Logical Fallacies, Misinterpretations, and Lies. Part 1 of 4

After discovering a comment left on one of the articles on this very blog I felt that it didn't deserve a comment back, rather an article of its own. The comment itself shows the author didn't read the article but just assumed what it was about but they did link to this website and I read the Who Runs Anonymous? Part 1 of 4 entry for May 20th.

As an avid skeptic I enjoy reading the claims of those made by cults and peddlers of pseudo-science so I am very familiar with logical fallacies and I think it's important for the public to see the ones Scientology likes to use to "prove" (ho ho ho) their case about Anonymous.

http://anonymoushategroup.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-runs-anonymous-part-1-of-4.html

Right off the bat we can see that the first picture of Tory was taken from the Religious Freedom Watch slander site which is dedicated to slandering those who are critical of, or speak out against, Scientology. Notice how they never talk about people like Brian Sapiant who actually do have a campaign to end all religion; it's all Scientology critics. Clearly this site is not objective and is dedicated to the king all of all logical fallacies; The ad hominem attack.

Now the ad hominem attack is built into Scientology tech as a tool for Scientologists to confront and shatter suppression so it is important that we try to see this wherever we can. Rather than addressing the topic; they go straight into attacking or defaming the person making the point as a way to fool people into thinking they have a logical retort when in fact they have nothing to bring to the table. Scientology is not based on scientific concepts; so its only method of having a place in any debate, and keeping it from looking like quackery, is the use of logical fallacies. So we can see we have 2 websites built on a foundation of a logical fallacy; attack the messengers rather than the message.

Of all the major opinion leaders and influencers in Anonymous' "Project Chanology", Professional Anti-Scientologist Tory Magoo is the most proficient in the fine art of demagoguery. We will begin this analysis with a passage from "Prophets of the Apocalypse: White Supremacy and the Theology of Christian Identity".
"Clearly, the tendency to blame those at the receiving end of bias (see image below) for its effects is particularly pronounced among members of extreme hate groups. The effect is to promote in-group favoritism (i.e., a belief in the innate superiority of the group to which one belongs), combined with out-group stigmatisation (i.e., a belief in the innate inferiority of the designated out-groups).

Tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning. Where the premise IS the conclusion. In the above, the "proof" that Tory is the leader of anonymous is that she talks to anonymous. Denying her involvement in anonymous thus proves she is leading them. Someone who speaks to a group they are not a part of and encouraging them is the reason why she denies it; she leads them. No matter how you word it; it's not possible to wrap your head around such a comment without first being a true believer.

Funny how they point to Rick Ross, a man they have been vehemently AGAINST. They call this man a kidnapper, mentally unstable, and a fraud. Funny how someone who is so evil and wrong all the time could be right when it serves their propaganda purposes.

As I was proofreading this I decided to add a logical fallacy I almost missed; confusing association with causation. They claim that, as she is speaking out and associates with members of anonymous, she is the cause of anonymous protests without evidence. Please, if you have documents, credible testimonies, sworn affidavits please let's hear them! Until then we cannot even begin to speculate, let alone make claims, that this is true. This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, these do not even include even questionable evidence. There's just none.

There's an old saying that is important for any human to understand and remember in order to be safe from frauds and charlatans; Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. The allegation that Tory Christman is the leader of a leaderless group is an extraordinary claim that circular logic and ad hominem attacks cannot prove. The post goes on....

It would appear that such psychological dynamics are a necessary ingredient for the development of CULTIC organizations, driven as they are by an exclusive sense of mission that separates their followers from all other groups in society.

Cultic leaders have always been forthcoming when it comes to what they say their role is in such Cultic organizations. They do not deny their adherents leadership and responsibility; Tory does. You also cannot back a theory with another theory. Also; your church has said time and time again we should never listen to Rick Ross because he's a kidnapper, mentally unstable, and a fraud. So is he, or where you lying about this man all along? What's it going to be Scientology? You cannot have the ad hominem cake and eat it too.

She most definitely has a cult following (opens in a new window): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmKvwvHwCs We suggest you examine the comments on her channel.

You cannot take anonymous comments as proof of a consensus amongst anonymous people because they're *gasp* anonymous! For all we know that could be anyone posting those comments. That's the problem with attacking anonymous as a whole to begin with. Not all of anonymous support or participate Project Chanology; in fact a good portion of anonymous doesn't. It's OK that there's differentiating opinions in this group. Cults usually play on the mentality of an us and a them. What we know is truth, anything different is a lie from them. This is exactly the mentality The Church of Scientology puts on all of us. They are all the same, they are all centralized working against us. Nothing could be further from the truth about anonymous. Nothing could be closer to the truth about the Church of Scientology.

After this we go into videos of Tory speaking as to give the appearance of evidence when in fact we are looking at non-evidence. Now I did notice some points where it's hard for me to decide whether they were just misinterpreting what they saw or if they were deliberatly misrepresenting what Tory was saying.

So we're gonna take it line by line and I'll let you be the judge:

:40 She gives http://www.anonymoushategroup.blogspot.com/ a shout out and then admits to being part of Anonymous.

Tory did not admit to being part of anonymous, she said "we're" when referring to who this particular blog post was walking about. Which lumped Tory in with Anonymous. So when she says "we" she's referring to anonymous AND her as this blog clearly states. She didn't admit to being a part of anonymous, she's acknowledging that you are lumping her together with them. Perhaps the study tech couldn't help this particular Scientologist understand context. Either that or he his purposely taking it out of context to make it a lie. If you are reading this Anonymous poster, please correct this as soon as possible. I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

1:00-1:50 Referencing the video here, in which we used 2Pac on the soundtrack. She thinks that David Miscaviage made the video and most Anonymous members believe her.

1:58 Claims this blog was created on David Miscaviage's orders

This is a deliberate fabrication. Tory said "The only people who call me bitch is probably Scientology and I'm sure David Miscavage is there saying 'That bitch!'" I cannot understand why anyone would would assume that is what she is saying. I cannot. I am doing everything I can to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might be just misunderstanding, but this is... guys this is just real bad. At least give me something to work with a little. I have yet to meet or talk to anyone who thinks David is editing or creating any video. Though I do not speak for Anonymous I think it's safe for me to say that this is not the opinions of Anonymous or any sane human for that matter. I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

2:09 Denies that she calls Scientologists names; says this is blog is libelous

The site is libelous. Let's do some word clearing shall we?

li·bel·ous also li·bel·lous


(lb-ls) adj.

1. Involving or constituting a libel; defamatory.

li·bel


(lbl)n.

1.

a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

b. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Take some time out of your day to read some of your past articles about Tory including that video you made calling her a bitch and tell me how this is not libelous. Regardless, I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

2:09 Denies that she calls Scientologists names; says this is blog is libelous

PROOF SHE IS A LIAR--WATCH FIRST 30 SECONDS (says Scientologists are liars, weasels and snakes):

Tory is not talking about Scientologists. Tory is talking about The Church of Scientology particularly upper management. Again if you listen to what she is saying she is even defending the rank and file Scientologists by saying that they do not see what the upper management are doing. The wording of Scientology is tricky and confusing sometimes; however in the context of how she is using it she is clearly talking about the Organization and not individual Scientologists. I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

2:30 Claims that this website and our videos are the reason why Scientologists are (supposedly) leaving the organization.

Where? I cannot find this part. If it is there and missed it, I still fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

3:06 States that Scientology is a totalitarian organization and a mafia. Attacks her favorite straw man: David Misvaciage

Perhaps we are not familiar with the term straw man. A straw man is a logical fallacy, and it's great that Scientologists are starting to become aware of these and and are using the terms for them, however YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! A straw man is an argument that is a misrepresentation of someone else's argument; not a term for the person of which they are speaking. Now if David Miscavage was a fictional person or if he isn't the Chariman of the Board, then perhaps he would be a straw man for Tory to knock. Unfortunately David is a real person and he is Chairman of the Board of the RTC which controls The Church of Scientology. Whatever, I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

3:22 Tells Scientologists that they need to : "WAKE THE FUCK UP"

Can we please stick to the topic at hand? The topic is; Is Tory Christman the leader of Anonymous? The topic is not; This is what offends me. We know you might not be happy with how she speaks about Scientology, but let's not let emotions get in the way of making a rational debate.

3:58 "You are brainwashed idiots" calling Scientologists names.

No, she did not. What she said was if you cannot look at both sides, then (and only then) you are brainwashed idiots. If a Scientologist were to look at what she was saying they would cease to be, in her opinion, brainwashed idiots yet still be a Scientologist. Even if she did and even if she is a liar, I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

:33 Says that Scientology is not a religion, and that Scientologists have "no compassion."

She is entitled to that opinion as much as you are entitled to the opinion that it is a religion. Also again; she's talking about the Organization of The Church of Scientology having no compassion not Scientologists.

1:54 Claims that Scientology has declared her as Anonymous' Leader.

Yes, that's what this blog is about, or was about before we gave up and just decided to dead agent her. Remember? Now more than ever, I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

2:12 Denies that she is a part of Anonymous

She isn't. I can see her face and I know her name. Ergo, she isn't anon. I fail to see how this proves she's the leader of Anonymous.

2:32 Claims she doesn't know much computers(yet she has used animated digital effects and, by her own admission, has spammed and trolled anti-Scientology websites for YEARS. )

OK, I see what they're doing wrong here. They think because there's a setting on her webcam program that turns you into an alien that that means she was up all night molding and animating in Maya. This is what we call an assumption. Now, I think the best piece of advice I got when I was growing up was how to spell assume. ASS-U-ME; because when you do it you make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am glad however we're back into making logical fallacies, they are a lot more fun than just misunderstanding and lying. This also paints a classic example of a false dichotomy. This is when the person arbitrarily reduces a set of many possibilities to only two. Either you know nothing about computers or you are a computer expert who can do CGI.

However we do have a misinterpretation of what Tory said she did for Scientology while she was still in. Tory never spammed anyone, Tory made accounts so other Scientologists could spam it for the Church. Everyone has their small top secret role that all comes together to have this diabolical outcome that none of them know about as I defined earlier in this blog.

Trolling people on the internet only requires you to know how to type and how to annoy people, there's no big computer skill you need to do this.

3:00 Conspiracy theory which rambles for 3 minutes and 53 seconds

This is why Tory calls you brainwashed idiots because you refuse to listen even though you have been trained to be a good communicator. It's not all Scientologists, just ones who refuse to think critically.

6:53 "Come to the picket, blah blah blah.." Tory "not" being a leader.

I have told numerous anonymous to bring friends with them to the picket also. Does this mean I am the new leader?

Well I am glad you have taken the time to read this and I hope you correct the errors on your site. I will be glad to hear from you as well if you see incorrect information on this post.

A Court Hearing Nobody Wants

During the May Anonymous demonstrations, a fifteen-year-old boy was singled out by the police and served with a court summons for persisting in holding a plackard that stated "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult." This story has been picked up by The Guardian, and leads to a curious issue. The article in question is by Anil Dawar, who wrote about Will Smith's forthcoming school which intends to make use of Scholastic Tech, the untested teaching method licensed from the Church of Scientology and "developed" by physics drop-out L Ron Hubbard. This is how the first sentence in that article reads:

"Actor Will Smith is funding his own private school that will teach youngsters
using an educational system devised in part by the Scientology cult."

Clearly the Church of Scientology wishes to choose its battles wisely, and sees more scope in taking a minor to court over exercising his freedom of speech than a national newspaper. The trouble is, should the Crown Prosecution Service feel that a child calling a cult a cult is a matter for the courts, then who will benefit from the trial? The defendent could probably do without the hassle. He's got GCSEs to prepare for. The Church of Scientology probably could do without the embarrassment of standing in court and describing how, against all knowledge of their modus operandi, the term "cult" is abusive and insulting. Those who will benefit, one can assume, are the media. A large and powerful organisation playing to type by pursuing a case against fifteen-year-old that will make McLibel look like the Queensbury Rules will cause heavenly column-inchage for reporters in any country the CoS maintain an org in.

This demonstrates with incredible clarity how lost the Church of Scientology has become. It finds itself in an idealogical combat with a group that was motivated primarily in pursuing a freedom of speech agenda. At a demonstration targeting specifically the Fair Game policy, which suggests that crimes of critics should be discovered or invented, they ensure that freedom of speech is curtailed, and potentially that people may be criminalised for daring to speak out against the criminal organisation in their midst. This can and will and has brought the wrong kind of attention to further the planet-clearing ambitions of Scientology. Why grass roots parishioners have yet to hammer CoS out of existence remains a mystery.


The Telegraph cover this story too. And the Daily Mail. And the Metro. And the BBC.

The Cost of Namefagging

It is true and has been proved that when the Church of Scientology attacks its critics it makes more critics. I, personally, began reading and writing about the Church as a response to their rather desperate Panorama: Exposed film. My resolve quickened as I read about other people, such as Paulette Cooper, who had been treated in a similar way or worse. My commitment solidified as I learnt about the very real victims of the Church.
Anonymous poses a problem to the Church simply by virtue of that anonymity. CoS can't directly attack the critics if they don't know who the critics are. Sadly, rather than this resulting in CoS channelling their energies into engaging with the criticism itself, they become ever more desperate to identify the masked protestors.
But Anonymous is a force of over 9,000. The Church cannot hope to identify all of the members, so lets look at what they have done to individual people they have identified, rightly or wrongly, as being part of Anonymous.
In the run up to the March demonstrations, the Church had the identities of various people, some of whom were active protestors, and some who were just passers by. On these people they served court orders, claiming that those that they had identified were the ever elusive (and non-existent) leaders of Anonymous. Leaving aside that this would be rather a coincidence, and leaving aside the methods that the Church used to identify people (much talk of traced number plates, PIs, etc.) they decided that they could use the namefagged to exert leverage over the group as a whole. Put simply they had someone they could take to court. CoS attempted to place a court order on the named, to prevent them from demonstrating, using legislation that is actually designed for individuals to get rid of stalkers. This attempt failed twice. The judges recognised that members of Anonymous have every right to protest, and every right to do so anonymously. The irony is that this is covered in the First Amendment, the same Amendment that the Church clings to when it claims Anonymous to be a group of ignorant bigots attacking individuals religious beliefs, rather than a well-read bunch of concerned citizens demonstrating against the abuses and crimes of the Church itself.
The second thing they tried to do was to coerce the named into "dropping out" of the movement. In letters from aged lawyers they cited the usually list of allegations; of bomb threats, nuisance phone calles and the now infamous YouTube video of which the Church mysteriously has the master copy. The trouble here, of course, is that this is grossly unethical behaviour for a lawyer. The CoS insinuated that they had evidence against Anonymous members perpetrating these attacks, and that if the letters' recipients did not cease and decist from exercising their rights, CoS would supply this information to the police. That's right; the "most ethical organisation on the planet" were stating that they were withholding evidence from the police in order to sway a civil matter.
What CoS seems to have missed though, is this.
Anonymous consists of a worldwide network of about 10,000 people. Whereas within clusters individuals may know their colleagues names, across the network as a whole, no-one knows who anyone else is. Beyond the friends that I already had that also attend the London demonstrations, and members of the old guard for whom anonymity is a horse longsince bolted, I know no-one's names at all. Despite this, the network is strong and powerful. Despite this. Anonymity has in a sense been forced on us by the policy of the Church. This is a slight simplification, inasmuch as Anonymous as a group have a "best fit" to protest against the Church, but their Anonymity predates the protests. Anonymity has clear benefits in evading fairgaming and other ad hominem attacks, but it comes at a price. On the lowest level, it takes energy and expense to keep up that anonymity. It's something that requires thought. It's something to worry about.
Added to that, we live in a named society. Our identities are our names, so if we remove our names from the picture, it makes it more difficult to do things, at the very least without putting our trust in the data security of other agencies. This becomes an issue if one wants to communicate by mail with companies, politicians, etc. What is more, the leaderless collective becomes a more difficult thing for the press to communicate with - a sea of nameless masked faces. When journalists encounter this wall of Guys they have a perfectly understandable tendancy to head for the nearest unmasked face. Happily this will most often be a member of the Old Guard. And how often have we heard a masked protestor say at the beginning of an interview "I can't speak for everyone here, only myself," avoiding the Anonymous taboo of making yourself a more important part of the organisation.
The Church's current tactic, having seen genuine losses in numbers as a result of the ongoing actions, is to tell staff members that Anonymous is being paid by Big Pharma and the Psychs. Ironically they are sending out to their parishioners a "follow the money" message; the same message that Anonymous is trying to communicate to parishioners about their own organisation. Tory Christman and Jason Beghe have stated that, without namefagging oneself, there needs to be a clearer communication of who Anonymous are, on an individual level, to try and dispell this bit of propoganda. The irony here is that actually namefagging oneself would be the ideal way of doing this, were it not to come at such a price.
But sometimes protestors don't have a choice. Sometimes the Church does the namefagging. In this sea of masks, certain members are picked out and identified, and here is the irony that escapes CoS. There is nothing that the church can do, legally, to those it namefags. It will harrass, perhaps, and write legal cheques it's incapable of cashing, but beyond that, nothing. And to the namefagged, as long as they are the named few in a sea of masks, become stronger and more powerful. They become martyrs to the cause; they become living reminders about the importance of anonymity; they become a solid node in the network; they become something not only that can be identified, but can be identified with, a hook on which the media can hang a story. Like so many retaliative moves designed in part or in whole by a man dead twenty-two years, it serves to strengthen the opposition; it serves to weaken further the Church it was designed to protect.