding," and where they don't have a boat, they'll throw people off a bridge into a lake, as is common at the Clearwater HQ. Just because these people never filed a lawsuit (an insane strategy against the $cientologists, given their army of lawyers and penchant for 'Fair Gaming' people through the legal system) or police charges, doesn't mean these pratices aren't well known and acknowledged facts about how the "Church" operates.

$cientology is definitely a far greater evil than FDR is, or likely ever will be (though that is small consolation for those who've been "deFOOed"), but I still contend that there are certain tactical similarities, and it's worth examining them. I know Stef and company don't use physical violence, nor do they even have the means to do so, but there are comparisons that can be made to aide in our understanding of the processes involved, which I've pointed out before, so I wont go into that again here, I just want to defend the comparisons as legitimate and valuable in our conversations vis a vie Mr. Molyneux and FDR.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Conrad · Subject: Re: Chronology of a defoo Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:13 pm

good points

_________________
My Blog

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Dylboz - Where did you point those out before? I would be interested in reading about that.

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 90 Registration date: 2008-11-16

[update: I've spotted one conviction for inflicting severe emotional distress and one conviction for involuntary manslaughter.][/quote]

On the point of inflicting severe emotional distress there has been plenty of that where our family has been concerned. But what the heck? as long as the defooee got away okay then the rest of of us are of no consequence right? we don't matter right? one 'saved' but fifty harmed in the process!, now that doesn't seem rational to me.
What grieves me so much is that the family never stood a chance because we did not know that somebody was looking over our shoulder at our very private life. So we made mistakes, but nobody was telling us we had made mistakes, nobody pointed them out and we should have realized but we didn't and we won't make the same again. Some of todays posts have related to manipulation. Well I do not believe that the defooee from our family gave up lightly day to day events in a public forum for others to paw over, ugh!, repulsive, why would you do that to your family?
Regardless, we still love the defoo'd from our lives and will continue to do so. FDR's influence may have stopped us from talking but it will not stop us from loving, feeling and caring.

Guest

Conrad wrote:

they've been convicted for actual coercion against members?

Convicted by court? I don't know since they do have an army of lawyers. There is an ongoing Lisa McPherson case.

But I don't see why would you emphasize members. When I say coercion I mean in general and Scientologist active litigation alone is all the evidence you need, and that's just the public part.

Conrad wrote:

And if you don't have evidence for such coercion (violating the non-aggression principle) then all the points about 'voluntarily made decisions' applies to them just as well as in your eyes they apply to FDR

They apply to everyone, scientology, FDR or whoever, if no coercion is involved. Lack of coercion by definition leaves only voluntary interaction. Manipulation however requires dishonesty (lying, double standards etc.).

Nelle, that before and after comparison is obviously ignorant towards the in between and thus is a non-argument. You're chasing ghosts.

nelle wrote:

The very idea that kids are encouraged to consider people who are religious to be "corrupt" stands in stark contrast to your request that people should "live their own lives" and not judge others.

Considering something corrupt and living your own life aren't at odds. Obsessing over someone else and wishing they change instead of changing yourself or terminating relationships which you feel aren't mutually beneficial is.

---

I've read the third link you posted (second one is longest so I'm leaving it for last), and what I see is that there was some unpleasantness (mostly from Ricky) which they quickly identified and recognized ultimately resulting in Ricky's apology. Nojus resisted, and was also defended by some, rather than disbanded.

Trips evidence of his broader characterizations are still absent though.

Guest

jawol, defooed in question may have indeed made a mistake, but it was his mistake to make. But putting so much emphasis on FDR's role when there is clear evidence that members of FDR nor Stef don't encourage rash decisions with this regard and instead encourage trying to work things out beforehand strikes me as irrational.

If the defooed in question never told you what is bothering him or her about you and just terminated instead I would say he may have made a mistake and I'm sure a lot others on FDR would agree, including Stef (he explains exactly this point in his book Real Time Relationships in fact). Just leaving someone without any explanation whatsoever, without giving any chance for improvement is clearly very bad, even if not immoral.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Then the person who defoo'd me is immoral.

How does this go along with Stef's philosophy of forgiveness? I believe there is a thread on this on our website. I found the philosophy difficult to relate to, however.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Chronology of a defoo Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:36 pm

nelle wrote:

Then the person who defoo'd me is immoral.

How does this go along with Stef's philosophy of forgiveness? I believe there is a thread on this on our website.

here

_________________
My Blog

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Oh yes. That was the first thread I ever posted on here. I was still struggling to understand how my friend could have defoo'd me for reasons that I did not even understand. Because I did not understand these reasons (except an explanation in the defoo letter, which this person wished to be final contact) I had no chance to make restitution or improvements. I could not understand the lack of forgiveness, so this thread was what drew me into LiMi.

Guest

nelle wrote:

Then the person who defoo'd me is immoral.

I said "Just leaving someone without any explanation whatsoever, without giving any chance for improvement is clearly very bad, even if not immoral."

So what you say there doesn't follow. It may have been bad, as in emotionally hurtful, but not immoral because no coercion was involved (for explanation of this coercion = immoral refer to my discussion with Danny Shahar in the other thread.

Gonna check out the philosophy of forgiveness thread.

But I've read the third FDR thread you linked to and I can say that for a few times while reading it I did feel that Stef was hyperbolic. However, he was took to task for it and the discussion continued analyzing what actually happened, along with Stef's participation even after he said a couple of times he'll no longer post in it. I think that what Stef told Tyler was quite correct, but stated in a such blunt way that it was easy to interpret as an attack on Tyler's parents. I do not like this bluntness myself, but I can't exactly see it as wrong or manipulative, just a bad strategy if your goal is to get someone onboard.

Which is interesting because a lot of the criticism here, with regards to the cult claims, speak of manipulation and manipulation implies using some sort of a luring technique to get people in, saying lies in the process if necessary, rather than this blunt statement of what Stef thinks is true, knowing full well that chances are it wont exactly lure people in. This strikes me more as honest behavior than manipulative. Effectively, you could call Stef arrogant and blunt, but not necessarily dishonest.

Btw, this post and this one make some points which make me think that Stef was actually right, if not in strategy then in content.

Also, I would like to get one thing straight however. Even if I, for instance, posed a strong disagreement with Stef on FDR and was banned for voicing this disagreement I would not defend hyperbolic cult accusations and slander or behind-the-back judging of defooed and general obsession with FDR that sometimes goes on here.

I think the overall effect of FDR is extremely far more positive than negative. It's just that a paradigm shift sometimes hurts people whom would rather stick with their delusions and take scapegoats.

Looking at the world today, where violence, self-contradiction or general shallowness are still justified and even celebrated as virtuous it is pretty clear that most humans don't yet have much of an idea what a truly good relationship is (and thus end up scratching their heads of anxiety about people who actually seek more than the "normal"), since it is through relationships mainly that humans interact and it is human interaction which creates prevalent culture and thinking paradigms.

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 90 Registration date: 2008-11-16

mmvrs wrote:

jawol, defooed in question may have indeed made a mistake,

If the defooed in question never told you what is bothering him or her about you and just terminated instead I would say he may have made a mistake and I'm sure a lot others on FDR would agree, including Stef (he explains exactly this point in his book Real Time Relationships in fact). Just leaving someone without any explanation whatsoever, without giving any chance for improvement is clearly very bad, even if not immoral.

mmvrs,
Do you think that it is not immoral to post a family's very private moments in an open forum on the internet? implicating other family members in the process who may in turn rebel against the 'alleged' antagonisors (parents/guardians) who may actually be innocent of said allegations but are un-able to defend themselves,- because they did not know that they were under the microscope, because they did not know that they were being accused? make no mistake it comes as big shock when you find out but the damage is all ready done. Does anyone in fdr care that other people, innocent or not are being harmed? and does it make it right that they are? and have all circumstances been considered? on the last point no, because you do not know all the details, ipso facto, that led to the finale, you only have one persons opinion, not the full story, and that will be a very long one lifelong in fact.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

I'm so sorry Jawol.

It's rare to learn of mainstream organizations in society that openly provide instructions and even scripts for inflicting such traumatic heartbreak on those who love you.