Recent Comments by Jerykk subscribe to this feed

oritteropo (Member Profile)

Jerykk says...

I do agree that banning online gambling while allowing for local gambling (in some states) is stupid, as well as banning drugs but not cigarettes or alcohol. As for public nudity, I personally wouldn't want to see most people nude as most people don't have attractive bodies. There's also the hygienic issue of naked people preparing and serving food, sitting on public benches and seats, etc. While there certainly is a naturist movement, it's comprised of a tiny portion of the population and is in no way indicative of the general views towards public nudity. Public nudity is banned because the vast majority of the population finds it offensive. Private nudity, however, is not banned, unlike Falun Gong which is banned outright and cannot legally be practiced anywhere in China, in private or public.

That's all besides the point, however. There is still no case where the U.S. government will imprison people (without even a trial) simply for practicing a spiritual belief. That's exactly what China is doing to Falun Gong practitioners. Despite what you said earlier, it really does seem like you're trying to condemn the U.S. above all else. I'm not patriotic by any means but we're talking about blatant religious persecution here and it simply isn't comparable to bans on drugs, gambling or public nudity.

oritteropo said:

What you seem to be saying is that you generally agree with the choices the U.S. has made, and that you disagree with the choice China has made in this case.

I personally find many forms of gambling offensive, so struggle to argue for it... I only brought it up because it is a case where U.S. law is out of step with other countries. That said though, what is the real difference between a room full of poker machines (legal) and an on-line version which could conceivably even be running the same software (illegal in the U.S., but subject to a WTO complaint)? The difference, in my opinion, is one of control. In the case of gambling, the U.S. government has made a choice to outlaw what they can't control, just like the Chinese government has done for religion and/or spiritual movements.

The acceptability of public nudity varies from place to place, but I find it hard to think of a way it harms anybody. In fact the naturist movement is quite pro public nudity. You are used to it being unlawful, but this is far from universal. Should it be outlawed in places it's currently legal just because you are offended? Even if they are far from your home and you are unlikely to actually go there to be offended?

Speaking of drugs, why have we chosen to allow alcohol and tobacco, both of which cause huge amounts of harm, and yet outlaw marijuana and LSD? Who made that choice?

oritteropo (Member Profile)

Jerykk says...

Falun Gong is a meditative practice. It involves no nudity, no harassment, no physical contact and literally nothing that could offend anyone in public. It doesn't cause harm to the people who practice it and poses no threat to anyone who observes it. There is absolutely no logical reason to ban it.

Gambling, drugs, public nudity, etc, are not valid comparisons because they are either potentially harmful (financially or physically) or generally offensive (most people are against public nudity because the average body is not appealing to look at). A meditative practice that you perform in the privacy of your own home or with others who share your beliefs isn't analogous to any of those things.

Again, if you want a valid comparison, you should compare Falun Gong to a religion. In the U.S., there is no ban against any religion. Actually, gay marriage is an example that could work in your favor. There are no victims as a result of gay marriage (though the long-term effects of having gay parents hasn't been well-researched) so the ban isn't really justified. And while it is indeed banned in many states, the government isn't sending gay couples to prison camps and you won't be arrested for trying to get married if you're gay. The state just won't allow it.

So when you consider the crime and the punishment, there is no U.S. equivalent of how China is dealing with Falun Gong.

oritteropo said:

It comes back to the question of who gets to choose? In your opinion Falun Gong is harmless but that is clearly not the opinion of the Chinese Government. So should it be you who chooses whether an organisation should be outlawed? How about me?

As a thought experiment, suppose we say that the U.S. government should request their diplomats to tell China to lay off the Falun Gong dudes because they're OK really... what do you think they will be told when they say this?

I completely agree that comparing Falun Gong to rape or theft is ridiculous, but comparing it to, say, running an on-line poker operation, some drug offenses, public nudity, or similar activities is a fair comparison. In each case the activity has no violence, no victim, and is against the law... but who chose which activities were legislated against and which were permitted?

oritteropo (Member Profile)

Jerykk says...

People in U.S. prisons aren't always there for violent crimes, that is correct. However, they are in there for other crimes like theft, burglary, rape, molestation, etc. Comparing those crimes to the practice of Falun Gong is ridiculous and it's even more ridiculous to compare China's treatment of Falun Gong practitioners to the U.S. imprisonment of thieves and rapists.

If the U.S. suddenly decided to ban Islam and put all Muslims in prison camps, your comparisons would be justified. As it stands, they are just silly because they completely ignore what Falun Gong actually is and why it's being banned by the Chinese government.

oritteropo said:

You actually ignored the weaker parts of my argument.

If a history of violence against military and civilian targets is your grounds for banning an organisation, does that mean you want the Republican party banned for attacking a civilian news organisation, or military targets? How about the Democratic Party for essentially the same thing?

Who gets to choose when violence is justified?

Should the U.S. get to choose for everybody, including the 95.5% of the world population who are not U.S. citizens?

Claiming that an organisation is non-violent is not sufficient to prove innocence. It is quite possible to get a lengthy stay in prison in the U.S. for non-violent activities, such as online gaming, and in fact although I take the statistic with a grain of salt I have seen it claimed that 60% of U.S. prisoners are in prison for non-violent reasons. The number of U.S. prisoners (730 per 100,000) is in fact far higher than Chinese prisoners (121 per 100,000) by such a large percentage that the total prison population in the U.S. is higher than China despite having only about one third the total population (I hasten to point out that things have improved slightly since 2008, but my point stands).

BTW, don't get the idea that I have anything against the U.S., because I don't. I just don't accept that it is the bastion of freedom and that China is the evil empire.

oritteropo (Member Profile)

Jerykk says...

Except the reasons behind the bans are completely significant. Hamas wasn't banned because of ideological differences. It was banned because the organization has a history of violence against both military and civilian targets. Conversely, Falun Gong was banned because it went against the status quo and China was threatened by its growing popularity. There has never been a case of someone committing violence in the name of Falun Gong.

There's no reason to put quotes around "security" or "public order" when referring to the reasoning behind the Hamas ban because those reasons are historically justified.

oritteropo said:

Ah ha! Someone is awake

The organisations are very different, but both have been banned by at least one major power's government, for reasons of "security" or "public order".

I wasn't judging either organisation on its merits, only that it had been banned.

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon