Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 8, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'll just say one thing. I've had 3 PMs in the last week or so from people that agree with me but won't come on the politics thread because of what a bear-pit it is  I've never believed anyone who's ever said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Well then I call on them to join the debate. I promise to be nice, as I know of a couple of people who felt the same way about the religion thread. All they have to do is bring any sort of evidence for Amnesty's grotesqur corruption. Or anything, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'll just say one thing. I've had 3 PMs in the last week or so from people that agree with me but won't come on the politics thread because of what a bear-pit it is, with anyone whose opinion differs substantially from the liberal hegemony being attacked from all sides, and not even in a constructive way, but with offensive ephicets thrown in for good measure.  Bullshit. Even if they feel like that, you appear to be incapable of involving yourself in any debate. I've tried, in this thread, repeatedly to try and engage you, and you generally refused.  As far as getting "ground into the floor" in on-topic discussion, when did this happen? The most common argument was whether WWE should turn Cena heel or stop pushing him, and I don't think that's in doubt anymore, turning him heel would have been an absolute disaster as he's been their cash-cow for the past 6 years or so and no-one else has been anywhere close in rivalling him for popularity. To have turned him heel at the time it was being argued would have been as bad a decision as turning Austin heel in 2001, which was by far the worst decision WWE ever made. But that is not an argument for this thread.  Good, because it's bollocks as well. I'm not saying it was a GOOD decision (although I liked heel Austin), but they've made worse mistakes.  My opinion of AA stands. I do not think any amount of evidence would be enough to change some people's minds.  Some might. Frantically googling something and linking to things without reading them does not = evidence. Lister provided you with the Amnesty financial report and you refused to read it, instead drawing conclusions based on your own imagination.  Politics has become like religion or football where it is just tribal and no amount of reason or personal experience would convince a lot of people's mind. Their political views are so wrapped up in their self-image that they simply wouldn't be able to face the world if they were forced to admit they were once wrong. I voted Labour in 1997. I considered myself a liberal, believed mass immigration was a good thing, the whole kit & caboodle. Then I grew up and realised the reality of the world. Some people have a lot of growing up to do.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'll just say one thing. I've had 3 PMs in the last week or so from people that agree with me but won't come on the politics thread because of what a bear-pit it is, with anyone whose opinion differs substantially from the liberal hegemony being attacked from all sides, and not even in a constructive way, but with offensive ephicets thrown in for good measure. Â Broken record. And again - hiding behind pseudo-reasonability doesn't make you right. You had the nerve to accuse me of being unable to come up with a valid counter to you earlier in the thread simply because I had to go out and was going to post the next day, but your self-martyring as a means of avoiding answering people properly is spectacular. And it's "epithets". Â My opinion of AA stands. I do not think any amount of evidence would be enough to change some people's minds. Â An irony, seeing as you've been the biggest jingo in this thread. And if you're going to slag off a charity, get their abbreviation right. Â Politics has become like religion or football where it is just tribal and no amount of reason or personal experience would convince a lot of people's mind. Their political views are so wrapped up in their self-image that they simply wouldn't be able to face the world if they were forced to admit they were once wrong. I voted Labour in 1997. I considered myself a liberal, believed mass immigration was a good thing, the whole kit & caboodle. Then I grew up and realised the reality of the world. Â Again, you're the one who's proven himself to be an utter jingo by completely ignoring anything that's been said to you and re-iterating the same point over and over again, regardless of whether it was proven wrong or not. Most recent case in point: only today, Lister provided you with a break-down of AI's financial figures as proof they were spending the overwhelming majority of their money on the work they were doing, and you just went and bollocksed about how you couldn't be bothered to read it. Â Some people have a lot of growing up to do. Â Yeah: you, you patronising wretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 There's 2200 posts in this thread. How many of them come complete with footnotes or other links to back up what is being said? Â It's an opinon thread on a wrestling forum. I have a hunch that there is corruption within Amnesty International. My evidence is the fact that they have just paid off two of their chiefs with 4 year salary payments, they suspended an executive that complained the organisations links to a supporter of the Taliban, and the fact that the charity is very devious and truculent regarding the whole situation, added to the fact that the aims of the organisation seem very intangible, and more concerned with lobbying politicians (a notoriously dodgy business) than actually taking direct action against the regimes that regularly abuse the human rights of their citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) There's 2200 posts in this thread. How many of them come complete with footnotes or other links to back up what is being said? Â Oh, please. There's been more than enough material for you to address, don't make out like it's all been empty. Â It's an opinon thread on a wrestling forum. I have a hunch that there is corruption within Amnesty International. My evidence is the fact that they have just paid off two of their chiefs with 4 year salary payments, they suspended an executive that complained the organisations links to a supporter of the Taliban, and the fact that the charity is very devious and truculent regarding the whole situation, added to the fact that the aims of the organisation seem very intangible, and more concerned with lobbying politicians (a notoriously dodgy business) than actually taking direct action against the regimes that regularly abuse the human rights of their citizens. Â For someone who claims to have "woken up to the reality of the world", you sure are still asleep. If you're going to slag off a charity that has actually managed to save thousands of lives, you might want to suggest a better method. What is this "direct action" you're talking about? Seeing as you're so quick to point out "how the world works", why don't you enlighten us as to what the "proper" way is that one should use to prevent human rights abuses? And where do you get the absurd idea that lobbying politicians is all they do? Â This is a direct question. Don't hide behind whining about insults: address it, or be exposed as a clueless liar. Edited March 8, 2011 by Carbomb MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted March 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 There's 2200 posts in this thread. How many of them come complete with footnotes or other links to back up what is being said? It's an opinon thread on a wrestling forum. I have a hunch that there is corruption within Amnesty International. My evidence is  If you have evidence, it's not a hunch. If it's a hunch, what you're basing it on is not evidence.  the fact that they have just paid off two of their chiefs with 4 year salary payments, they suspended an executive that complained the organisations links to a supporter of the Taliban  To the best of my understanding, this is to do with human rights abuse of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay. The very function of Amnesty International is to deal with human rights, and that includes those of prisoners, whether or not they are nice people.  , and the fact that the charity is very devious and truculent regarding the whole situation, added to the fact that the aims of the organisation seem very intangible,  They're very tangible. Read them on the report that was linked to earlier.  and more concerned with lobbying politicians (a notoriously dodgy business) than actually taking direct action against the regimes that regularly abuse the human rights of their citizens.  Lobbying politicians is a dodgy business when it is done for business reasons, because people are doing it in order to turn over a profit. With regards to human rights, lobbying politicians is perfectly acceptable.  Earlier, you were suggesting that advertising by AI was a bad thing. But since one of their points of existence is to raise awareness and educate people about human rights, advertising is surely acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Not "acceptable". The word you want is "essential." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) The carry-on regarding obscene bonuses in the banking industry continues; Â Bailed out Royal Bank of Scotland has handed shares worth Edited March 9, 2011 by David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 One little boy's face continues to haunt me. I met him on a visit with Save the Children earlier this year to the Sanjay slum in Rajasthan in India. His mother had named him Lucky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 pat, I hope you're not saying that one instance of a charity put you off donating to ALL charities? For the most part, they're very good. I currently have DDs set up for Amnesty and War On Want, mainly because, after a number of years, they seem to be the most effective charities in terms of human rights and welfare. Once I start earning a bit more cash, I'd like to donate regularly to Cancer Research, and maybe start donating to a nature-preservation charity again (I used to donate to the Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society as a kid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I strongly recommend Mary's Meals. To the best of my knowledge they're still run on a voluntary basis, so basically 100% of your donation goes to help people. That ought to satisfy Happ. They work mostly in Malawi, but are expanding at a fair speed. What they've achieved in a very short time is, quite frankly, incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 I strongly recommend Mary's Meals. To the best of my knowledge they're still run on a voluntary basis, so basically 100% of your donation goes to help people. That ought to satisfy Happ. They work mostly in Malawi, but are expanding at a fair speed. What they've achieved in a very short time is, quite frankly, incredible. I wouldn't be so sure. He'll more than likely have a reason for not wanting to support them either. Â Just out of curiosity Happ, what charities do you actually donate to on a regular basis? And why do you donate to those particular organisations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 No, no, no, Kenny. Happ wouldn't support Mary's Meals as they are affiliated with Duncan Bannatyne and he's a lefty these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 pat, I hope you're not saying that one instance of a charity put you off donating to ALL charities? For the most part, they're very good. I currently have DDs set up for Amnesty and War On Want, mainly because, after a number of years, they seem to be the most effective charities in terms of human rights and welfare. Once I start earning a bit more cash, I'd like to donate regularly to Cancer Research, and maybe start donating to a nature-preservation charity again (I used to donate to the Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society as a kid). Â It has largely dude, I think I've given to MacMillian and that's about it ( beacuse of all the help they gave my mate when he was dying) since. Used to do loads of charity stuff in the past inc St John'sAmbulance 5 a sides, I even 'Sold' Spring Centre (Glos thing for sick kids) Lottery tickets for a bit and so forth. Just felt so dirtied by the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts