"Kill the Gays"

[LeMaquis]

1 person is not a nation. Not really a comparison.

 

It depends what they do with that money.The Ugandan president bought himself a $30 million jet last year after receiving all that nice aid to help his people.

 

We gave Pakistan £650 million this year and yet they still spent £4 billion on their military and developing their nice nuclear arsenal.

 

Japan gives very little aid out and was able to rebuild their country in a year after a horrendous natural disaster.

 

Britain can`t even build proper flood defenses.

 

Direct aid (building wells, vaccinations , building schools etc) is good.

What shouldn`t be happening is the UK giving vast sums of money out going to corrupt governments to do as they please.

 

You're not arguing in support of the OP. The OP says all overseas aid should stop because of Uganda. You're saying we shouldn't be funding corrupt governments, an argument I agree with. We aren't funding Uganda anymore but the OP says we shouldn't fund anyone.

 

We can build proper flood defences. We choose not to, not because of overseas aid but because we spend it on other things (tax cuts, Trident, bankers, etc).

 

The money that goes to Pakistan comes back to the West because the Pakistanis buy western arms with it. This creates jobs in the West and arms the Pakistanis. I don't particularly like the last bit but this is to do with Realpolitik. The USA likes to keep Pakistan as a client state to make its war on terror a bit easier to prosecute (supplying its troops in Afghanistan and cracking down on Al Qaeda and Taleban, for example). Pakistan created the Taleban and the USA uses aid to make Pakistan as pro-West as it can. It's not one-way money and politics.

 

I am aware one person isn't a nation. It was a parallel rather than literal argument.

[SevenRivers]

Shocking i know.

 

Uganda 'Kill the Gays' Bill Could Be Voted On Any Day ...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-mirabella/uganda-kill-the-gays-bill-could-be-voted-on-any-day_b_2174160.html

 

 

 

This is a proposed "christmas gift" to the nation.

 

A nation the UK has given £15 million this year in aid which was suspended 2 weeks ago after they withheld the final £11 million after suspecting misuse of funds.

 

Isn`t it time we stopped aid to these 3rd world countries and looked after Britain.

 

All the world's money could not drag some of these countries from the dark ages, so yes, countries that refuse to bring themselves into the 21st century should have their aid cut to nil.

[Crosser]

You're not arguing in support of the OP. The OP says all overseas aid should stop because of Uganda. You're saying we shouldn't be funding corrupt governments, an argument I agree with. We aren't funding Uganda anymore but the OP says we shouldn't fund anyone.

 

We can build proper flood defences. We choose not to, not because of overseas aid but because we spend it on other things (tax cuts, Trident, bankers, etc).

 

The money that goes to Pakistan comes back to the West because the Pakistanis buy western arms with it. This creates jobs in the West and arms the Pakistanis. I don't particularly like the last bit but this is to do with Realpolitik. The USA likes to keep Pakistan as a client state to make its war on terror a bit easier to prosecute (supplying its troops in Afghanistan and cracking down on Al Qaeda and Taleban, for example). Pakistan created the Taleban and the USA uses aid to make Pakistan as pro-West as it can. It's not one-way money and politics.

I am aware one person isn't a nation. It was a parallel rather than literal argument.

 

 

So we give them money, and they buy arms with it, and that creates jobs?

 

It all seems very "ethical" to me, thanks for your enlightenment...

 

 

Now let me think.....

 

Oh yeah, if we didn't give them money to give back to us for arms, then our arms industry personnel would be unemployed, but we would still have the money that we gave them in the first place.

 

It's all beginning to make sense now.

[Conrod]

If we claim to be a nation with laws based on the Bible's teachings and our religious heritage - which we undoubtedly are - why do we now choose to ignore Leviticus 18.22 and 20:13. Both make things pretty clear.

 

Makes you wonder though, if we don't question 'thou shalt not kill/steal/commit adultery', why do we choose to cherry pick other unambiguous commands?

 

And, if we had public stonings, what size would the stones be?

[gnvqsos]

I've no problem with our country giving aid if we can afford it, but are we giving some countries aid to keep them 'onside' - is it appreciated or do they feel patronised in which case can't we help those who most need it here instead, e.g. the homeless?

 

We can afford to help-we worry about extras they need food.

[Guest sibon]

If we claim to be a nation with laws based on the Bible's teachings and our religious heritage - which we undoubtedly are - why do we now choose to ignore Leviticus 18.22 and 20:13. Both make things pretty clear.

 

Do we claim to be?

 

I always thought that we were a nation with laws based upon the will of the people, as expressed by our elected representatives.

 

As for your advocation of Leviticus 20:13. You've just hit a new low. Which, in all honesty, takes some doing.

[aardvark6535]

You give charity to those that need it and deserver it, but only if you have spare cash to give, This country doesn't at this moment have any spare cash. DON'T GIVE OUR MONEY AWAY. reduce the tax burdon on us all in the uk

.

[Conrod]

Do we claim to be?

 

I always thought that we were a nation with laws based upon the will of the people, as expressed by our elected representatives.

You may have missed a few details like the religious oath we take when giving evidence. That aside, we both know that Western Christian democratic laws have largely evolved from the Ten Commandments, unless you wish to argue that the Church has had nothing to do with our laws? Will you choose to be so obtuse?

 

As for your advocation of Leviticus 20:13. You've just hit a new low. Which, in all honesty, takes some doing.

I didn't realise you were one of SF's drama queens. I did not advocate it, I questioned why we choose to ignore it. Need I explain the difference?

[aardvark6535]

I got pulled into the chat above, which has nowt to do with aids etc. It was great as a newspaper seller a few years ago, but now it's been done to death so nobody even mentions AIDS in the News, be it papers or TV, untill today, and how long will that last. It seems to be that if it's not mentioned everyday it doesn't exist, I have warned young friends (Daughters/sons) of mates to be careful, and reminded them that AIDS is still here. but I just get ridaculed - THERE IS NO CURE FOR HIV, OR AIDS - Protect yourself HE WON'T protect you, SHE WON'T protect you. it's down to you, and only YOU!

[Guest sibon]

You may have missed a few details like the religious oath we take when giving evidence. That aside, we both know that Western Christian democratic laws have largely evolved from the Ten Commandments, unless you wish to argue that the Church has had nothing to do with our laws? Will you choose to be so obtuse?

 

I will indeed choose to be so obtuse.

 

For a start, there is no requirement to swear a religious oath before giving evidence. So, your claim falls at the first hurdle.

 

As for our laws flowing from the ten commandments, I hope we are just a touch more sophisticated than that. Most of us anyway.

 

 

I didn't realise you were one of SF's drama queens. I did not advocate it, I questioned why we choose to ignore it. Need I explain the difference?

 

I had realised that you were one of SF's "provocative posters". Some might choose a less flattering, and shorter, epithet.

 

By bringing up two of the more unpleasant passages from the Old Testament, you are revealing rather a lot about yourself.

 

Of course, your desire for law, order and social cohesion expressed on another thread will provide the answers for you. Blind hatred is wrong, as is stoning people to death.

 

But, you already knew all of that. Which begs the question: "Why bring it up in the first place?"