Panda Termint
Cabal of One
Fair enough too, my point in answering the question was to assure readers of that thread that the so-called Reject Buttons are not "magic buttons".
Answering an unanswered question about my OSA Operatives thread on ESMB v1.0.
- Thread starter Panda Termint
- Start date
On cable tv political shows they sit around and compete with each other to see who can come up with the best Reject Buttons.Fair enough too, my point in answering the question was to assure readers of that thread that the so-called Reject Buttons are not "magic buttons".
Do you mean Ad Homs?On cable tv political shows they sit around and compete with each other to see who can come up with the best Reject Buttons.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
Yes. That would be the proper terminology. In the green room before the show on MSNBC and CNN they discuss, "What about the sociopath shall we discuss today?" At FOX they discuss, "What aspect of deranged Democrats shall we discuss?" If you don't get too negative about it and just look at the absurdity it can be rather comical.Do you mean Ad Homs?
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I played sports in high school and didn't have time to join the debate team so now I'm getting an overview of the terminology and rules of debate.
"Reject buttons' is a more sophisticated way to negate and make your opponent subdue (compared to, rather obvious, Ad Hom).Yes. That would be the proper terminology. In the green room before the show on MSNBC and CNN they discuss, "What about the sociopath shall we discuss today?" At FOX they discuss, "What aspect of deranged Democrats shall we discuss?" If you don't get too negative about it and just look at the absurdity it can be rather comical.
I played sports in high school and didn't have time to join the debate team so now I'm getting an overview of the terminology and rules of debate.
Both are the Black Tools of Polemics.
polemic
noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
adjective
Also po·lem·i·cal. of or relating to a polemic; controversial.
ORIGIN OF POLEMIC
1630–40; < Greek polemikós of or for war, equivalent to pólem(os) war + -ikos -ic
An "MU" rarely escapes my notice. Thank Xenu for the Study Tek. (joke) The word origin certainly gives the sense of the word.
I'm glad you learn!
(Sometimes, people, having learned Scn, stop learning)
I quit Scn in 1982 and never read a word about what was going on until watching the HBO movie "Going Clear" in 2015 got me interested in taking a look. After reading and participating on some blogs for awhile an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance I came across was:
I should continue my intellectual and spiritual pursuits.........................but............................I can't trust anyone
I'm glad I as-ised (erased) that - haha
Betrayal of trust is common or maybe universal in cults.
Last edited:
Back on the old hobby horse, eh, Al?
A. A TRUE ex-Scientologist doesn't complain about Scientology or associate with any other ex-Scientologists.
B. Scientology and The Aftermath is a betrayal after trust.
Who would support those two statements?
1. BTW
2. Alonzo
3. David Miscavige
4. The nobbled version of Marty Rathbun
5. All of the above
Last edited:
cleared cannibal
Well-known member
Cognitive dissonance is what ALL exs go through. I have written before that I find it hard to agree with myself sometimes because Scn believes it. One has to come to the point that they accept Scn is right or at least you agree with them on some points.
Something Glenda said earlier on the thread about emotional and rational thought is something everyone struggles at time. I think if one listens to too many other philosophies it is hard to know your own. Hubbard realized this as did many others through history. A contemporary of Hubbard was Joseph Goebbles ,Nazi minister of propaganda. Goebbles would be proud of Hubbard and I am not so sure that Hubbard did steal this from him.
>>>“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Godwin's law - Wikipedia
cleared cannibal
Well-known member
It can be used to stop discussion but not necessarily.
Hitler is a good place cognitive dissonance could be Illustrated .
If Hitler did it is it bad? Some things even most things were but not all things. I think of Scn in this fashion. There are key words today which are used to end discussion
Misogyny , racist, conspiracy, climate denier. If these are used you are probably not going to have a rational conversation on or off line. I guess he is saying Hitler is used in this fashion. I would have to agree if you are talking about Trump and Hitler in same sentence.
Hitler is a good place cognitive dissonance could be Illustrated .
If Hitler did it is it bad? Some things even most things were but not all things. I think of Scn in this fashion. There are key words today which are used to end discussion
Misogyny , racist, conspiracy, climate denier. If these are used you are probably not going to have a rational conversation on or off line. I guess he is saying Hitler is used in this fashion. I would have to agree if you are talking about Trump and Hitler in same sentence.
Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia
Well, the A is capitalized in aftermath. It seems to me a remarkably unlucky slip if there was no malicious intent.
And I’ve seen other short replies that have some ambiguity, but actually put in the knife. Mostly from Alonzo back on ESMB, but I’d just read one from BTW on the TRUE ex-Scientologist thread that he was being pulled up about.
So, on the whole, if I were a trusting kind of soul, I might think I’d misread, but I’m more cynical these days.
