• Britain to cut aid to African countries that persecute gays
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32732081]Well, I can't really think of a place which would persecute gays and wouldn't be a shithole for different reasons anyway.[/QUOTE] Well, there are 76 countries that legally support persecution of same-sex relations. I'll go ahead and ignore countries whose anti-gay movements are supported by the church instead of the state. A little less than half of those are African. (also the majority of African countries support persecution of homosexuals, so the UK is essentially denying aid to almost all of Africa for their culture, as disgusting as it might be) I have to wonder why they didn't do this before, or for women's rights. My point is that they're gaining something in doing this, be it political leverage or whatever. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts.
[QUOTE=The golden;32729551]I know this is going to make me sound like a massive asshole, but I see no reason to send money to countries that have no interest in improving. The money is just going to be wasted and nothing will change.[/QUOTE] While true, the people still want to improve conditions, its the corrupt governments that need to be cleaned out so there are proper people who want to help the country in power instead of asshats that want luxury while everyone around them lives in poverty. I know a lot of people are anti-gay too, but that does have something to do with the massive amount of anti-gay propaganda the government puts out (See: Eat da poo poo) Its extremely frustrating, because if all of the massive amounts of money that was sent to these countries was sent to the correct places (Improving infrastructure, creating jobs and providing people with basic necessities), they would make rapid improvements and could possibly become first-world countries in the next 50+ years. Loads of people are still living in poverty in mud huts, when the situation could be a whole lot different if countries stopped spending billions and billions on tools to kill people every year and started investing money in actually improving the world and standards of living for everyone. [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;32732308] I have to wonder why they didn't do this before, or for women's rights. My point is that they're gaining something in doing this, be it political leverage or whatever. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts.[/QUOTE] The UK is in a crisis with funding as it is. There are massive budget cuts to loads of sectors (The amount being taken from education is ridiculous, my girlfriends degree had to be cut down to one year instead of two because they dont have the money, meanwhile they let Vodafone and other companies avoid like £12 billion in taxes, which would solve most of our budget cutting problems) Anywho, there is no reason to be giving money out to corrupt governments that just use it to fill their coffers and oppress their people when we are hard up on money as it is.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32730135]Fair enough, I wont bring up the uselessness of having only two parties that have any chance in getting in to power, thanks for educating me by the way.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree that it is useless. But we have known that parties would cause trouble since George Washington pointed it out. He was the first, and last, president to not be affiliated with a party. But that is just generally a limitation of democracy. If I was going to re-write the constitution, I would certainly attempt to side-step the party system in some fashion, but frankly there are always going to be ways to abuse the system. The winner take all method that operates in many states for electing federal officials in the electoral college is to blame in many cases. With a more proportional system of votes, as is done in some states, there would be a much better chance of more political parties appearing. But the problem with that is that since we are controlled by those two parties, getting such changes passed at a large number of state levels is extremely difficult. Before any real progress can be made, the United States really just needs to completely revamp its education system and start producing proper educated members of society again. These days it is just ridiculous. Our system (any republic, really) is designed to reduce the impact of the uneducated on the nation, but that only works if the majority still get a decent education and retain access to honest media. We undoubtedly have a problem with media, ie fox news, and we also certainly have a problem with education. If we can fix education, capitalism and declining numbers of viewers, should fix our media problem. From there we could set about actually solving some of our underlying issues.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.