Christian? no human compassion. Gay? that's alright then, What a disgusting attitude in the name of 'christianty' Options

[x2lls]

13:22: Conservative Sir Gerald Howarth says numbers should be limited to "hundreds, not thousands" and asks, "as a Christian country", whether priority should be given to Christian victims of the crisis.

13:22: The Green Party's Caroline Lucas asks that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities in Syria need extra help.

We do have some great representatives don't we?
Personally, and because I can afford it, We (my wife and I), would have no problem with housing a family until such time that they could return to their homeland. Sadly, the rules that are, do not allow such action.
As an alternative, surely those that are suffering could be financed remotely, but not have to be here in the UK?

Why is the emphasis based on a government provided assistance, focussed on UK residence

Support a tiger? yeah sure, where do I sign and get a cuddly toy?
Support a very nearly extinct animal with four legs? arrrh, how cute, here's a few pounds.
Subscribe to RSPB? no problem, direct debit arranged. (I do btw)

[motormad]

Why should the LBGT community get more care than any other groups?

In the pursuit for "equality to all" I often find the white, middle class straight male or female gets put on the back foot.

Your sexual preference, ethnicity, or religious beliefs should, under no circumstances, afford you extra, or "special" treatment over any other group of people.
At the end of the day everyone is equal and no-one deserves special treatment......


All of that aside, while people in our own country are struggling, with huge energy bills and costs of living etc, people who are homeless, or who have been flooded out due to rivers bursting their banks, or something more severe . that we send (or are prepared to send) millions, rising to the billions, to other countries when there are people here who are struggling and our government do not help those people. IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.

Why are the crisis of other parts of the world worse than ours? The primary concern of government is to protect it's own citizens...

At the same time we have the social class situation, that there are people in poverty, low, middle and upper class people. There are countries in the world that are subject to more natural disasters and they don't necessarily have the money to fix the problems. And that's just a part of life. I know that if a typhoon came along and knocked my house down it would be my insurance paying out, not the government.

[Andy Capp]

In the pursuit for "equality to all" I often find the white, middle class straight male or female gets put on the back foot.

In what way?

Your sexual preference, ethnicity, or religious beliefs should, under no circumstances, afford you extra, or "special" treatment over any other group of people. At the end of the day everyone is equal and no-one deserves special treatment......

It's one of the big myths. We are not all equal. The use of preference is probably ill judged too; while not wrong, the word disposition is probably more suitable.

All of that aside, while people in our own country are struggling, with huge energy bills and costs of living etc, people who are homeless, or who have been flooded out due to rivers bursting their banks, or something more severe . that we send (or are prepared to send) millions, rising to the billions, to other countries when there are people here who are struggling and our government do not help those people. IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Why are the crisis of other parts of the world worse than ours? The primary concern of government is to protect it's own citizens...

The hardships we experience are minuscule compared to the subject of the debate.

At the same time we have the social class situation, that there are people in poverty, low, middle and upper class people. There are countries in the world that are subject to more natural disasters and they don't necessarily have the money to fix the problems. And that's just a part of life. I know that if a typhoon came along and knocked my house down it would be my insurance paying out, not the government.

It seems mean to not care about others just because we fluked being born in a relatively benign environment. We have done nothing to deserve being born here and all the exploitative methods our government indulge in, so I see it as a bit of pay back. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[motormad]

In what way?

Because as a white, straight man we are deemed to be a downfall of society.

It's one of the big myths. We are not all equal. The use of preference is probably ill judged too; while not wrong, the word disposition is probably more suitable.

Okay, not everyone is equal, but we all deserve to be treated equally and fairly. That may not mean being treated "the same"..

The hardships we experience are minuscule compared to the subject of the debate.

Point being, why do we throw billions out of our own country when there are people suffering here?

It seems mean to not care about others just because we fluked being born in a relatively benign environment. We have done nothing to deserve being born here and all the exploitative methods our government indulge in, so I see it as a bit of pay back. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Everything in life is luck. No-one asked to be born. No-one gets to choose what kind of environment they are born into.. that is one of the marvels and beauty of life.

[Andy Capp]

Point being, why do we throw billions out of our own country when there are people suffering here?

On one hand it could be because it is a humane thing to do and their plight is seen as greater than those here, on the other, it might be to help suppress more ruthless people from taking advantage. Our imperial past might mean we have some obligation to those in trouble.

At what point do you draw the line at 'them' and 'us': road, town, county, country, continent, global? At what point do we say, this is ours, that is yours?

Everything in life is luck. No-one asked to be born. No-one gets to choose what kind of environment they are born into.. that is one of the marvels and beauty of life.

Marvels and beauty are man made features. What we see as marvellous and beauty will not be recognisable as such by those that are impoverished. We are, in part, well off because others' poverty. We are also different from many other species because we have a conscience. That conscience will inspire people to try and help, but of course, there are people with more selfish motives too.

[motormad]

On one hand it could be because it is a humane thing to do and their plight is seen as greater than those here, on the other, it might be to help suppress more ruthless people from taking advantage. Our imperial past might mean we have some obligation to those in trouble.

At what point do you draw the line at 'them' and 'us': road, town, county, country, continent, global? At what point do we say, this is ours, that is yours?

I was pretty clear at what point I draw the line - Our borders. If there are people who are homeless and in poverty in our own country why are people in other countries being helped before our own?
Who determines their struggles to be greater than our own?
I am not saying it is or it isn't, but what is the ultimate difference.

Say tomorrow we got nuked, our key power and water infrastructure are down, our air force and emergency services are all but wiped out, do you think we would be receiving billions in aid?

Or is it as much about appearing to be a "world power" and wanting to be seen as powerful, kind, helpful by the watching world, rather than actually wanting to help out of genuine good-will?

Should we help others. Yes we should. For the right reasons. Should we help others when we ourselves as a country have people who are suffering just as much? That's my question.

Marvels and beauty are man made features. What we see as marvellous and beauty will not be recognisable as such by those that are impoverished. We are, in part, well off because others' poverty. We are also different from many other species because we have a conscience. That conscience will inspire people to try and help, but of course, there are people with more selfish motives too.

Many of the true beauties in this world are not man made, and are natural, mountains, stary nights, while the concept of love is man made they are ultimately chemical reactions that occur across all species, deep blue oceans, etc.

It's terrible for those effected but there will always be people in poverty, regions of Africa, middle eastern provinces, parts of South America, that is in their way of life. There will always be countries like USA, UK, Russia, who are relatively well off, "super powers".

[Andy Capp]

I was pretty clear at what point I draw the line - Our borders.

What is 'our' border'? And why does that have more merit than others?

If there are people who are homeless and in poverty in our own country why are people in other countries being helped before our own?

We are helping people in poverty and are homeless here, but the reasons for their plight are not clear cut.

Who determines their struggles to be greater than our own?
I am not saying it is or it isn't, but what is the ultimate difference.

How many people in the UK are relying on polluted water for their nourishment, and are systematically killed, raped and abused by the the authorities? that is what our charity is meant to be assisting in.

Say tomorrow we got nuked, our key power and water infrastructure are down, our air force and emergency services are all but wiped out, do you think we would be receiving billions in aid?

No, because it is likely that others would be in the same boat. A rather daft example, to be honest.

Or is it as much about appearing to be a "world power" and wanting to be seen as powerful, kind, helpful by the watching world, rather than actually wanting to help out of genuine good-will?

Both probably, but that is a different argument. Not doing things for altruistic reasons, is not a good reason not to do something when there is a need.

Should we help others. Yes we should. For the right reasons. Should we help others when we ourselves as a country have people who are suffering just as much? That's my question.

If that was the case, I'd agree, but we are meant to be helping those that are even worse off.

Many of the true beauties in this world are not man made, and are natural, mountains, stary nights, while the concept of love is man made they are ultimately chemical reactions that occur across all species, deep blue oceans, etc.

You misunderstand. We judge those things to be beautiful, after all, beauty is subjective (in-the-eye-of-the-beholder in simple terms).

It's terrible for those effected but there will always be people in poverty, regions of Africa, middle eastern provinces, parts of South America, that is in their way of life. There will always be countries like USA, UK, Russia, who are relatively well off, "super powers".

But that isn't a logically good reason not to strive to change that.

[motormad]

What is 'our' border'? And why does that have more merit than others?

It's fairly self explanatory Andy, come on

We are helping people in poverty and are homeless here, but the reasons for their plight are not clear cut.

By collecting baked bean tins and giving them to homeless people?

How many people in the UK are relying on polluted water for their nourishment, and are systematically killed, raped and abused by the the authorities? that is what our charity is meant to be assisting in.

So are you saying that those people in other countries who are not able to drink clean water are more important than those who do not have regular access to clean, safe water (IE a homeless person)?
Unfortunately crimes such as rape happen on a global scale. There are abuses everywhere. More so in lesser developed regions as the officials are corrupt.

Outside of another Blair style "regime change" ala- Iraq War, what is there really to do?

No, because it is likely that others would be in the same boat. A rather daft example, to be honest.

The point was if we were in a situation such as them, we would not be on the receiving ends of a constant stream of money

Both probably, but that is a different argument. Not doing things for altruistic reasons, is not a good reason not to do something when there is a need.

Motives are VERY important.

If that was the case, I'd agree, but we are meant to be helping those that are even worse off.

But who DECIDES who is worse of? What defines "worse off".
Are we to lower our own quality of life as a well off, developed country, because others aren't? Are we obliged to share our wealth (as a country, as people, as individuals) with those lower down the "food chain"?

That is my point, why are they worse off. Poverty is horrible but these are the cultures that the countries have evolved into. We have not.

For hundreds and thousands of years, people have had to walk miles to find clean water (for example). And as much as we try to change that they will have similar problems in the future.

[Andy Capp]

It's fairly self explanatory Andy, come on

No, it isn't. I'd like to now the rationale for the UK boarder to be the appropriate demarkation.

By collecting baked bean tins and giving them to homeless people?

No, by the welfare state being the biggest single liability for the state.

So are you saying that those people in other countries who are not able to drink clean water are more important than those who do not have regular access to clean, safe water (IE a homeless person)?

No, I'm not saying that.

Unfortunately crimes such as rape happen on a global scale. There are abuses everywhere. More so in lesser developed regions as the officials are corrupt. Outside of another Blair style "regime change" ala- Iraq War, what is there really to do?

We are doing it. This is what we are debating.

The point was if we were in a situation such as them, we would not be on the receiving ends of a constant stream of money

That would depend on the circumstances, but other countries might remember our attitude to others if we were to decide to not share our are relative wealth, the next time we go cap-in-hand.

Motives are VERY important.

It is eventually, but not when you are starving and cold and someone with an ulterior motive is able to alleviate that problem.

But who DECIDES who is worse of? What defines "worse off". Are we to lower our own quality of life as a well off, developed country, because others aren't? Are we obliged to share our wealth (as a country, as people, as individuals) with those lower down the "food chain"?

If we don't it will eventually happen by force. As the population increases we are going to have to find methods to allow a mutually agreeable method to share dwindling resources. that or war.

That is my point, why are they worse off. Poverty is horrible but these are the cultures that the countries have evolved into. We have not.

We have evolved out of exploiting the developing world. There will be a pay back if we don't manage the issue effectively.

For hundreds and thousands of years, people have had to walk miles to find clean water (for example). And as much as we try to change that they will have similar problems in the future.

If I may draw an analogy. Interplanetary migration is currently not possible, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching the possibly. One day, if we are to survive as a species, we will have to.




motomad, to a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate; I am simply trying to give some suggestions as to why the situation is as it is, and why perhaps we should do what you complain of, but I think it is rich for people to complain when they are speaking from a privileged position and in relative comfort. I think the better argument would be about how we spend the money, not why.

[motormad]

If I may draw an analogy. Interplanetary migration is currently not possible, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching the possibly. One day, if we are to survive as a species, we will have to.

All that stuff aside, this is a huge issue. We should research it absolutely. Although rather investing in the future of the human race as opposed to the attempt at fixing generations of screw ups!

motomad, to a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate; I am simply trying to give some suggestions as to why the situation is as it is, and why perhaps we should do what you complain of, but I think it is rich for people to complain when they are speaking from a privileged position and in relative comfort. I think the better argument would be about how we spend the money, not why.

It's very difficult to imagine the situation for those people in poverty.
As you say it's easy for us to sit and imagine without actually being there.
I would agree. How (and maybe where) as opposed to why. But I still believe the "why" is equally as important.
Ultimately we are as a country, a superpower are driven by financial gain and oil stocks. Hence why we step into Iraq, middle eastern conflicts, etc.

Say for example there was a particularly horrible Dictator in Belgium, I don't think we'd be jumping about our AC-130s to go invade them...

[On the edge]

Regrettably the delivery of Government compassion generally. Rings out the worst in our chanting politicians. Thus really isn't a nation state issue and we should be working directly with the UN. That's why it was set up in the first place. Similarly, we should be shoulder to shoulder with our EU compatriots to provide the practical help and support the UN will need to solve the immediate crisis. Sadly, we have our politicians using this crisis to publicise their own agendas; how disgusting.

[Turin Machine]

I have to say, it ain't often I say this but on this occasional I agree with mm entirely.

[Andy Capp]

I have to say, it ain't often I say this but on this occasional I agree with mm entirely.

I'll alert the media!

[Ron]

Our imperial past might mean we have some obligation to those in trouble.

Oh! dear, here we go. Be calling on the Romans next!

[Andy Capp]

Oh! dear, here we go. Be calling on the Romans next!

The difference is the Romans left the place in better nick than when they arrived.

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

[On the edge]

Sorry I can't go with the Imperial past obligation. We only gave up the Empire as the local populations demanded. Bretton Woods and Truman's stopping lease lend liquidated the British Empire and all that went with it. The United Nations is the only legitimate (if there is such a concept) World authority.

[Andy Capp]

Sorry I can't go with the Imperial past obligation. We only gave up the Empire as the local populations demanded. Bretton Woods and Truman's stopping lease lend liquidated the British Empire and all that went with it. The United Nations is the only legitimate (if there is such a concept) World authority.

This is about humanitarian aid, not authority. Bearing in mind that western international policies keep these countries poor and run by tinpot dictators.

[On the edge]

This is about humanitarian aid, not authority. Bearing in mind that western international policies keep these countries poor and run by tinpot dictators.

So it may be, but let's use the correct channels. We should be providing support in concert with other nations. As for Western policies, we must be complicit in them, so if we really were humanitarian (and dare I say it, a truly Christian nation) we'd change them.

[motormad]

I have to say, it ain't often I say this but on this occasional I agree with mm entirely.