I agree with everything you say all people nowadays the majority of people in this world are selfish haters and ungrateful they bully people to get to the top they all want to get to the top so they can hammer people when they get rich this is the world its shit and unfair and will never change the bullys rule it the only way is to start a war and wipe out as many bullys as possible.

MVPapi wrote Right, I don't know when I accepted people to come and challenge this.

The second that you pressed Submit. You expected everyone to just go 'Uh huh, yep -nods head- gr8 point m8' ? No, the entire purpose a forum is to discuss things, in this case, what you're ranting about.

I know what Lenin did, I got an A* in my History GCSE and about 70% of the course was on the USSR and about 50% of that the formation of the USSR.

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that suggesting he would be a good leader of an entirely different culture was silly.

Look at the African nations; South Africa, Siera Leone, Nigeria, Libya and that's to name a few - the warlords, drug trafficking, blood diamonds, human trafficking. Lenin done some bad **** I know, but is it anything compared to the years of suffering there?

I don't know, is it?
You'd have to get population numbers, the ages of people who would be sent to work, you'd have to compare land fertility, the availability of weapons, and the strength of a proposed army of enforcers to even get a general idea of whether employing industrialization and collectivization would be a good idea in Africa. It certainly wasn't a good one in the Soviet Union.

I'm not defending the right to bully, I'm simply saying: If you can make fun of a person because of their genetics which is uncontrollable then why is it not acceptable to make fun of a person's variables which is controlable by that person? It's a double standard.

For me, and most people I know, it has never been acceptable to bully someone based on their genetic traits, you just have some weird and immature friends.

Then there's the charity ad thing. I completely understand supporting charities don't get me wrong, I strongly support Help for Heroes and Movember - but three ads in a row for different charities supporting the same cause? That would be like if a Stella, then Fosters and then Carlsberg adverts came on in a row, it would make anybody who drinks lager to want to drink some right then. It's a guilt trip.

Yes, it's a guilt trip, and people who live in a developed country but never pay any attention to what happens in third world countries should feel guilty. If you donate and are aware of what's going on, and it makes you feel bad to the point of doing something about it, then you shouldn't be feeling guilty. You should be supporting adverts like that.
I would prefer to see 10 charity adverts in a row as opposed to cleaning products, a new film trailer, beer adverts etc.
That's an entirely different topic about consumerism though.

I'm thankful I live in the country I do - but there's still so much equality and unfairness in my own home, things that this country needs to work on. I feel for them people but that's their life and this is mine.

I've never understood this argument to be honest, is it impossible to deal with 2 different problems at the same time?
Or are we just incapable?

I'd help them out if I could but then again I don't think that even Bill Gates could help them out by simply donating all of his money he's ever earned in his life + spent.

That's why these charity adverts are always saying something along the lines of 'Donate just 1 GBP per month to...' They know that nobody can make a gigantic difference on their own, but every little helps.

Labyrinth wrote

MVPapi wrote Right, I don't know when I accepted people to come and challenge this.

The second that you pressed Submit. You expected everyone to just go 'Uh huh, yep -nods head- gr8 point m8' ? No, the entire purpose a forum is to discuss things, in this case, what you're ranting about.

I know what Lenin did, I got an A* in my History GCSE and about 70% of the course was on the USSR and about 50% of that the formation of the USSR.

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that suggesting he would be a good leader of an entirely different culture was silly.

Look at the African nations; South Africa, Siera Leone, Nigeria, Libya and that's to name a few - the warlords, drug trafficking, blood diamonds, human trafficking. Lenin done some bad **** I know, but is it anything compared to the years of suffering there?

I don't know, is it?
You'd have to get population numbers, the ages of people who would be sent to work, you'd have to compare land fertility, the availability of weapons, and the strength of a proposed army of enforcers to even get a general idea of whether employing industrialization and collectivization would be a good idea in Africa. It certainly wasn't a good one in the Soviet Union.

I'm not defending the right to bully, I'm simply saying: If you can make fun of a person because of their genetics which is uncontrollable then why is it not acceptable to make fun of a person's variables which is controlable by that person? It's a double standard.

For me, and most people I know, it has never been acceptable to bully someone based on their genetic traits, you just have some weird and immature friends.

Then there's the charity ad thing. I completely understand supporting charities don't get me wrong, I strongly support Help for Heroes and Movember - but three ads in a row for different charities supporting the same cause? That would be like if a Stella, then Fosters and then Carlsberg adverts came on in a row, it would make anybody who drinks lager to want to drink some right then. It's a guilt trip.

Yes, it's a guilt trip, and people who live in a developed country but never pay any attention to what happens in third world countries should feel guilty. If you donate and are aware of what's going on, and it makes you feel bad to the point of doing something about it, then you shouldn't be feeling guilty. You should be supporting adverts like that.
I would prefer to see 10 charity adverts in a row as opposed to cleaning products, a new film trailer, beer adverts etc.
That's an entirely different topic about consumerism though.

I'm thankful I live in the country I do - but there's still so much equality and unfairness in my own home, things that this country needs to work on. I feel for them people but that's their life and this is mine.

I've never understood this argument to be honest, is it impossible to deal with 2 different problems at the same time?
Or are we just incapable?

I'd help them out if I could but then again I don't think that even Bill Gates could help them out by simply donating all of his money he's ever earned in his life + spent.

That's why these charity adverts are always saying something along the lines of 'Donate just 1 GBP per month to...' They know that nobody can make a gigantic difference on their own, but every little helps.

A lot of charities keep a lot of money to themselves dont be fooled so easy do you really think if they were putting me in all the time the countrys would still be the way they are

ICR7I wrote A lot of charities keep a lot of money to themselves dont be fooled so easy do you really think if they were putting me in all the time the countrys would still be the way they are

Yes. Charities are not meant to be some nation building superpowers.
Even if a charity provided 1 meal for 1 starving family with that 1 GBP a person donates it would be worth it.
Charities keeping some of that money for themselves is a necessary evil when you look at it alongside the good they provide.

Labyrinth wrote

ICR7I wrote A lot of charities keep a lot of money to themselves dont be fooled so easy do you really think if they were putting me in all the time the countrys would still be the way they are

Yes. Charities are not meant to be some nation building superpowers.
Even if a charity provided 1 meal for 1 starving family with that 1 GBP a person donates it would be worth it.
Charities keeping some of that money for themselves is a necessary evil when you look at it alongside the good they provide.

The problem is the governments are far too greedy and selfish to help

BIGTREESonDECK wrote I agree with most of your points but they are untrue for some parts of the world and country.For example when you said only white people can be racist, where I live it's like every single race being racist towards whites and it's not considered racist "because white people slaved black people" now. that's correct white people had black slaves around 100 years ago but that was a long time ago and white people also freed the slaves and most white people were against it. So anyways where I am from you can be racist towards white people and it won't be considered racist but you mention one thing of another race (such as just saying that someone else is black or anything like that) you are considered racist. By the way I live in LAS VEGAS, Nevada, USA. (horrible place never come here it sucks and it's nothing like the movies)

No, I don't actually mean that only white people can be racist but that seems to be the way the law looks at it! Why do we have to label the little things and try to 'sort' people to where we think they belong?