| Final-Fan said: Quoted the start of paragraphs I'm responding to for clarity. "First off" The topic was originally the misdeeds of the CoS. You want to talk about the misdeeds of Anonymous. Since you DID NOT initially agree about the factual nature of the CoS's crimes listed by posters such as Phendrana, but rather gave vague expressions of doubt before moving on to hammer Anonymous for their own alleged abuses, it is very easy to see why we might say that you were practicing the "attack the attacker" strategy as you mirrored it precisely even if unintentionally. I think it's especially understandable considering that you also took time out from advancing your case against Anonymous to berate people for not being able to produc evidence of the CoS's crimes when you now say that you never doubted their existence. And even more so when one of your first posts here contains the comment "The biggest problem with all the conspiracy theories encircling Scientology is that at the end of the day it assumes such monumental stupidity on behalf of all those who were supposedely "duped and extorted."" "Going over" You say I didn't seem to find it insulting. That is COMPLETELY INCORRECT and I don't know what caused you to imagine that anything of the kind was true. ssj12's comment was completely out of line not to mention ludicrous. Just because I didn't jump up and down screaming does not mean I approve or even fail to disapprove -- I mentioned that I expected him to apologize once he got a hold of his emotions (I notice that he has not yet done so AFAIK despite returning to the thread); but he was not posting and you seemed to have his censure well in hand -- in fact I noted that you seemed all too enthusiastic to bring up the subject in almost every post. "I agree" Ah, I see. But why then did it seem that you were saying that the crimes mentioned by posters were "isolated incidents" and not a direct result of the EXPLICIT policies of the CoS? I thought that by "unofficial" you meant the kind of thing where the official (both our meanings) code/rules do not encourage certain actions or even forbid them, but behind the scenes and in the atmosphere is the suggestion that those actions are still expected and the authorities within the organization will look the other way. No, your definition of "unofficial" can still mean explicit written policies handed down concretely and even published internally, and it never becomes "official" to your mind unless the organization shows it all to the world. According to you, for instance, the extermination of Jews was unofficial Nazi policy, not official, since they did not inform the outside world of their actions (nor, for that matter, even their own populace, explicitly and AFAIK). It is clear that the policy formerly known as "Fair Game" is still (or was relatively recently) very much a part of the CoS's modus operandi and no doubt its utilization is expected by its operatives. So this confusion over the true definition of "official", while an important subject, does not appear to me to be enough to explain the apparent contradiction in your posts between your stated belief of the CoS's guilt in these matters and your repeated statements that they were not the result of explicit CoS policy. I would like you to address this perceived inconsistency very much. "At the end" YES THERE HAS BEEN PROOF PROVIDED HERE by Phendrana that the CoS has explicit policy equivalent to Fair Game which extends at least over 20 years past the date that the TERM "Fair Game" was officially discontinued, to the point that many documents hadn't bothered to make the name change they were supposed to. No, I can't provide authoritative proof that the CoS is actively promoting that policy as of April 17, 2008, but I see no reason to suppose otherwise. Do you? If so, please share your reasons and evidence, especially evidence since you demand such strong evidence of others. If the CoS wanted to prove itself innocent it would be child's play for it to engage in (yet another) lawsuit with one of the many, many anti-Scientology organizations out there -- not all of them operate anonymously you know -- and put all this evidence that supposedly exonerates the CoS out into the public record. As for the right of reply, just because they don't know who is speaking behind all those masks shouldn't make them any less able to defend against what those people are saying ... unless of course they plan to do so by attacking the speakers. Ad hominem anyone? "A further issue" If you're saying that Anonymous actually makes themselves MORE open to attack by hiding behind masks, then that may be a bit of poor judgement on their part but I fail to see how it affects things. As for 'Why don't they turn over all that evidence then?', it may not have occurred to you that proof enough to know isn't the same as proof enough to prove in our legal system or even proof enough for a search warrant. That's why so many situations require public outcry to get the leverage for more people to come forward with evidence and to get the criminal justice system to bring pressure to bear where it can to shake things loose. "I'm sure" Once again, I'm mystified as to how you got the idea in your head that I'm "largely ok" with what ssj12 said, given my CLEAR comments to the contrary. I don't remember offhand if Sqrl has spoken on the subject but I'm insulted that you would not give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he was absent from the thread in the period in which those remarks were made and for some time thereafter. I acknowledge that you may not have deliberately dodged anything, but I also hope you can see why everyone thought that you were doing exactly that. You did fail to respond to any of those points, and only recently did you make it clear that it was because you agreed with them. Apologies for the epic post. |
For the sake of harmony, I'll just go ahead and accept that interesting little apology ssj12 offered a minute ago.
Ok, first couple of paragraphs first:
I don't feel there is a contradiction. I went over my first few posts and found that from the very beginning my focus was on what I consider to be the lack of a justifiable reason for Anonymous to be masked. I went on to illustrate this point with reference to my "exclusive brethren" example. What I have always, and still maintain, is the fact that a mob of protestors whould not be allowed to unilaterally present the past actions of a few as the wholly endorsed actions of an entire Church.
Do I consider it likely that the CoS was aware (and continues to endorse) most of these incidents? Yes. Do I believe that that makes it ok for Anonymous to claim them as fact without anything resembling a judicial or senate enquiry? No. Two wrongs do not make a right. I realize that in the beginning I was not nearly clear enough on the fact I'm not disputing the likelihood that the CoS was aware of these incidents at the time. I also believe that their biggest regret is not that they committed those crimes, but that they got caught. But at the same time, my argument remains that that is not enough to condemn the entirety of the organization in it's present form.
However it is the very nature of the Anonymous protests that would easily protect anyone of their members if they decided to identify themselves. As I've said, the CoS simply could not risk the PR nightmare of anything happening to a newly identified anti-CoS protestor, especially given the media is on the protestor's side. What I consider to be a key point within your post was the line stating that you "see no reason to suppose otherwise" (with reference to the apparant discontinuation of the 'Fair Game' policy). This goes to the heart of my innocent until proven guilty argument. No matter how much we think we know about a certain crime, no matter how sure we are of who perpetrated that crime, we are not judge, jury and executioner. If you genuinely feel someone is guilty of a crime, report them to the authorities. It is your right to protest, but if your going to do so, be accountable for what you are saying.
Speaking in a broad sense (take the CoS out of your head for a moment), do you believe it is exceptable for a bunch of masked protestors to attack one person or organization? How is one supposed to defend oneself against an attacker one cannot see or engage? My problem is, you seem to be so assured, not just of CoS's guilt, but of YOUR RIGHT to declare them guilty. The problem is, you don't have this right, only the courts (and in some circumstances the Senate or Congress) do. If Anonymous members identified themselves and fought the defamation court battle the CoS is likely to bring, I am confident they would win based on the strength of their evidence. But at the end of the day, someone without and identity cannot wage a court battle, and evidence without a varifiable source cannot be used.
What your suggesting is unreasonable. You wish for the CoS to have to debate with full accountability, against a hidden opposition with no accountability. Your asking the CoS to justify Anonymous' approach by engaging in a debate with a group that won't reveal itself. I've stated numerous times that much of my problem with Anonymous members goes away when they remove their masks (and as ssj12 pointed out, many have). And I extend that to the non-anonymous anti-CoS organizations you refer to.
Here is another point of yours I take issue with:
"As for 'Why don't they turn over all that evidence then?', it may not have occurred to you that proof enough to know isn't the same as proof enough to prove in our legal system or even proof enough for a search warrant."
This is exactly the point I'm arguing. You CANNOT unilatterally declare an organization is guilty if you have no accountability and insufficient evidence to prove it in court. In Australia members of the Lower House of Parliament (our equivelant to Congress) and the Senate have parliamentary privelage that makes them exempt from Defamtion laws, and I'm quite sure this is the case in the USA. Why does anonymous not work (like some other groups) to lobby politicians to make the same accusations in Congress or the Senate, and in doing so instigate an enquiry. That way, all due process is observed in that:
-The person leveling the accusations is accountable.
-CoS has the ability to present evidence in it's defense to a verifiable opponent.
-All proceedings take place in a legally-endorsed institution of our democracy.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
