Why I disagree with Help for Heroes

What about charities for paedophiles? They are people.

The WORLD is in a recession because of the way mortgages and banking was handled.. not because the UK was involved in the Iraq/Afghan war.

And you are not a tax payer so your opinion on what should or shouldn't be done with tax money is invalid.

I realise that, but the situation would be far better if the UK handled it's spendings better and didn't get involved in blowing money in this way. This has contributed to the recession. Any waste contributes and worsens it.


That doesn't make any sense. Why do I need to be a taxpayer to comment on wasteful spending? Do you need to be a pro-footy player to comment on football?If I was a taxpayer my opinion would be exactly the same. I'd probably moan about it even more. I am also agreeing with and re-iterating the views of existing taxpayers that I know.

...

I realise that, but the situation would be far better if the UK handled it's spendings better and didn't get involved in blowing money in this way. This has contributed to the recession. Any waste contributes and worsens it.


That doesn't make any sense. Why do I need to be a taxpayer to comment on wasteful spending? Do you need to be a pro-footy player to comment on football?If I was a taxpayer my opinion would be exactly the same. I'd probably moan about it even more. I am also agreeing with and re-iterating the views of existing taxpayers that I know.

Gibraltar Is not an island.

The naivety of some of the do-gooder "why can't we all just get along" people on here is just amazing.

1) We don't want people bowing at our feet and blowing smoke up our arses, we just want basic respect that you'd give anyone else.

2) There has always been war. I know it makes you upset but it's true. As an advanced nation we have a professional and modern armed services who's job it is to protect national interests both foreign and domestic. Otherwise we'd just sit on our elbows and wait til someone invaded. I'm sure the Polish Cavalry (who had the same "why do we need new weapons?" ideology that some cretins here have) did very well against the German Panzer divisions back in 1939... oh dear.

3) Killing is natural, get used to it. My bacon and sausages that I had for breakfast didn't get artificially created.

4) For all you brainwashed morons who think that the British Army runs around killing Afghan civilians for shiggles: develop an opinion of your own and don't base your entire knowledge about the Afghan campaign on what you read in the tabloids. We are fighting an enemy that USES civilians as weapons, asymmetric warfare where we are playing by strict rules and they have none. How would you like the feeling that every woman or child passing you in the street could have TNT strapped to their chest?

5) We were pretty much welcomed with open arms into Afghanistan by the non-extremist section of the population to fight against our common enemy and continue to be hosted there willingly by them. I don't know where everyone gets this idea that we have invaded a country that didn't want us there!

Technically yes.
Most people who talk about football do it for conversation. If you actually pulled them up and asked them to manage a football team they would fall flat on their feet. Same principle applies here.

There's a difference between asking someone their opinion of a certain player or strategy, compared to managing a team day in day out. I don't see why their opinion is invalid, especially if it's backed up with logic and also agrees with the views of actual pros too.

Have you ever heard of budgets? The police have had cuts, the Ambulance service.... the army..

Are we out there rioting and smashing up bus stops? No we're ****ing not.

And yeah - to comment on what tax money is spent on you should be contributing to that fund. You don't pay in yet I bet you use the NHS/Police/Benefits/Education provided by tax payer money - you're a leech and your opinion is invalid.

I was merely targeting your analogy. What you say is not fact because it is not backed up with the credentials of somebody who is an expert in that field. The fact is the poster above me has given multiple reasons why we were welcomed into Afghanistan and some of the facts.

Afghanistan is an opinionated matter, it carries too much emotional weight to have an objective stance. You do not know all the facts behind our occupation of Afghanistan [and neither do I] therefore both our opinions are effectively invalid and only based on partial or fragmented evidence.

Yes and you didn't target it very well. Nobody has claimed fact they have just given their opinion. An opinion's weight should obviously be used on the logic and evidence they have used. I'd say the odds are stacked in my favour that 'not wasting money on wars' better's a country's finances though.

Our opinion's are all based on publicly held knowledge and they should be seen and interpreted in that light. Doesn't mean that someone privy to all the facts makes a good decision though.

I feel that this discussion (or any) can and will devolve into 'you're not an expert, so you shouldn't comment' and then we'd have to reason whether anyone should talk about anything, unless you're No.1 in that area. Perhaps only a handful of people in the world should be allowed to communicate about anything. I can ignore my mum as she's not the world's best mum.

What about charities for paedophiles? They are people.

I have a big problem with the name Help for Heroes, and the general idea that if you join the army you are a hero!

The unfortunate injuries that happen to these people are part and parcel of being a soldier..they know this!

Just because a bomb goes off and they lose there leg does not mean they are a hero..the word would have far more meaning if the "war" was a just one

An opinions weight is given by evidence. Credibility of evidence can be analyzed through RAVEN Corbet.
Evidence is a major factor in this, and one can not be truly objective about it, especially if one is not privy to all the facts. In short, your opinion means nothing when weighed against that of an expert, even if he is bias, he is still more likely to have other areas of credibility intact because he is aware of all the facts. Clarity.

It depends on how much evidence is required to make a given assertion, and also the quality of logical reasoning used. Someone could have all the facts infront of them but have bad reasoning skills or be too biased to make a good comment. I/someone may be far more efficient with the evidence at hand. Also, having lots of evidence can be redundant; I don't need all the government's top secret files to make a relatively basic comment on something. If I wish to state precise figures or precise accounts of things, that's a different story.

This also begs the Q why so much rampant discussion and disagreement exists if there are experts out there who can give their opinion. Since the experts also disagree with each other, and there's also disagreement on what constitutes best, we're left in a viscious circle of how to classify opinions quantitavely.

@ rebecca_george
Right so, would you rather 'your' taxes were 'pissed' away on uneducated people with no desire to ever have a job, or those uneducated people who are willing to give their life for this country?
Hmmm? Tough choice!