Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Debunking the Myth of Mind-Control

Pattern of Defense

Diane identifies a pattern of defense often followed by anticultists when their claims about mind-control are being examined more factually.


Diane Richardson <referen@bway.net>

12 Apr  97

http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=234480985

If this were just an isolated incident, I wouldn't bother commenting upon it. You have engaged in the same sort of chicanery (perhaps self-delusion) a number of times here on other matters. You insist that "mind control" is a fact, but when pressed you are unable to provide any substantial evidence to support this alleged fact.

Rather than admitting there is no hard evidence to support the assertion that "mind control" exists, you repeatedly engaged in the same defense:

  1. You argue from authority, pointing out Margaret Singer and Steve Hassan's books. When that argument is countered,
     

  2. You demand that others prove a negative, that is, that "mind control" does not exist. When that argument is countered,
     

  3. You mention -- in quite vague terms -- ongoing research that will soon be published that will resoundingly prove the existence of "mind control," all the while claiming that such research is impossible because of ethical problems in research design. (I'm still waiting to learn about that last "soon to be published" research coming from someone in Lousiana, was it?) When the irrationality of your argument is countered,
     

  4. You descend to attacking those who disagree with your opinion by attaching any number of loaded-language labels to them -- "ivory tower academics," "cult apologists," "paid cult dupes," etc.

You've followed this pattern enough times in the past that I have no difficulty predicting what your responses will be before you post them, Monica, although I must admit I'm surprised at times over the virulence of your animosity towards those who disagree with your opinion (which you're convinced is "fact").

Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net


 


Defense Introduction - Announcement - William's Sins Bainbridge - Timothy Miller - Hunts Attack - Robert Jay Lifton - Pattern of Defense - Loaded Language - Margaret Singer - DSM -1V - Clark's Defense -Kaplan and Saddock - Sociologist Vs Psychologist - Milieu Control - Hugglung's Reaction  Salibo on Singer - APA Statement - The Rabbits Foot



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless