Author Topic: Cult deprogramming  (Read 10890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike_Lice

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Respect: +318
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2016, 11:53:07 AM »
0
This community tacitly sides with someone who behaves worse than Stefan, just because that person has an argument that could (clumsily and unnecessarily) be used against Stefan.

Who Am I siding with exactly?

RecentlyBanned

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • Respect: +10
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2016, 12:23:41 PM »
0
This community tacitly sides with someone who behaves worse than Stefan, just because that person has an argument that could (clumsily and unnecessarily) be used against Stefan.

Who Am I siding with exactly?


You are tacitly siding with Rick Alan Ross, "deprogrammer" and (self-proclaimed) "cult expert", who, in 1995, was convicted by a nine-person jury of conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. In addition, the jury held that Ross and his associates (but not CAN) "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Mike_Lice

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Respect: +318
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2016, 12:34:45 PM »
0
This community tacitly sides with someone who behaves worse than Stefan, just because that person has an argument that could (clumsily and unnecessarily) be used against Stefan.

Who Am I siding with exactly?


You are tacitly siding with Rick Alan Ross, "deprogrammer" and (self-proclaimed) "cult expert", who, in 1995, was convicted by a nine-person jury of conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. In addition, the jury held that Ross and his associates (but not CAN) "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

you mean this guy

Quote
Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American deprogrammer. Ross has intervened in more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries, including a number of involuntary deprogramming interventions at the requests of parents whose children had joined controversial groups and movements.[1][2]

Ross faced unlawful imprisonment charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott.Ross was found not guilty by the jury at trial. In 1995, a civil lawsuit filed by Scott resulted in a multi-million dollar civil judgement against Ross and his co-defendants, which led Ross to declare personal bankruptcy. Later, Ross and Scott reached a settlement in which Ross agreed to pay Scott US$5,000 and provide 200 hours of professional services at no charge.

Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with members of the religious group Branch Davidian prior to the Waco siege, and his involvement with the siege was later criticized by some scholars.

It says that Ross was unlawfully imprisoned and he was found NOT guilty in 1995? You didn't mention that ... This comes from his wiki page. You saying its incorrect? Cuz you are saying he was found guilty

Quote
You are tacitly siding with Rick Alan Ross, "deprogrammer" and (self-proclaimed) "cult expert", who, in 1995, was convicted by a nine-person jury of conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties.

CupOTea

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • There is no greater freedom than freedom of mind.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2016, 12:56:45 PM »
+1
Here is a good video interviewing Rick Ross on cults.  He communicates very well and is a good educator.  He covers some more extreme cults that are worse than FDR but it's interesting.  At about 24:30 he goes into his experience as an Exit Councilor and it included the 12 out of 500 that he deprogrammed back in the day.  It was cases were they were isolated in horrible groups and they were under coercive influence.  In other words they are getting screwed and didn't see the big picture. There is no evidence of Rick Ross talking to people abusively.  He is simply an educator.  In those days the deprogramming was legal in certain areas, if they went through the court.   Today the courts, like the general public, doesn't have an understanding of undue influence except in specific cases, like bilking old folks out of money.  The idea that you can be influenced so that you are being deceived, scammed and used to the point that you give up important things in your life, like your family and your money, isn't understood.  The common myths say these people are idiots or mentally ill and were out looking to get into something like their cult.  It's not about any of those things.  We know that by asking the people who come out and looking at what the circumstances that lead up to getting into these groups.  Usually they are idealistic people who were going though some changes in their lives.  Like growing up, not having a job, losing a girlfriend or moving.  There is something good presented initially, then as the confidence and belief in the leader increases, the controversial and destructive ideas become more easily believed.  Of course there is much more to getting sucked into a destructive group than this, it's just the tip of the iceberg.   

https://youtu.be/zjlT3-cSGac
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 12:59:49 PM by CupOTea »
Real men, proper big hairy real men who fight wild animals, naked, in the wilderness, with just a hammer and a copy of UPB, would shout, in their big hairy K-selected manly voices "look at me, I'm K-selected and I'm kicking this bear's ass, and I haven't got any pants on!"   : o )

RecentlyBanned

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • Respect: +10
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2016, 01:16:49 PM »
0


Ross faced unlawful imprisonment charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott.Ross was found not guilty by the jury at trial. In 1995

It says that Ross was unlawfully imprisoned and he was found NOT guilty in 1995? You didn't mention that ... This comes from his wiki page. You saying its incorrect? Cuz you are saying he was found guilty


To "face unlawful imprisonment charges" means that you're being accused of wrongfully imprisoning someone else. It does NOT mean, as you just said, that you were wrongfully imprisoned.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia page DOES INDICATE that Rick Alan Ross was convicted in civil court for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties.

The Wikipedia page also indictes how this happened.  A person joined a religious group that his family thought was a cult, so they hired Rick Alan Ross to kidnap that person and hold them in twenty-four hour confinement while berating the "cult".

If you cannot condemn Rick Alan Ross's actions, which were unanimously described by the jury who convicted him as reprehensible, then you've lost the moral high ground. And you've turned Stefan into a sympathetic figure.

RecentlyBanned

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • Respect: +10
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2016, 01:25:42 PM »
0
There is no evidence of Rick Ross talking to people abusively.


In 1995, Rick Ross unanimously convicted by a nice person jury of conspiracy to violate Jason Scott's religious freedom and civil rights. The trial established that Jason Scott's family to kidnap Jason Scott, hold him in twenty-four hour isolation, and berate the "cult leader".   

If you don't think this is abusive behavior, then what exactly do you think IS abusive behavior?


 
Quote
Today the courts, like the general public, doesn't have an understanding of undue influence except in specific cases, like bilking old folks out of money.  The idea that you can be influenced so that you are being deceived, scammed and used to the point that you give up important things in your life, like your family and your money, isn't understood.  The common myths say these people are idiots or mentally ill and were out looking to get into something like their cult.  It's not about any of those things.  We know that by asking the people who come out and looking at what the circumstances that lead up to getting into these groups.  Usually they are idealistic people who were going though some changes in their lives.  Like growing up, not having a job, losing a girlfriend or moving.  There is something good presented initially, then as the confidence and belief in the leader increases, the controversial and destructive ideas become more easily believed.  Of course there is much more to getting sucked into a destructive group than this, it's just the tip of the iceberg.   

I think the courts understand undue influence better than you do.  Undue influence is ill-defined, and begins when Person A accuses Group A of "unduly influencing" Person B.  From here, Person A is vulnerable to the undue influence of people like Rick Ross, who claims to be a "cult expert" and claims will "get your son back" (for a hefty fee, of course). 

The courts don't want people like Rick Alan Ross to exploit the grief of people like you, nor do they want anyone to be kidnapped in order to be deprogramming from the "cult".

CupOTea

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • There is no greater freedom than freedom of mind.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2016, 01:42:28 PM »
+2
There was a lawsuit that was won against Rick Ross but was later dismissed by the person who brought the case against him.  When this man left his cult, instead of getting money he wanted Rick Ross's help to get his family out of the cult. So much for Rick Ross being seen as abusive by the person who was the cult victim.

RB, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated any understanding of cults and don't have enough grounding in the subject to say if the courts have a good understanding or not.  According to the recognized experts, there is very little understanding in the public and that includes the courts.  The renowned Margaret Singer and others have been expert witnesses in the courts, without success.
Real men, proper big hairy real men who fight wild animals, naked, in the wilderness, with just a hammer and a copy of UPB, would shout, in their big hairy K-selected manly voices "look at me, I'm K-selected and I'm kicking this bear's ass, and I haven't got any pants on!"   : o )

Mike_Lice

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Respect: +318
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2016, 02:06:05 PM »
+1
If you cannot condemn Rick Alan Ross's actions, which were unanimously described by the jury who convicted him as reprehensible, then you've lost the moral high ground. And you've turned Stefan into a sympathetic figure.

Let me understand your position.
You are saying:
Ross is a bad guy, because when he deprogrammed cult members he had to do it against their will.
Stefan isn't a bad guy, because when he convinced people to join his cult he didn't do it against their will?

[edit]
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 02:13:51 PM by Mike_Lice »

: o )

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +651
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2016, 03:51:01 PM »
+3
If you cannot condemn Rick Alan Ross's actions, which were unanimously described by the jury who convicted him as reprehensible, then you've lost the moral high ground. And you've turned Stefan into a sympathetic figure.

Let me understand your position.
You are saying:
Ross is a bad guy, because when he deprogrammed cult members he had to do it against their will.
Stefan isn't a bad guy, because when he convinced people to join his cult he didn't do it against their will?

[edit]


This forum - and every thread - is slowly turning into a process that exclusively deals with RecentlyBanned's often woeful arguments, there really isn't any point, if you demonstrate that one of his ideas are mistaken he will simply ignore your point and move on to another idea or claim, if you address than one, he will again, just move on to another ignoring your challenges, all substantial/legitimate criticism will be ignored, he will argue that forum members must do X, when he is shown to not be doing X himself, he will simply - again - move on to telling everyone that they must now be talking about Y or discussing Z, and again if you demonstrate that he's fallen foul of his own demands/standards and is not talking about Y or Z, he will once again just ignore you and move on . . .

RB: 2 + 2 is 5

A: How are you defining '2' in this context ? Is it the standard understanding of '2' or are you using '2' to mean '2.5' ?

RB: Definitions are fluid, only aspergic people demand definitions for every word.

A: My question is are you using standard mathematical terms here ?

RB: Vox Day said people like you would make these kinds of demands.

A: I'm not making any demands, I just wanted to know what you mean by the statement 2 + 2 is 5 ?

RB: Bill Whittle had something interesting to say about 'demands', he said the left will always demand what the right requests because the left don't understand the fundamentals of freedom.

A: Bill who ?

RB: It would take you 1 minute to find Bill Whittle's blog and research his ideas, the fact that you haven't just shows you lack integrity.

A: Right, ok . . . I just wanted to know whether you are using standard mathematical terms when you make the claim that 2 + 2 is 5 ?

RB: Are you unable to use the search function, I used it and it seems to be working fine, why can't you use it, these terms are easy to search.

A: But all I get are the standard mathematical terms, which render your idea of 2 + 2 is 5 wrong, can you not simply tell me what you mean ?

RB: You have not shown yourself to have any integrity so do not deserve an answer from me, when I'm in the gym pushing 600lb weights I often think of aspergic fools like you who . . . . .


. . . . etc etc ad nauseam  ;D


. . . . this will go on forever ;D people like RecentlyBanned are unable to engage in rational conversation or debate as his goal is a kind of ongoing 'victory' which relies on a sense that he is defeating what he sees as his lessors (in reality a lot of the time - although not all - he is in fact arguing against himself, arguing against ideas he invents and attributes to others), although this kind of thing can be fun as a kind of sport, it is, like I say, slowly turning a forum aimed at critiquing Molyneux into one dealing with RecentlyBanned's conversational needs.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 04:06:39 PM by : o ) »
"In every ideologically based community, there's a group that's elated the confirmation bias machine has finally gotten around to visiting their neighbourhood, like the ice cream truck" . . money detonator

QuestEon

  • Just some guy with a blog.
  • Administrator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • What's your opinion? I'd love to hear it!
  • Respect: +463
    • FDR Liberated
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2016, 04:26:13 PM »
+5
This is the best thread that has ever happened on FDR Liberated.  What was intended to be a discourse about Stefan Molyneux's "undue influence" has exposed the FDR Liberated community...

Now that you have exposed this entire "community" and demonstrated your superior moral authority, it stands to reason that your only logical recourse is to reject this community and find another more worthy of your time, correct?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 05:19:52 PM by QuestEon »
It isn't about winning the debate. It's about the truth.

: o )

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +651
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2016, 05:37:20 PM »
0
Now that you have exposed this entire "community" and demonstrated your superior moral authority, it stands to reason that your only logical recourse is to reject this community and find another more worthy of your time, correct?

The answer - I am guessing - will be some variation on him being here to educate his lessors.

"In every ideologically based community, there's a group that's elated the confirmation bias machine has finally gotten around to visiting their neighbourhood, like the ice cream truck" . . money detonator

RecentlyBanned

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • Respect: +10
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2016, 05:56:51 PM »
0
There was a lawsuit that was won against Rick Ross   but was later dismissed by the person who brought the case against him.   When this man left his cult, instead of getting money he wanted Rick Ross's help to get his family out of the cult. So much for Rick Ross being seen as abusive by the person who was the cult victim.


In legal terms, the word "dismissed" means that a judge found the prosecution's case untenable.  "Dismissals" can only be given by judges, not by plaintiffs.  And so Rick Ross's conviction was never dismissed.   The case was settled out of court after Rick Ross was convicted.


Quote

RB, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated any understanding of cults and don't have enough grounding in the subject to say if the courts have a good understanding or not.  According to the recognized experts, there is very little understanding in the public and that includes the courts.  The renowned Margaret Singer and others have been expert witnesses in the courts, without success.

An "expert witness" is a well-defined legal term that can be used to describe lawyers, doctors, engineers, psychologists, and forensic pathologists (among others).  But those are all fields with objective descriptions, ethics, and procedures - whereas "cult expert" is none of those things.   

You are (collectively) trying to redefine legal terms to restructure the legal system to accommodate your point of view.  But thankfully the legal system hasn't conformed to your desires.

RecentlyBanned

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • Respect: +10
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2016, 06:03:10 PM »
0
If you cannot condemn Rick Alan Ross's actions, which were unanimously described by the jury who convicted him as reprehensible, then you've lost the moral high ground. And you've turned Stefan into a sympathetic figure.

Let me understand your position.
You are saying:
Ross is a bad guy, because when he deprogrammed cult members he had to do it against their will.


No. 

I'm saying a nine person jury, who has far more direct access to the facts of the Jason Scott case, thinks Rick Ross is a phenomenally bad guy, because he kidnapped and imprisoned individuals for money.   






Quote
Stefan isn't a bad guy, because when he convinced people to join his cult he didn't do it against their will?

No. 

Stefan may be a bad guy, (and is one  in my opinion), but you cannot call him a "cult leader", because all of the interactions he has with his listeners are voluntary.   Calling him a "cult leader", especially when you refuse to condemn Rick Ross's actions, makes Stefan into a sympathetic victim of your job mentality. 

If Stefan is as bad as you think, and if you're collectively as smart as you think, then you should be able to expose Stefan's "badness" without using the word "cult".  That you can't, and that you can't acknowledge how poorly Rick Ross behaved, makes you look weak and foolish.

RecentlyBanned

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • Respect: +10
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2016, 06:08:56 PM »
0
This is the best thread that has ever happened on FDR Liberated.  What was intended to be a discourse about Stefan Molyneux's "undue influence" has exposed the FDR Liberated community...

Now that you have exposed this entire "community" and demonstrated your superior moral authority, it stands to reason that your only logical recourse is to reject this community and find another more worthy of your time, correct?

No.  The other logical course of action is to point out that you sound like Michael DeMarco, and ask whether you were the first person to intimate either that Stefan Molyneux is a "cult leader" or that FDR is a "cult".

I can also ask you whether you've heard of Rick Ross's conviction before I mentioned it, and whether you think it's a good idea to cite him as an "authority" - given his conviction.


Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Respect: +213
Re: Cult deprogramming
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2016, 06:16:03 PM »
0
This is the best thread that has ever happened on FDR Liberated.  What was intended to be a discourse about Stefan Molyneux's "undue influence" has exposed the FDR Liberated community...

Now that you have exposed this entire "community" and demonstrated your superior moral authority, it stands to reason that your only logical recourse is to reject this community and find another more worthy of your time, correct?

No.  The other logical course of action is to point out that you sound like Michael DeMarco, and ask whether you were the first person to intimate either that Stefan Molyneux is a "cult leader" or that FDR is a "cult".

I can also ask you whether you've heard of Rick Ross's conviction before I mentioned it, and whether you think it's a good idea to cite him as an "authority" - given his conviction.



It is becoming increasingly tiresome watching people try to hold any sort of discussion with you.