FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

These catholic Priests who abuse children on a huge scale? Where does the moral code fit in there?

[What's Burning?]

That wasnt an actual statistic, it was just trying to make a statement, and it cant be proved. Does that make you right? Well it cant be proved theres as much water in the ocean as we're told, it cant be. Thats one of many examples of things you believe that cant physically be proven, and im sure if i had as much heart in this topic as you do id search google for statistics.

So you make something up that can't be proven, yet you use it as empirical proof in your argument?

The fact that you don't like the rioters has nothing to do with the fact that the country you live in supports freedom of speech and everyone has a right to air their voice, whether you agree with it or not. Anyone that's broken laws should be arrested and tried for the crimes they committed and the government can and should use anything that is within its legal constitutional laws to enforce it. No more no less.

The rioters in Bahrain were receiving quite a bit of world wide support, most of the members here were arguing vehemently in their support why is that? Here's the reason why the morals you speak of are worth crap... morals as you've just shown are very temporary vary amongst cultures and are interpreted given a current situation and often used to substantiate your own views or for benefit. Laws on the other hand are expected to be followed and applied consistently. That's why we don't have slavery and international theft of resources and genocide today, not because of religion but because of global law.

[FRAFPDD]

That wasnt an actual statistic, it was just trying to make a statement, and it cant be proved. Does that make you right? Well it cant be proved theres as much water in the ocean as we're told, it cant be. Thats one of many examples of things you believe that cant physically be proven, and im sure if i had as much heart in this topic as you do id search google for statistics.

So you make something up that can't be proven, yet you use it as empirical proof in your argument?

The fact that you don't like the rioters has nothing to do with the fact that the country you live in supports freedom of speech and everyone has a right to air their voice, whether you agree with it or not. Anyone that's broken laws should be arrested and tried for the crimes they committed and the government can and should use anything that is within its legal constitutional laws to enforce it. No more no less.

The rioters in Bahrain were receiving quite a bit of world wide support, most of the members here were arguing vehemently in their support why is that? Here's the reason why the morals you speak of are worth crap... morals as you've just shown are very temporary vary amongst cultures and are interpreted given a current situation and often used to substantiate your own views or for benefit. Laws on the other hand are expected to be followed and applied consistently. That's why we don't have slavery and international theft of resources and genocide today, not because of religion but because of global law.

ARGHHH im not saying free speech is a god damn bad thing, im saying modern law lets to many people get away with too manyt things, tied in with the fact that human beings are naturally, selfish, greedy, envious, lustful, wrathfull, gluttonous creatures, means the western world is heading into devolution.

The absurd arrogant notion that the world will always evolve is a dreamers idea. The peak in my opinion has been and gone, the only things that improves is technology, and that cannot be sustained because the money is being spread thinner and thinner. If theres the capability of peoples lives to be total hell, from a lifetime of physical torment from a certain disease or facing starvation as a 2 year old in Ethiopia, then theres the capability for the world entire to break into what teh Christians call, apocalypse, and totally destroy itself, with billions of deaths and the eventual destruction of mankind as we know it.

You can make whatever amateurish Freudian judgements of what i believe as you like, id be lying to express that i care. But taking a step back its clear to see that world can no longer go forward, population is becoming more aged and increasing ten-fold, it is unsustainable, it cannot be enforced either, and it very coincidentally ties in with the regressing social standards worldwide and the dwindling reserved of oil that wed all rip each others throats out for.

Im sure you also all believe in Global Warming, add that in there if you like, to me the signs are clear. We'' survive, hell should i want any my childrens childrens childrens childrens children might surivive, but it wont last much longer. What stopped these problems of over population in particular were the numerous global conflicts we had, its whats needed now as a cull of world population, and in the words of Einstein: " i do not know what weapons ww3 shall be fought with only that ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.


As a kicker the education system worldwide is getting worse and worse and i dont see how we're meant to produce the talent to solve such problematic issues never seen before.

[andrew]

These catholic Priests who abuse children on a huge scale? Where does the moral code fit in there?

The Pope turns a blind eye so it's ok seeing as he is infalible.

[FRAFPDD]

[youtube]Y7viVng-F28[/youtube]

1:19 in the vid, now imagine it in the dark when it was fully aflame, frightening,

the road at the top is the one i take to work and could smell the burning plastic. House of mine is a mile away from this.



Edit: Here it is on fire

[youtube]kwFqo426PoM&feature=related[/youtube]

[SennaVille]

I have a few mates who live in london who wanted to go and sightsee.... all they have found is other people wanting to sightsee and police dog units

You're a mod???

Eww.

Crap! Sorry! I read the quote all wrong. Really long day, bad mood, blech!

[What's Burning?]

Every time, without fail that I see the title of this thread, I think of The Clash.

[youtube]kn_8CKu9toc[/youtube]

[zurich_allan]

As a kicker the education system worldwide is getting worse and worse and i dont see how we're meant to produce the talent to solve such problematic issues never seen before.

Can you qualify this please? It's a genuinely massive generalisation.

Also, I have to add my support to one of the posts made by someone else earlier in the thread - the Human Rights Act (a by product of the European Convention on Human Rights, and also the UN Declaration of Human Rights), is one of the pieces of legislation most criticised in the UK, generally by people that only read what is reported in tabloids in a sensationalist and inaccurate way, as opposed to those that actually understand the legislation and the good things it affects that vastly overshadow the negatives. It's popular to jump on the 'Human Rights are bad!' bandwagon - I get that, but it simply isn't correct.

[FRAFPDD]

As a kicker the education system worldwide is getting worse and worse and i dont see how we're meant to produce the talent to solve such problematic issues never seen before.

Can you qualify this please? It's a genuinely massive generalisation.

Also, I have to add my support to one of the posts made by someone else earlier in the thread - the Human Rights Act (a by product of the European Convention on Human Rights, and also the UN Declaration of Human Rights), is one of the pieces of legislation most criticised in the UK, generally by people that only read what is reported in tabloids in a sensationalist and inaccurate way, as opposed to those that actually understand the legislation and the good things it affects that vastly overshadow the negatives. It's popular to jump on the 'Human Rights are bad!' bandwagon - I get that, but it simply isn't correct.

In places like Japan and the US it is actually very good education system, but i find it hard to believe with todays attitudes, and these are replicated worldwide, that the overall level on intelligence is growing. I mean, every year we hear a level results getting better and better, i can tell you the students arent getting better and better, the exams are.


You can have too much of a good thing cant you, the Humans rights laws, are exactly the reason why a looter will loot, cause mr policmen grabs him by the ear and he screams cold murder! Theres no deterrent.

For the record i dont read tabloids, and to put it that generally or not the people that criticise it only do so because of tabloids is ignorant on your part, im sure theres politicians that want it looked at. Trouble is theyve made it like they made the US Constitution, and nobody dares to challenge it, however outdated and error strewed it may be.

[zurich_allan]

But what do you mean by 'education system', again - you're being massively too general. I'm sorry to tell you too, but your assessment of Europe v US / Japan education system is also incorrect. I'd ask you to back up what you're saying with facts, but I know that you can't, because the statistics you'd want to use don't exist.

Speaking about A Levels, the current general thought for the reason for marginal (we're talking less than 0.5% in general) increases in pass rates over the past 20 years or so is because of the internet. In the past, children taking school exams had no choice but to read textbooks on their specific subjects and work through their own problem questions in preparation of exams. Now however, there are multiple sources with all information, broken down in different ways to suit the individual learner (if you ever study psychology as I have, and likely a few others on the forum you'll find out that different individuals can learn and develop skills in different ways, a generic teacher selected method isn't going to always suit everybody). In short - it's easier for pupils and students to revise and research in ways that suit them individually in the modern age than in the past where it simply wasn't an option.

Again, you're simply wrong in saying that the A Level assessments are easier than in years past, it's not a matter open to opinion, it's a fact. It's another myth perpetuated by the tabloid press and often clueless MP's at a higher level.

I'd NEVER use MP's opinions as a way to back up something from an objective standpoint and I say that as a postgraduate qualified researcher. MP's nearly always have a party political based agenda to anything they say, and in the small amount of times they might not, they generally aren't qualified in the area they are giving unsubstantiated opinion on in any case.

In one sense you're right about the fact, because it is a fact, that looters etc. can argue about their Human Rights etc. and I agree that they shouldn't be able to in certain circumstances as they ought by their actions to have forfeited some of those rights. These circumstances are NOT the fault of the law though, they are a fault at an operational level. The legislation has been in place for 13 years (although actually we have been bound to the ECHR for nigh on 40 years in reality), and these problems have been known. In that time, the UK would have been (and still would be) perfectly entitled to express reservations about specific articles within the ECHR to the EU, or within the UN Declaration to the UN, and is in fact entitled to 'opt out' of certain sections. Even if the UK didn't do this, in the past 13 years when these same issues have come up time and again, the Police at a strategic planning level should have put in place other plans for dealing with situations like this, of which there are many potential back-up plans. The looting becoming so bad was not the fault of legislation, but the fault at an operational level, in part due to the cripplingly low number of Police currently in the front line, and in part due to no appropriate plan being in place. Riots are not a new phenomenon, so there is no excuse. In short, it's not the law that's the problem, it's the interpretation and the implementation of the law that's at fault. Again I'm going to say, because it's a fact not opinion, that Human Rights in this country do and have done far more good than bad, it's simply that the good stuff is rarely 'reported', only the criticisms.

I didn't say you read tabloids, I qualified that that was in general, and generally it's true. Regardless, this IS where that viewpoint originates. And is then perpetuated by others down the line following conversations based on that viewpoint in different circles. Experts in the matter don't perpetuate those views, and I'd know that because I know many of the experts. That's not ignorant - I'm far from ignorant in the subject, I bloodly well lecture it at University.

Again, in spite of you continually coming back after being banned again and again saying 'i'm not going to be confrontational', you continually post unsubstantiated generalisations, then get yourself into full blown arguments when people rationally point with evidence and / or experience to back it up point out that you're talking nonsense.

Look, I know a bit about the workings of a car and can carry out basic repairs myself. However I would NEVER walk into McLaren's garage and say 'move over boys, I know more than you do, this is how it works....', because that would be ridiculous. They know more than me about it, I accept that because they're infinitely more qualified and experienced than me. Likewise I know a bit about anatomy having been a runner for many years and studied a good bit on bio-mechanics, the circulatory system etc. but I would never walk into an operating theatre with a surgeon carrying out an operation and say 'ok boys hand me the scalpal' - and I'm going to sound like I'm repeating myself here, because I accept that they know and will always know more than me and are infinitely more experienced than me in that area.

My qualifications relevant to this discussion (I have more in other areas) - First Class Honours Degree in Law, PgC in Research, PgC in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

My experience relevant to this discussion - Five years university lecturing at both undergraduate and postgraduate level (seven years as a researcher as I was a researcher for two years before gaining my lectureship) - my main areas being International / EU Law, Criminal Law, Law of Evidence, Human Rights Law and Constitutional Law. Two of my published articles related to educational development recommended at a national level. Experience in drafting new legislation (Scottish and UK wide). Participated in many international conferences with experts in all of the areas I lecture.

Honestly, and as I've said before, you need to accept that in some - just some areas, people are always going to know more than you about them and at a deeper level. I accept it about a great many areas as I illustrated above. Let it go...

[FRAFPDD]

Repost

[FRAFPDD]

But what do you mean by 'education system', again - you're being massively too general. I'm sorry to tell you too, but your assessment of Europe v US / Japan education system is also incorrect. I'd ask you to back up what you're saying with facts, but I know that you can't, because the statistics you'd want to use don't exist.

You telling me im downright incorrect is reliant on facts too, and you too havent provided any? There are some things facts dont exist for, a national anthem say is one note that plays for 10 minutes, and then another is italys national anthem, everyone knows the better one is italys one then this monotonous one note beep for 10 minutes, but it cant be proven? Maybe im being too general but the point still stands regardless, having had Tens, and i mean tens of Japanese students stay with my grandmother since about 6/7 years ago, ranging from staying 2 weeks to 10 months, i can tell you they all were significantly more intelligent then anyone ive ever met from here, they dont muck around with partying, they arent even aware it exists at their age in other countries, and they are hell bent on getting into the best university they can, its a complete culture difference, in america its less so, but they actually care about their reputation on being stupid, unlike us, and having 2 aunts and 1 uncle living there for over 20 years now, each has an american spouse and american naturalized children, all of whom are A Star students, you only have to watch tv to see how english teens express themselves vocabulary wise and then compare it to 10 year old americans who sound like politicians. Different culture.

Speaking about A Levels, the current general thought for the reason for marginal (we're talking less than 0.5% in general) increases in pass rates over the past 20 years or so is because of the internet. In the past, children taking school exams had no choice but to read textbooks on their specific subjects and work through their own problem questions in preparation of exams. Now however, there are multiple sources with all information, broken down in different ways to suit the individual learner (if you ever study psychology as I have, and likely a few others on the forum you'll find out that different individuals can learn and develop skills in different ways, a generic teacher selected method isn't going to always suit everybody). In short - it's easier for pupils and students to revise and research in ways that suit them individually in the modern age than in the past where it simply wasn't an option.

Perhaps your right on this, im willing to change viewpoints, but im certain our exams and those of many other countries arent at the standard reuired to remain intellectually competetive with some other nations.

Again, you're simply wrong in saying that the A Level assessments are easier than in years past, it's not a matter open to opinion, it's a fact. It's another myth perpetuated by the tabloid press and often clueless MP's at a higher level.

Right, so im wrong, because your opinion is fact. For someone so hell bent on downtreading me for my lack of annotations to arguments to provide none at all. Probably because as ive already said, the things we're arguing dont have existing facts anywhere to support either viewpoint.

I'd NEVER use MP's opinions as a way to back up something from an objective standpoint and I say that as a postgraduate qualified researcher. MP's nearly always have a party political based agenda to anything they say, and in the small amount of times they might not, they generally aren't qualified in the area they are giving unsubstantiated opinion on in any case.

Of course they do, but then what do we listen to? Nothing at all Mps say cause its agenda riddled? Thats not the way to go about it surely, and if not MPs, then who on gods good earth in your opinion is qualified in the areas they give opinion, i hope your not one of those people that believe people looking after their ill grandad can only do so with an NVQ in Elderly people management, or people that apply for a cleaning job need a BTEC in Hygeinic Studies, you ever heard of the good ol days where you learnt jobs on the job, sure running the country has no patience for learning, but im sure these people werent plucked out of nowhere, half studied at Eton of all places for goodness sake!

In one sense you're right about the fact, because it is a fact, that looters etc. can argue about their Human Rights etc. and I agree that they shouldn't be able to in certain circumstances as they ought by their actions to have forfeited some of those rights. These circumstances are NOT the fault of the law though, they are a fault at an operational level. The legislation has been in place for 13 years (although actually we have been bound to the ECHR for nigh on 40 years in reality), and these problems have been known. In that time, the UK would have been (and still would be) perfectly entitled to express reservations about specific articles within the ECHR to the EU, or within the UN Declaration to the UN, and is in fact entitled to 'opt out' of certain sections. Even if the UK didn't do this, in the past 13 years when these same issues have come up time and again, the Police at a strategic planning level should have put in place other plans for dealing with situations like this, of which there are many potential back-up plans. The looting becoming so bad was not the fault of legislation, but the fault at an operational level, in part due to the cripplingly low number of Police currently in the front line, and in part due to no appropriate plan being in place. Riots are not a new phenomenon, so there is no excuse. In short, it's not the law that's the problem, it's the interpretation and the implementation of the law that's at fault. Again I'm going to say, because it's a fact not opinion, that Human Rights in this country do and have done far more good than bad, it's simply that the good stuff is rarely 'reported', only the criticisms.

Your being an avid believe in what you say does not make it fact, and with all due respect but if your trying to make a point, or truly believe that sentence ive just highlighted is fact, then you are a living breathing example of the failing education standards, being a lecturer and all, your bold is BY DEFINITION an opinion, believing it to death doesnt make it opinion. You can say all your im qualified bulls*it and im an argumentative so and so all you like, what you just passed off as fact, when it is clearly an opinion, is a plain lie? Im happy debating this with you i really am, but you seem annoyde that i dare oppose your opinion, ive retracted many things ive said in light of your opinion, so i can be reasonable, but if your going to start doing this.....well.....

I didn't say you read tabloids, I qualified that that was in general, and generally it's true. Regardless, this IS where that viewpoint originates. And is then perpetuated by others down the line following conversations based on that viewpoint in different circles. Experts in the matter don't perpetuate those views, and I'd know that because I know many of the experts. That's not ignorant - I'm far from ignorant in the subject, I bloodly well lecture it at University.

It was the implication thats what im saying, i cant believe for a minute that all experts youve come into contact with express the same view, if so, then thats probably why these problems persist, because your all far too interested in getting our your respective social studies degrees then applying common sense to your decision making. Quite often, the people you look down on as "qualified intellectuals" often speak the most truth, because theyre grounded, and they are experienced and LIVING the stuff politicians are so remote from. I still think what you said was ignorant, but i respect whether you think i do or not that you are a lecturer at a University, which is why i listen intently to everything your saying.

Again, in spite of you continually coming back after being banned again and again saying 'i'm not going to be confrontational', you continually post unsubstantiated generalisations, then get yourself into full blown arguments when people rationally point with evidence and / or experience to back it up point out that you're talking nonsense.

people rationally......hmmm....people rationally.....

would that explain why you, not i, have just made the decision to make this debate personal? End of they day Mr Allen this forum is a minor trivial part of my life, what a complete strangers amateurish Freudian view on me doesnt mean diddly. squat. What you say on the topic is what im listening to.

And for Christ sakes man you neither have provided any evidence!? Just because you were the first person to point out the other hasnt provided any doesnt mean you are now exempt from doing so, an argument (debate) is a two way street, you come under the same de facto rules of it as i do, stop telling me im making generalisations and speaking total goobledy gook for doing the same your doing, My opinion is Opinion A, yours is Opinion B, i propose mine first so im the only one who has to provide evidence?! What kind of logic is that? You being a University Lecturer in the same bloody subject we talk about should have a ton load more evidence ready then i do, and yet it took you two paragraphs to start calling your opinion fact, and get personal with me?

Also dont slander me, i never said i wont be confrontational, your lack of judgement in determining whats a petty argument and what is a heated discussion is your problem not mine. This is just a debate on a topic, its idiots like......well...... that dont know how to continue one without being a total pansy and taking it to heart like a pre-teen girl thats the problem here. When all is said and done i dont hold grudges like you tend to do, this si the second time youve gone and tried to silence me with the "i thought you werent getting into arguments" yeah and i havent got into the arguments i said i wouldnt, this is a debate, calling each other t*ossers is an argument not a debate. We were debating an issue before you went off tangent.

Look, I know a bit about the workings of a car and can carry out basic repairs myself. However I would NEVER walk into McLaren's garage and say 'move over boys, I know more than you do, this is how it works....', because that would be ridiculous. They know more than me about it, I accept that because they're infinitely more qualified and experienced than me. Likewise I know a bit about anatomy having been a runner for many years and studied a good bit on bio-mechanics, the circulatory system etc. but I would never walk into an operating theatre with a surgeon carrying out an operation and say 'ok boys hand me the scalpal' - and I'm going to sound like I'm repeating myself here, because I accept that they know and will always know more than me and are infinitely more experienced than me in that area

.

Slander, Slander, Slander, i just told you not 5 minutes ago that i listen intently to what your saying because of your expertise, how is that telling you to listen to my all mighty opinion, its not. However as someone who lives a mere mile away from where this trouble was going on, and work in the area i felt i could share an opinion, living right on the doorstep of one of the roughest places in the UK, but apparently i need a GCSE in it............i am and still will listen with open ears to what your saying please remember that, but youd do well not to just dismiss me because i dont teach each at a higher education level. Try living it for a bit of "experience".........

My qualifications relevant to this discussion (I have more in other areas) - First Class Honours Degree in Law, PgC in Research, PgC in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

My experience relevant to this discussion - Five years university lecturing at both undergraduate and postgraduate level (seven years as a researcher as I was a researcher for two years before gaining my lectureship) - my main areas being International / EU Law, Criminal Law, Law of Evidence, Human Rights Law and Constitutional Law. Two of my published articles related to educational development recommended at a national level. Experience in drafting new legislation (Scottish and UK wide). Participated in many international conferences with experts in all of the areas I lecture.

Honestly, and as I've said before, you need to accept that in some - just some areas, people are always going to know more than you about them and at a deeper level. I accept it about a great many areas as I illustrated above. Let it go...

I wont echo what i said in my last two responses but believe it or not i am aware and respectful of what your saying, but your essentially saying im not allowed a dickie bird (word) on the subject, because the moment you come in with a response i have to keep schtoom?

Thats not right, its probably the attitudes Politicians have that have caused this entir debate in the first place, you know better and no matter how many people that suffer the full punch of their hardline doctrine, labour or conservative, we will never know any better about how to sort out the problems, because us proletariat never gained the beaureacratic qualifications you need today in order to express your views.....

[zurich_allan]

Christ - yet more passive-aggresive Bull...

Fraf, there isn't enough room in a thread post for me to post all of the evidential basis of what I've said. Neither do I have the time right now while I'm taking a 5 minute break from marking resit assessments to actually look it up for specific references. You'll just have to accept that anything I've stated as fact, I've done so because there's a very very strong evidential basis for it, not because I've made sweeping generalisations - because I don't do that. You'll have to take it that if I've said something's a fact I've done so for a reason. Your call if you don't believe me, all I can do is tell you my background. I'll let others on the forum decider whose opinion they'd believe.

When you're talking about the students you're talking about culture and work ethic - NOT intelligence which is measured in a number of different ways. I agree that many of the asian students in the institution I work at are streets ahead in terms of being respectful, hard working etc. However I've also seen my fair share that in spite of this simply aren't very clever...

I didn't say not to listen to anything MP's say - I said I'd never use their opinon to back up anything requiring objectivity - I was very specific about that, and yes, that's completely correct.

It IS a fact that Human Rights in this country have done more good than bad. It's not even a debatable point.

No, not all experts agree with everything relating to Human Rights Laws, as I said that I don't. However the arguments and evidence in the specific areas they are talking about are relevant and in the correct context based on research. The tabloid ones aren't.

I can have an 'opinion' that red is blue, it doesn't make it a VALID opinion...

There's no Slander here, slander is the spoken version of defamation. I should point out that libel on the other hand (what you're actually referring to) also doesn't apply. I know that law inside out and back to front.

Finally, I was very careful specifically NOT to simply mention qualifications. I combined qualifications AND experience. I know plenty of 'qualified' numpties who couldn't carry out a job in the area they're qualified in. I can, and have been for several years, with published work accepted by experts in the field who are more intelliegent and experienced than me.

Look I know you've got a massive chip on your shoulder about being young and not taken seriously - I've been there. I'm happy to admit I was EXACTLY like you a decade or so ago. I can identify with it. And you might retort that you don't, but you do. It's identifiable from a mile off. I look back now and realise that there are certain things you can only learn fully with experience - this area is one of them.

That's the last I have time to say as I said, I have work to get back to.

[FRAFPDD]

Not enough time is there? Convenient, i feel priveleged by the way that you choose to spend the little time you claim to have apparently, and full knowingly, engaging in arguments with someone who at the end you pull of the high and mighty "some people know better" clause,a and give yourself a big clap on the back for being so intellectually superior. Anyone can succeed at university, unforuntately the rest of us were four years too early in facing up to the reality of life and chose to spend it earning a living rather then dossing off the taxpayer, in case you were wondering what i think of pretentious universtity graduates.

My argumentativeness is a a direct result of the social delinquents on here that display discouraging traits of being total loners, probably bullied, that get high off consistently picking arguments over the internet, because they lack the minerals to say boo to a ghost in their real lives. Take of that as you wish, its crystal clear to see. Some people are just like that, not least over the internet. i could name half the people on here who i truly think are those people, and so could a few others.

Unfortunately, as if it wasnt clear as day to see, i lack the restraint not to rise to the bait of these people.

[darwin dali]

It's getting dodgy here... Just sayin'