Coffee
9:38 Thu Feb 22
Re: Oxfam?
|
And considering the shit that remains, there's still a lot to do. Particularly as we - we as in the rest of the world - have the means and resources to eliminate poverty and injustice. What are we missing?
|
mashed in maryland
9:27 Thu Feb 22
Re: Oxfam?
|
Well considering the rate they're decreasing i don't think we're doing too badly
|
Coffee
9:25 Thu Feb 22
Re: Oxfam?
|
mashed in maryland 9:22 Thu Feb 22
You're right as far as that goes, but there remains massive injustice and poverty in all its vile manifestations.
|
mashed in maryland
9:22 Thu Feb 22
Re: Oxfam?
|
People were suffering at the expense of others way before money was invented.
The world for all it's faults is a much better and more "just" place to live than it's ever been.
A lot of people like to ignore this for some reason
|
Coffee
9:19 Thu Feb 22
Re: Oxfam?
|
stewie griffin 9:15 Thu Feb 22
|
Hermit Road
1:19 Thu Feb 22
Re: Oxfam?
|
“In a just world, you wouldn't need fuckin charity“
Mate, that’s a load of pretentious nonsense. I do a lot of voluntary work with homeless people. They are all in the situation they’re in because of decisions they’ve made. Marxism of your type always fails because it doesn’t understand human nature. It sees everyone as victims of society rather than people who are where they are because of decision they’ve made. It’s an attitude that infantilises people and keeps them in their victim state. It does not empower people.
Granted there is real need and charities do serve a function in my view, but the belief that you can control the whole world so that it reflects your view of a just society is control-freakery in the extreme, and completely and utterly unworkable as like it or not, the other 7 billion people in the he world probably won’t behave how you think they should regardless of how much you wish it to be so.
|
Nurse Ratched
10:45 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
I'm tearing up here, yngwies.
|
yngwies Cat
10:43 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
In a just world, you wouldn't need fuckin charity
Maybe build a world that's important...people v money
|
Mike Oxsaw
10:25 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
Charities need to live by the image they portray AND portray the image they live by.
No PR bullshit; this is helping the disadvantaged of the world.
Let that place's politicians use those same poor as the career enhancing cannon fodder the so obviously see them as, but not the charities.
This is probably one of the areas within which I would support whistle blowers where a charity's public image and it's activities are not in complete harmony.
If I was dedicating myself to helping those less fortunate than myself, I wouldn't want the public, at any time, to associate me with a knob-waving predatory paedophile - unless, of course, I was a knob-waving predatory paedophile; an untouchable knob-waving predatory paedophile.
|
yngwies Cat
9:12 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
Had some daft cunt in the pub banging on about all charity's are run by nonces.
Working for one, I told him in 3rd sector way he was talking out of his arse, although a bit muffled as he was in a wheelchair.
Ungreatful fucker.
|
gph
9:01 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
I've rarely mentioned David Moyes over the past two and a half months without saying that I was wrong about him.
I've tried to explain this by being over-influenced by his Sunderland period, but that doesn't mean I'm denying being wrong.
I've also said several times that I was too slow in losing patience with Bilic.
Fairly big things for a West Ham fan to be wrong about, but apparently trivial for the likes of Surface.
|
gph
8:54 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
Bizarre.
Sisters he imagines are doting (that in itself is a major failure of his imagination), make the point that I'm an only child.
Carry on proving your exemplary sanity, mate.
You're doing such a good job.
|
gph
8:48 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
"Incidentally, just to get back on track, talk us through those three apologies of yours that you posted up."
Amazing, after being put right no less than THREE times, he still thinks I posted up three "apologies", instead of two.
He can't admit this simple mistake, while arguing that admitting mistakes is no problem for him.
Easy way of demonstrating what he claims.
He also failed to follow the references to the correct posts. Another blatant example of him getting it wrong and refusing to admit it.
And I didn't say I "apologised", I said I admitted I got something wrong. I only apologise for getting something wrong when I think it's necessary.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
8:35 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
Anyway, I'm off now to attend a meeting of the 'People who gph has admitted he's wrong to club'.
A 12*12*12 cardboard box in Tescos car park has been booked.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
8:33 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
Doting sisters, eh, gph?
Keep on making my point for me.
Or have you forgotten your own advice (copied from me) to let the thread speak for itself.
Incidentally, just to get back on track, talk us through those three apologies of yours that you posted up.
Or perhaps, no, just take your own advice (copied from me) and let others decide?
And you're still on the wrong thread, you half-wit. Or are you just trying to keep this spat as far away from the evidence as possible?
|
gph
8:24 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
More imagination to be taken as reality.
I'd better be careful, or this loon will kill my sisters just to make his bet come true.
|
gph
8:23 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
Even Surface said I wasn't really outraged, before he lost track of what he was saying in the twisting and turning he thinks he's so good at.
I'm having to say this for the second time, as he appears to be losing his ability to read, coming out with ner, ner, ner to whatever is said.
His own use of infant language, is, apparently, evidence of others being infantile.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
8:08 Wed Feb 21
Re: Oxfam?
|
gph
Two, 'Ner, ner, you are' posts in a row.
What an infant you are.
|
| 
