Did you vote? (1 Viewer)

[Phanatical]

I'm not saying that USYD SRC can stop Falun Gong. I'm saying that USYD SRC should stop Funding it. Our SRC represents us the students, and when our SRC funds Falun Gong, it does so on the behalf of its members.

The blood of the victims of Falun Gong is on the hands of those who Fund Falun Gong.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm not saying that USYD SRC can stop Falun Gong. I'm saying that USYD SRC should stop Funding it. Our SRC represents us the students, and when our SRC funds Falun Gong, it does so on the behalf of its members.

I agree with this, but as I've said in the past I need to do some research for myself before I form my own position on them.

 

[withoutaface]

I've already said that the SRC should not be funding any groups.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

i would suggest ppl do some of their own research about falun gong before believing everything that Phanatical has to say about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gonggives a good summary of what they are about.
it seems that their teachings prohibit political involvement, so it would appear contradictory to suggest that they want to install their 'leader' as the chinese president, and it also prohibits killing, especially suicide, so accounts of self-immolation resulting in death appear to be shaky. further, its interesting to note that the chinese govt initially actualli encouraged the founder of falun gong to spread his teachings. it was only after they organised a peaceful protest of 10,000 members in Beijing that the chinese govt became scared of their ability to mobilise such a large number of ppl in the capital. that said, falun gong also says that homosexuality is a sin, so why the is 'queer-friendly' src supporting them? common western opinion is that they are a persecuted group of innocent practitioners, and NOT a 'cult'. Phanatical would fervently argue otherwise. all i'm saying is that ppl should look at both sides of the story before forming their own opinion.

 

[Phanatical]

Oh sure, wikipedia is completely correct. Referring to wikipedia or any other propaganda rag is like saying that "Falun Gong are fantastic because my father's workmate's brother's barber said so". But, of course, wikipedia Must be telling the truth, because Quah says they aren't.

 

[Phanatical]

Scientologists are children compared to followers of Falun Gong. Being a scientologist Probably won't kill you. Being a follower of Falun Gong almost certainly will.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

i may sound cynical, but i think the chinese govt is just scared of falun gong cos they got more members then there are members of the communist party. i don't think the fact that falun gong members don't believe in medication and die because of that belief realli ranks all that highly in the minds of the bureaucrats.

but hey, correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Frigid]

opal is the sekz - u can't go wrong with a dux

 

[Phanatical]

i may sound cynical, but i think the chinese govt is just scared of falun gong cos they got more members then there are members of the communist party. i don't think the fact that falun gong members don't believe in medication and die because of that belief realli ranks all that highly in the minds of the bureaucrats.

but hey, correct me if i'm wrong.

Yeah. You're wrong.

 

[erawamai]

Bah. It's just another bloody religion. Most probably there are massive crackpots in it just like other religions.

 

[Plebeian]

Oh sure, wikipedia is completely correct. Referring to wikipedia or any other propaganda rag is like saying that "Falun Gong are fantastic because my father's workmate's brother's barber said so". But, of course, wikipedia Must be telling the truth, because Quah says they aren't.

No, Wikipedia is not always correct. But since when it is a propaganda rag? It has strict neutral point of view policies, which are vehemently argued in controversial articles like those on Israel-Palestine.

In any case, who gave you a divine right of truth? I hope you realise that you have inherently no more credibility than "my father's workmate's brother's barber". You're also just some random guy.

Most people would be more likely to believe Wikipedia, which is written by a diverse user-base, provides references, and is the product of constant editorial revision, than you. If that Wikipedia article lacked credibility, why would the Chinese government have blocked the public from accessing it (or for that matter, engaged in widespread media suppression and book burning)?

You need to get over this complex that people persecute you for the sake of it, and stop trying to use it to justify the position that you are actually always right, but no-one else realises it.

 

[withoutaface]

No, Wikipedia is not always correct. But since when it is a propaganda rag? It has strict neutral point of view policies, which are vehemently argued in controversial articles like those on Israel-Palestine.

In any case, who gave you a divine right of truth? I hope you realise that you have inherently no more credibility than "my father's workmate's brother's barber". You're also just some random guy.

Most people would be more likely to believe Wikipedia, which is written by a diverse user-base, provides references, and is the product of constant editorial revision, than you. If that Wikipedia article lacked credibility, why would the Chinese government have blocked the public from accessing it (or for that matter, engaged in widespread media suppression and book burning)?

You need to get over this complex that people persecute you for the sake of it, and stop trying to use it to justify the position that you are actually always right, but no-one else realises it.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

yups i totalli agree as well
try seeing things from other ppl's perspectives for a change.

 

[Phanatical]

There are no other perspectives when you've seen people you known burnt and murdered.

 

[Xayma]

About the "politicians are a bunch of fags" - to my knowledge the only homosexual MP's are greens and labor representatives. I am not sure why you are discriminating based on sexuality but hey, don't most of your type?

Although I'm not sure if she won a seat, there also was a lesbian Liberal senate candidate for WA last election (it came to light when the FFP wouldn't preference her).

Phanatical: Inherently then all Christians are evil because of the Crusades or the acts of a few.

You can not claim that all practitioners of Falun Gong are like that.

 

[Phanatical]

There's a difference between the Crusades of a thousand years ago, and Falun Gong of which destruction is a central tenet today. Firstly, it is not a religion, it is a cult. Secondly, it is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people - many of whom were first brainwashed into the cult.

Those who are in Falun Gong for the "right" reasons should not be in Falun Gong at all. They should be taught that what they are doing is wrong.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Oh sure, wikipedia is completely correct. Referring to wikipedia or any other propaganda rag is like saying that "Falun Gong are fantastic because my father's workmate's brother's barber said so". But, of course, wikipedia Must be telling the truth, because Quah says they aren't.

What I find more interesting is that he said "it appears to be against killing, so reported acts of self-mutilation must be shaky". This guy has obviously never studied any sort of a religion...

 

[Phanatical]

What I find more interesting is that he said "it appears to be against killing, so reported acts of self-mutilation must be shaky". This guy has obviously never studied any sort of a religion...

I said no such thing.

 

[Plebeian]

You are becoming less coherent by the post

Most people would find the line between "legitimate" religion (by the quote marks, I don't mean that religion is illegitimate, but that defining legitimacy is hard) and cults to be a very fine one. If your criterion for a cult is that it has caused the deaths of its members, then every major religion could be considered a cult. Christianity has the Crusades and the Inquisition. I don't know too much about Islamic history but even in recent times, it has been the force that has sent suicide bombers to their death (even if their interpretation of Islam is rejected by most, the fact remains that they were following what they thought was their religion). Even if a distinction can be drawn, it is still far from clear that Falun Gong has crossed it.

There are no other perspectives when you've seen people you known burnt and murdered.

I'm sure there are members of Falun Gong who have been tortured and killed (Wikipedia says: "The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the persecution has confirmed that at least 2,676 deaths have occurred while practitioners have been in police or government custody."). It follows that they could also believe themselves to be infallibly correct, because they've seen people they knew murdered - by the Chinese Government. You are not inherently special. Your side is not correct just because you've experienced pain. Falun Gong has genuine grievances, but you are so closed-minded you can't see them.

However, there appears to be little point in arguing with you if you're just going to continue to make unfounded statements like:

Yeah. You're wrong.

which gives no-one any confidence that you actually have a rational bone left in your body.

 

[Phanatical]

The fact that it refers to itself as the "Falun Dafa Information Center" implies an obvious bias towards Falun Gong, and a willingness to use misinformation. Because IF it were an impartial observer, it would not refer to Falun Gong as a "Dafa". All you are doing is trying to quote Falun Gong propaganda as truth - and to do so is no more than using misinformation to make a flawed point.

Falun Gong followers are sick and depraved. They are brainwashed to the point that they can do inhuman things to each other and to themselves - and then blame somebody else for it. These are people who have lost touch with reality, and they NEED to be reeducated.