In the spirit of differentiation, I would like to express my allergy towards Argumentum ad Hominem – the soccer player tackling the opponent instead of the ball. It follows church policy to discredit the source of an argument to take out the argument itself. It actually doesn’t kill the argument – it only derails the discussion. Most people will still have the argument hanging around as unanswered.
The church is now busy discrediting Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder to kill the arguments against David Miscavige. But pointing out the flaws of any of them does not address the argument that Miscavige is beating his staff or using session data to discredit others etc. The church is likewise actively trying to discredit me to kill the data in my Doubt write-up. In soccer, the penalty for an unintentional tackle of the opponent is a free kick. An intentional tackle is a yellow card. Two yellow cards or an ugly intentional tackle leads to a red card and an early shower. If we were playing soccer now, church management would be playing poker with red cards by now.
I am impervious to Argumentum ad Hominem. Both ways.
When a critic tries to discredit L. Ron Hubbard in an effort to discredit the gains and philosophy of Scientology, I think that is equally stupid. I for once fully realize that LRH was only a human with his share of flaws. But that has no bearing for me on my own observations of the gains I see in me or others. None at all.
In fact, I believe my gains have been reinforced because I have been observing the results themselves rather than people – whether the public, Org staff, Sea Org members or LRH. My gains are mine regardless of Who’s Who.