User talk:Btmachine333667

Kilgour/Matas opinion on FG Discussion page

Hi Btmachine; I agree with your comments on the Falun Gong discussion page. Evidence is far too flimsy to start drawing firm conclusions - having one piece of a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle is hardly a complete picture. Their points can easily be challenged too; see mine under the section Criticism of the K/M report. (K/M = Kilgour/Matas) Anyway thanks for your opinion. Jsw663 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone should be allowed to express their opinion freely, whether FG practitioners, CPC supporters, or "outsiders". It's just that they cannot do so by relying on flimsy and barely-proven evidence. This is exactly why Wikipedia has NPOV and verifiability policies as its cornerstones. Of course, if it is the CPC supporters who break the NPOV policy (e.g. trying to delete legitimate and PROVEN concerns on human rights such as Tiananmen), they should be seen in the same way as those FG supporters. Above all, reason and fairness rule:) Btmachine333667 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the read the whole report BtMachine333667? In your opinion, where are the organs coming from? --Asdfg12345 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the whole report... The Chinese Government has recently passed a law banning organ donation if it is done without the patient's consent, if you actually listen to the news (that is at least according to the official media, although I cannot give you a source). This suggests that organ harvesting must have existed but that the Chinese Government wanted to stop the practice (using common sense). Now, I have also read on news that there has been a lot of co-operations between Chinese and American doctors on surgeries such as Siamese twin separations. It is simply beyond belief that such doctor, while in China, completely ignore his own medical ethics IF he has personally seen such cases of organ harvesting (I do not know about the reported cases in Canadian hospitals). Now China has a lot of hospitals, including those run by universities and the PLA, how can I, or you, suggest so simply that EVERY Chinese hospital has some role in this "evil" practice. Even if some doctors are performing this, we must understand that throughout Chinese history "inhumane practices" such as beheading, cutting off tongues, forced castration, body separation by horses from different direction, corporal punishment and indeed cannibalism are largely taken as granted before Western civilization started to have an influence upon China. The elimination of these "inhumane practices" certainly rests with the Government. But since the Government is now actively and openly OPPOSING such practices, why do we still have so much against it, other than simple bias? If a person is truly tolerant, then s/he should actively engage another "barbaric" culture to rid itself of those practices, instead of constantly picking on the problem as if it exists in that country alone and not in other places (let's say, Iraq). If a person is truly tolerant, then s/he should LOVE every culture and every person (incl. the innocent), as Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as pursue knowledge and facts derived from reason. A scientific theory is so far a theory if it cannot be proven beyond doubt. Of course, I, personally, do NOT like the way Chinese Government is censoring the Internet, but that cannot be an excuse for me to over-spill the problem into other areas. Let me ask you a question,"have you been to China?" Sorry for the length. Btmachine333667 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the purpose that I am here is to help edit and built a better encyclopedia, not to engage in personal attack or argue for things that completely veer away from the aforementioned purpose. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Btmachine333667 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. For me, it is difficult to accept that you would dismiss the report so strongly without having read it. The points they raise are quite large. The increase in organ transplants since the time the persecution started, with no other known source? The fact that there HAS to be a bank of ready live donors for them to be doing this kind of thing (so they are snatching the organs from SOME living people, that is certain), the photos, the phone calls, the witness reports... all these things. I would request that you please read the whole report. There is an updated version on the internet now, just do a quick search. It is not really that long. Also, they have been on TV to debate about this. i post now on FG page. --Asdfg12345 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also want you to read this article:

[1] My point is that there is really no black 'n' white way to resolve this issue. [FG] rose to popularity in China largely because of a defunct medical system, especially in the countryside. Therefore, one can easily see why this religion/cult has so much grudge against Chinese hospitals and doctors. Yes, the negative aspect of the transplant business may be terrible, but there are ALSO some positive outcomes of that same business, such as face transplant (which saved the face of a hunter in Shaanxi province), blood donation (now largely safe thanks to an about-face by the central government over the Henan AIDS scandal), conjoined twin separation surgery, as well as numerous eye, heart and liver transplants that perhaps saved the lives of many others. Most Chinese people are worrying more about the high fees and low medical ethics when it comes to the health care system, but they do NOT care about the organ donation business. So, if a few doctors are performing this and hence they are considered "disgustingly evil", then those same Chinese people and probably some foreign organ tourists must be held accountable as well in order to uphold the moral high ground that the West is so proud of. If this is the case, then everything comes clear. It shall then be the duty of the West to ENGAGE China more rather than criticizing as it pleases or making a mountain out of a molehill. Thanks. Btmachine333667 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that article you posted, well, I read the first half then skimmed the rest to be honest, but read again the last few paragraphs. I think - good! If the CCP does good things for some people then I am not against it. What I am saying is that they should do even more good things, and even stop doing such bad things as torturing and killing Falun Gong practitioners and using them for their organs. You really must read the whole report carefully. Please read all of it. The CCP is being accused of widespread, systematic seizure of organs from live Falun Gong practitioners. That's really serious! So I like some of those things you say, and I support positive forces. At the same time though, the other things stand and they are really urgent. The other thing is, Falun Gong is basically a free set of teachings with some exercises and books. People come and go as they please, everything is self-motivated, there are no buildings, and no kind of formalities. It is for people to cultivate themselves, to cultivate their minds and become simple and good. There are probably some Falun Gong practitioners in your local area. Maybe you could talk to them and try to work out what they are up to and what they live for. They would probably be happy to answer your questions. We want to cultivate ourselves, and we also want the persecution to stop. Those two things are about it, so I feel it is sad if you think it is a religion or a cult. Anyway, maybe we can discuss further. --Asdfg12345 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the entire report. My point is that you are now accusing the entire CCP/CPC. Since the political party is made up of many members, how can one be sure which member or members are doing this "evil". If your point is that the party, from the very top of the hierarchy, is forcing all or most of its lower members into violently oppressing Falun Gong (possibly through brainwashing sessions), well, then all that I know of (from the best of my knowledge) is that the party is merely trying to force all or most its members into not practicing Falun Gong, of which is a well-known fact. There is still no evidence that the majority of lower members are engaging in organ harvesting, or even know of its existence. Then the only way the report can be true is that some of the doctors or hospital workers are engaging in this "evil" practice. It is therefore the job of the Chinese Government to stop it, a job that so far results in the passage of a law banning illegal organ donations, but without much visible progress in terms of law enforcement (largely b/c of the government's reluctance to open up cases involving illegal forced confessions as well as the death penalty). However, you must remember: two wrongs do NOT make one right. If you are intolerant (as proven by the manner you carry about your discussion) about someone who is also intolerant or even evil (proven with insufficient evidence by the K-M Report), so as to (even if it is not your original intention) criminalize the innocent, then you are NOT tolerant. This contradicts with the belief you hold about forbearance, supposedly a key belief according to Falun Gong. Finally, I want to end the debate by sincerely asking you a few rhetorical questions:

Are you interested in a medical practice that can benefit your health? Well, you are free to be interested in, and you can freely join the Qigong, Taiji or yoga practitioner groups. Are you interested in a belief system that can potentially change your afterlife for the better? Well, you are free to be interested in, and you can freely believe in Buddhism or Hinduism. Are you interested in a belief system that can make you feel well about the very concept of freedom and understand the mystery of the universe even more deeply? Well, you are free to be interested in, and you can freely believe in Taoism, a religion/philosophy that divides the world into dual sides of good and evil (yin and yang) and also holds that a government should best refrain from human affairs (you can read Zhuangzi and the works by Laozi, a famous Chinese sage). Are you interested in a belief system that offers immediate and ultimate salvation, and makes love, hope and faith (especially "Thou shalt love thy neighbors as thyself") the fundamental human moral values? Well, you are free to be interested in, and you can freely believe in Christianity, a religion that forgives the sins of everyone through the grace of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross, and that promises the ultimate salvation of everyone at the second coming of Jesus Christ. Are you interested in a belief system that makes freedom of religion universal and self-evident? Well, you are free to be interested in, and you can freely believe in liberalism and humanism, two political concepts that uphold life and liberty as fundamental rights and believe that any governing body willfully usurping those rights are illegitimate and that the populace has a right and duty to alter or to abolish it. Are you interested in a belief system that discovers all the facts of the world and that manufactures truths out of those facts through rational and logical thinking? Well, you are free to be interested in, and you can freely believe in science, a system of study and thought that bases itself on scientific method.

Well, you may say yes to all or most of the first five questions, but you obviously miss the last.

Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battleground and that one user may not indoctrinate another with concepts unrelated to editing the encyclopedia, so I happily stop my debate, and hopefully yours, here. Btmachine333667 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed new set of rules for the Falun Gong article

Hello Btmachine333667, please see the Falun Gong talk page and state your opinion about my proposal concerning a strict source policy. I think it's worth serious consideration. You know that the situation is tense, so we really need to find a common set of rules that is absolutely fair to all parties. In my opinion, Jsw663's suggestion requires too much devotion to Wikipedia, and thus discriminates against a large group of editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Saturday at the Symphony

The article Saturday at the Symphony has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability; unsourced since creation in 2007.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. intforce (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]