Erm. Can't exactly say that's got me running for the hills.
A few suicides, a few fairly standard murders and what appears to be an electrocution caused by lack of H&S signs hardly constitute dangerous.
I'd say Christianity has caused far more deaths than this lot. Obviously there's more of them but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's proportionally more.
denying people that clearly need it psychiatric help because it's considered 'dangerous' is surely dangerous in itself? Of course there have been far more deaths in the name of Christianity, but that's not what's under discussion here. There are plenty of other stories about suspicious deaths of people whilst within the confines of properties belonging to scientology if you do a quick google, and that's not to mention all of the other crazy stuff. Getting involved with scientology is dangerous on a personal level in so many ways, but I guess that also depends on your definition of dangerous. I doubt you, personally, have got anything to run for the hills about.
What's under discussion from my point of view is Dan's statement that Scientologists are "extremely dangerous".
It's such a sweeping statement and I'll be honest I really don't like it without some backing up.
Obviously some of them have attributes which make them dangerous to some people whilst at the same time being totally harmless to everybody else. This could be said for pretty much the entire population of the planet.
Are Christians dangerous because of the wars that have happened in the name of Christianity?
Are catholics dangerous because of a few who have done terrible things to children?
Are scientists dangerous because of how many have been killed by nuclear explosions?
Saying "scientologists are dangerous" (assuming he genuinely means it) is ridiculous imo.