This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- gay/bi muslims
- International Uni Thoughts
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- self hating lesbian??? (help)
- Gay and Muslim
- gay people at warwick/coventry
- Male boundaries and sexuality
- EPQ title help - homosexuality in literature
- I am I gay or straight
- Psychology 8 marker
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- discuss the view that the idea of Purgatory makes more sense than Hell
- Right lads, pants (underwear) survey.
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Truth or Dare? 😈
- Flamboyant and straight but not effeminate
- is it bad to like mean girls?
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by L i b
To play devil's advocate to some extent, you could well argue that the 'nature and consequences of a sex act' (beyond pregnancy, which we've largely managed to overcome through contraception) are completely social constructs.
The emotional damage to children caused by sex at a young age isn't really about the act, it's about the status and expectations we hold of the act.
The emotional damage to children caused by sex at a young age isn't really about the act, it's about the status and expectations we hold of the act.
Well aware of that. But at the end of the day, this is the law and that's the end of it.
Original post by uktotalgamer
This is a mature forum. Take your OMG's and immaturity elsewhere.
make me. Bitch
Original post by nohaynada
I'm really worried that 9 people negged you. That's disgusting, there are at least 9 paedophiles on this forum apparently.
I know right. Disgustin ****s. :/
Depends on what you mean by paedophilia, I have nothing against people who are attracted to children so long as they don't act on that (although as a precaution, if I had children I wouldn't allow them to have unsupervised access to them), like homosexuality, it is natural. However I would never accept adult-child sexual relationships in the way I accept same-sex relationships because a child is not mature enough to give consent.
Are homosexuals really being compared to paedophiles...? :|
You can't help who you're attracted to, but paedophiles aren't accepted because they act on their feelings. Whats worse is that their victim are children who are completely defenceless and clueless. If a homosexual acted upon their desire and raped or physically abused someone who they were attracted to, then that wouldn't be acceptable either. However that's not the case.
You can't help who you're attracted to, but paedophiles aren't accepted because they act on their feelings. Whats worse is that their victim are children who are completely defenceless and clueless. If a homosexual acted upon their desire and raped or physically abused someone who they were attracted to, then that wouldn't be acceptable either. However that's not the case.
At the end of the day, here are a lot of sick and twisted people out there and likewise there are many different illicit, vile and harmful sexual practices out there. Paedophilia is one, pornography is another as is sadomasochism. These are all extremely harmful, twisted and illicit means of gratifying one's self.
One may argue that if a person has these natural feelings and attractions, he can act upon them to fulfil his 'natural' desires. This is absolutely wrong. We humans have the intelligence and ability to control ourselves and regulate our passions, desires and emotions. This separates us from animals who blindly give in to their natural inclinations and don't have the ability or intelligence to regulate and control and develop their attributes as well as humans do.
Humans have many different feelings and passions and if we were to give in and follow blindly each one, we would live an animalistic existence and eventually die out. So the very purpose of human life is to develop ourselves and regulate our behaviour by not giving in to our low desires and rising above all those base desires, humans have the power to do that which is why all these vile sexual methods of gratification should be very strongly condemned and spoken against otherwise once a person has even a small sexual feeling he will think that it is all right to watch porn, to engage in sadomasochism and look at naked children with ill intent because society gives him the license to do so.
Now coming on to homosexuality. It is just another branch of these illicit means of sexual gratification. Where to you draw the line? After this maybe people will start thinking paedophilia is OK. It's an obvious and undeniable fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It's blatantly obvious. A man should remember that it is because of the union of a man and woman that he exists. If his parents were homosexuals, then he wouldn't even exist today.
The very basic purpose of a relationship between a man and woman is so that they may find comfort in one another and may thereby create offspring who will carry on their works and their name after they have gone. If people start thinking and believing that homosexuality is the norm and acceptable, then every 15 year old going through puberty, who has the slightest feeling of attraction and interest in men will feel as though it is all right to carry that onwards and explore that interest leaving aside women all together.
Are people blind that they can't see the fact that women were made for men as partners. Yes, no one denies the inherent human need for a mate, yet when one is clearly there in front of you, why look the other way and go after people of the same sex? Opposites attract and true comfort and fulfilment in a partner can and will only be found in the way nature intended it - between a man and a woman.
If you're still not convinced reading this, then what say you about the rising trend in HIV/AIDS in gay men more than any other group?
November 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380
February 2013: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21277450
When you go against nature, nature is bound to punish you and severely. Imagine if you continue this façade of 'protecting' human rights by giving gay people the right to hinder the procreation process, cease the continuation of progeny and deny any adopted child of the motherly comfort of a woman or the fatherly support of a man. Yes, a man and a woman are best for bringing up a child well. A mother provides the love, tenderness and motherly instinct to care for the child while the father gives that sturdy moral support, discipline and direction with which a child, girl or boy may fully develop in to a sound minded and upright individual.
Imagine where the world would end up, the history of nations past bears testimony to the fact that when in any nation, homosexuality became widespread, the wrath of God descended down and destroyed everything in its wake. The Qur'an as well as the Bible teach this so it is surprising and shocking to hear those prominent Christians including the Pope & Desmond Tutu turning a blind eye to that same book and those same principles for which they supposedly stand for.
Coming back to the point about human rights. Where is the human rights in depriving the female population of the right of a male spouse? There are more women than men in the world, if more men turn to other men then where are these poor women left to turn to? Or should they also turn to their own sex and leave off men? Where are the human rights in denying a child the benefits of a mother and father upbringing? Where are the human rights in cutting off any future progeny and denying the world children who may end up curing cancer, abolishing poverty, bringing world peace, justice and harmony? True human rights would be in safeguarding the society and those with homosexual tendencies from the harm caused by going against the very law of nature. True human rights is in protecting people from something harmful even if they insist in doing something that may give some temporary pleasure. A child may want to play with a knife and cry and scream for it, but would a wise mother or father give in to such a child's demands? Most certainly not.
So while it seems giving homosexuals the right to marriage and justifying their relationships is giving them their due human rights, where is the sense in giving a small percentage of people human rights which would then in turn take away the human rights of humanity and the future? True human rights is protecting people from something that is harmful even if they insist in engaging in it. See, the British government did a great job in the 1930s in crushing extremism and not letting it take root. Thousands supported extremist ideologies yet the government didn't let it take root. Now thousands support homosexuality under the guise of 'human rights'. Well give extremists the 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' to express their filth, hate and evil. If we're going to to give everyone the 'freedom of speech' and 'human rights' to do and say whatever they like and please then let the child in the school swear, let anti-Semitics deny the holocaust and let the raving mad terrorist express their anger and inner discontent. Where do we stop?
Yet children aren't aloud to swear in schools because we have laws, rules and principles. We don't let extremists have their way because we have justice, rights and values which protect each individual from harming himself and others. We don't tolerate anti-Semitism because we are a open-minded, fair and egalitarian nation.
We should help the oppressed and the oppressor. Both are being harmed, one has inherent malcontent and distress and thus is oppressed by his own mind. The other is harmed due to that one's malcontent and evil. A school bully only bullies other innocent children due to his own problems and issues and finds a way to express them through mocking and hurting others. So you help the bully, the problem goes away. But if the bully can't be helped then you help the victim and protect him from the machinations of the bully. We don't say that because the bully or the terrorist has human rights, he can do what he wants.
Human rights and the freedom to do what you want stops at the point when you hurt, offend or harm others including yourself. So when we see that homosexuality and the freedom and openness that we give to it ends up harming the individual, the partner, potential legitimate partners, children, society and the future, nation and world at large eventually, then we have to drawn a line and say enough is enough.
A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings. Likewise if we give a small extremist thought or any minor ill feeling or base passion to develop and give it legitimacy in society then once it take root, cutting it off remains a struggle. This is why we must regulate our desires, thoughts, passions and feelings. We should cut out any negative, ill or bad thoughts or feelings before they take root otherwise if we allow them to develop then our very character is put into jeopardy.
Man has the power and ability to change himself. We are in control of our own selves if we want to be. We don't have to give in to our base desires and passions. We have the power to develop noble and high qualities within ourselves. You are the captain of your ship.
“Watch your thoughts for they become words.
Watch your words for they become actions.
Watch your actions for they become habits.
Watch your habits for they become your character.
And watch your character for it becomes your destiny.
What we think and feel, we become.
One may argue that if a person has these natural feelings and attractions, he can act upon them to fulfil his 'natural' desires. This is absolutely wrong. We humans have the intelligence and ability to control ourselves and regulate our passions, desires and emotions. This separates us from animals who blindly give in to their natural inclinations and don't have the ability or intelligence to regulate and control and develop their attributes as well as humans do.
Humans have many different feelings and passions and if we were to give in and follow blindly each one, we would live an animalistic existence and eventually die out. So the very purpose of human life is to develop ourselves and regulate our behaviour by not giving in to our low desires and rising above all those base desires, humans have the power to do that which is why all these vile sexual methods of gratification should be very strongly condemned and spoken against otherwise once a person has even a small sexual feeling he will think that it is all right to watch porn, to engage in sadomasochism and look at naked children with ill intent because society gives him the license to do so.
Now coming on to homosexuality. It is just another branch of these illicit means of sexual gratification. Where to you draw the line? After this maybe people will start thinking paedophilia is OK. It's an obvious and undeniable fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It's blatantly obvious. A man should remember that it is because of the union of a man and woman that he exists. If his parents were homosexuals, then he wouldn't even exist today.
The very basic purpose of a relationship between a man and woman is so that they may find comfort in one another and may thereby create offspring who will carry on their works and their name after they have gone. If people start thinking and believing that homosexuality is the norm and acceptable, then every 15 year old going through puberty, who has the slightest feeling of attraction and interest in men will feel as though it is all right to carry that onwards and explore that interest leaving aside women all together.
Are people blind that they can't see the fact that women were made for men as partners. Yes, no one denies the inherent human need for a mate, yet when one is clearly there in front of you, why look the other way and go after people of the same sex? Opposites attract and true comfort and fulfilment in a partner can and will only be found in the way nature intended it - between a man and a woman.
If you're still not convinced reading this, then what say you about the rising trend in HIV/AIDS in gay men more than any other group?
November 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380
February 2013: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21277450
When you go against nature, nature is bound to punish you and severely. Imagine if you continue this façade of 'protecting' human rights by giving gay people the right to hinder the procreation process, cease the continuation of progeny and deny any adopted child of the motherly comfort of a woman or the fatherly support of a man. Yes, a man and a woman are best for bringing up a child well. A mother provides the love, tenderness and motherly instinct to care for the child while the father gives that sturdy moral support, discipline and direction with which a child, girl or boy may fully develop in to a sound minded and upright individual.
Imagine where the world would end up, the history of nations past bears testimony to the fact that when in any nation, homosexuality became widespread, the wrath of God descended down and destroyed everything in its wake. The Qur'an as well as the Bible teach this so it is surprising and shocking to hear those prominent Christians including the Pope & Desmond Tutu turning a blind eye to that same book and those same principles for which they supposedly stand for.
Coming back to the point about human rights. Where is the human rights in depriving the female population of the right of a male spouse? There are more women than men in the world, if more men turn to other men then where are these poor women left to turn to? Or should they also turn to their own sex and leave off men? Where are the human rights in denying a child the benefits of a mother and father upbringing? Where are the human rights in cutting off any future progeny and denying the world children who may end up curing cancer, abolishing poverty, bringing world peace, justice and harmony? True human rights would be in safeguarding the society and those with homosexual tendencies from the harm caused by going against the very law of nature. True human rights is in protecting people from something harmful even if they insist in doing something that may give some temporary pleasure. A child may want to play with a knife and cry and scream for it, but would a wise mother or father give in to such a child's demands? Most certainly not.
So while it seems giving homosexuals the right to marriage and justifying their relationships is giving them their due human rights, where is the sense in giving a small percentage of people human rights which would then in turn take away the human rights of humanity and the future? True human rights is protecting people from something that is harmful even if they insist in engaging in it. See, the British government did a great job in the 1930s in crushing extremism and not letting it take root. Thousands supported extremist ideologies yet the government didn't let it take root. Now thousands support homosexuality under the guise of 'human rights'. Well give extremists the 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' to express their filth, hate and evil. If we're going to to give everyone the 'freedom of speech' and 'human rights' to do and say whatever they like and please then let the child in the school swear, let anti-Semitics deny the holocaust and let the raving mad terrorist express their anger and inner discontent. Where do we stop?
Yet children aren't aloud to swear in schools because we have laws, rules and principles. We don't let extremists have their way because we have justice, rights and values which protect each individual from harming himself and others. We don't tolerate anti-Semitism because we are a open-minded, fair and egalitarian nation.
We should help the oppressed and the oppressor. Both are being harmed, one has inherent malcontent and distress and thus is oppressed by his own mind. The other is harmed due to that one's malcontent and evil. A school bully only bullies other innocent children due to his own problems and issues and finds a way to express them through mocking and hurting others. So you help the bully, the problem goes away. But if the bully can't be helped then you help the victim and protect him from the machinations of the bully. We don't say that because the bully or the terrorist has human rights, he can do what he wants.
Human rights and the freedom to do what you want stops at the point when you hurt, offend or harm others including yourself. So when we see that homosexuality and the freedom and openness that we give to it ends up harming the individual, the partner, potential legitimate partners, children, society and the future, nation and world at large eventually, then we have to drawn a line and say enough is enough.
A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings. Likewise if we give a small extremist thought or any minor ill feeling or base passion to develop and give it legitimacy in society then once it take root, cutting it off remains a struggle. This is why we must regulate our desires, thoughts, passions and feelings. We should cut out any negative, ill or bad thoughts or feelings before they take root otherwise if we allow them to develop then our very character is put into jeopardy.
Man has the power and ability to change himself. We are in control of our own selves if we want to be. We don't have to give in to our base desires and passions. We have the power to develop noble and high qualities within ourselves. You are the captain of your ship.
“Watch your thoughts for they become words.
Watch your words for they become actions.
Watch your actions for they become habits.
Watch your habits for they become your character.
And watch your character for it becomes your destiny.
What we think and feel, we become.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Well aware of that. But at the end of the day, this is the law and that's the end of it.
I'm afraid I consider that very much the start of it rather than the end. That something is the law is a fact. We use facts to inform our opinions and discussions on what the law ought to be, and what morality involves.
Facts are foundations for discourse, never ends in themselves.
The difference is consent and that's it really.
It will never be socially acceptable because you would be terrified for your children's safety (and enough people have/ know kids to make this a general problem) as they are pretty powerless and vulnerable. Would you leave your child with an admitted paedophile? Unlike an unwanted sexual advance directed at an adult that can be rebuffed, a child would have few defences.
I was sexually abused when younger (not by a paedophile as it didn't start until I hit puberty) and I genuinely had little understanding of what was happening and why it was happening. In this case it was clearly an abuser taking advantage but the point is I had no way to extract myself from the situation because for a long time I assumed the adult knew better than me.
I think mental health care professionals should concentrate on helping the person suppress their desires and help them understand that while their feelings aren't wrong they could never act on them as children cannot give consent. Also that porn showing children can only be made by hurting them so they should not access that either. If the person happens to also be attracted to adults it should be suggested that only with a consenting adult could they have a proper relationship. However, you cannot force the person to do that.
It will never be socially acceptable because you would be terrified for your children's safety (and enough people have/ know kids to make this a general problem) as they are pretty powerless and vulnerable. Would you leave your child with an admitted paedophile? Unlike an unwanted sexual advance directed at an adult that can be rebuffed, a child would have few defences.
I was sexually abused when younger (not by a paedophile as it didn't start until I hit puberty) and I genuinely had little understanding of what was happening and why it was happening. In this case it was clearly an abuser taking advantage but the point is I had no way to extract myself from the situation because for a long time I assumed the adult knew better than me.
I think mental health care professionals should concentrate on helping the person suppress their desires and help them understand that while their feelings aren't wrong they could never act on them as children cannot give consent. Also that porn showing children can only be made by hurting them so they should not access that either. If the person happens to also be attracted to adults it should be suggested that only with a consenting adult could they have a proper relationship. However, you cannot force the person to do that.
Many people tend to be against relationships they find strange or 'gross'. It wasn't so long ago that homosexuals were discriminated against and people claimed it was unnatural for two same-sex individuals to be attracted and have a relationship. Personally I define pedophilia as the attraction towards children, which isn't wrong in itself if it can't be helped. Again, this is considered odd and disgusting, I'd only consider it that if they acted upon those feelings, they need to be able to control themselves. Also I don't find incest morally wrong either if they're attracted and consenting, just as long as conception isn't involved.
Bottom line is most people are immature and quick to dismiss certain things out of the ordinary as weird and shouldn't be permitted or accepted.
Bottom line is most people are immature and quick to dismiss certain things out of the ordinary as weird and shouldn't be permitted or accepted.
It's an obvious and undeniable fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It's blatantly obvious. A man should remember that it is because of the union of a man and woman that he exists. If his parents were homosexuals, then he wouldn't even exist today.
Homosexuality is often seen in the animal kingdom so I guess it is pretty natural. Also sperm donation and surrogacy mean gay people can have biological children (not to mention they can adopt/foster children with nowhere else to go). Yay, science!
So I guess you won’t have a problem with it now? If everyone was gay the males could donate sperm and the females could carry the children so looks like the human race would survive even if that did happen (which is pretty unlikely as most people are born heterosexual).
If you're still not convinced reading this, then what say you about the rising trend in HIV/AIDS in gay men more than any other group?
When you go against nature, nature is bound to punish you and severely.
When you go against nature, nature is bound to punish you and severely.
Then why does anyone straight get AIDS? Why are babies born with AIDS? I mean giving birth is so very natural according to you. Maybe because it’s a disease and not some sort of punishment made for a specific group of people.
Coming back to the point about human rights. Where is the human rights in depriving the female population of the right of a male spouse? There are more women than men in the world, if more men turn to other men then where are these poor women left to turn to?
Even if there were totally equal numbers of men and women not everyone would get together. You may never find someone you like, your proposed spouse could die, you may prefer living alone, you may be asexual, you may decide to take a vow of celibacy, etc. Also, you know, lesbians exist.
How is it better to end up married to summon who finds you sexually unattractive? How soul destroying would that be?
A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings. Likewise if we give a small extremist thought or any minor ill feeling or base passion to develop and give it legitimacy in society then once it take root, cutting it off remains a struggle. This is why we must regulate our desires, thoughts, passions and feelings. We should cut out any negative, ill or bad thoughts or feelings before they take root otherwise if we allow them to develop then our very character is put into jeopardy.
Comparing homosexuality to terrorism is just ridiculous. One KILLS people the other doesn’t, can you figure out which one?
I hope you can see how your argument is incredibly misguided and not based in any fact.
Original post by nohaynada
I'm really worried that 9 people negged you. That's disgusting, there are at least 9 paedophiles on this forum apparently.
I'm sorry, WHAT?
That is the most childish logic I've ever seen.
"Omg you disagree with me so you must be a paedo EWWW"
???
Original post by Amelia-Babe
This thread is disgusting and nothing can justify this.
So tell me please, "babe", what exactly have I done that is so 'unjustifiable'?
Asked a blatantly hypothetical question?
xxxxxxxxxxxxx luv u
Original post by Psyk
I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the similarities they do have. The OP didn't deny they have big differences as well. No need to get offended by it
You're an angel, thank you for understanding.
Original post by mmmpie
Heterosexuality:
— viewed as 'unnatural' by some
— viewed as 'gross' by some
— is arguably just a natural preference
— viewed as 'unnatural' by some
— viewed as 'gross' by some
— is arguably just a natural preference
That makes no sense. Heterosexuals are never discriminated against for their sexuality. That's like arguing for white privilege or male privilege. It just doesn't work.
How can this question even be asked ?
Are you savile in disguise?
Are you savile in disguise?
If you like kids that's not your fault, I don't see why people should be branded monsters just because they like little kids. Unfortunately their preferences are not compatible with society so they should get compassionate help, not ostracized. Think about this. if someone comes to you saying that they like the thought of sex with 5 year old girls you would probably say hes a monster and call the police on them who would then arrest them and put them under surveillance. If the same person came to you saying he liked the thought of killing people you would probably say he needs help and call the nearest psychiatric ward.
Original post by BarackObama
That makes no sense. Heterosexuals are never discriminated against for their sexuality. That's like arguing for white privilege or male privilege. It just doesn't work.
Nevertheless, there's no objective difference between heterosexuality and anything else. You might as well ask why heterosexuality is acceptable but padeophilia isn't. It's an equally valid comparison.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
What? The difference is obvious - one involves someone who does not understand the nature or consequences of a sex act, and therefore cannot legally consent to it, and the other is two consenting adults having sex. There's a massive difference.
That's really the end of this thread.
EDIT: ChiefWiggum pointed out that paedophilia is just attraction to children, not necessarily doing anything with them. It's generally accepted that this is beyond the control of the paedophile in question, but I'd just like to clear that up - I do know the actual meaning of the word.
But hey, just because you're attracted to someone does not make it in any way acceptable to rape them.
That's really the end of this thread.
EDIT: ChiefWiggum pointed out that paedophilia is just attraction to children, not necessarily doing anything with them. It's generally accepted that this is beyond the control of the paedophile in question, but I'd just like to clear that up - I do know the actual meaning of the word.
But hey, just because you're attracted to someone does not make it in any way acceptable to rape them.
Not all people who are attracted to children, rape children or carry out any acts associated with paedophilism
Original post by A100whoo
Not all people who are attracted to children, rape children or carry out any acts associated with paedophilism
As I said in my post, I'm aware of that.
Original post by Stannisbaratheon
How can this question even be asked ?
Are you savile in disguise?
Are you savile in disguise?
Not in the slightest. I just noticed the other day that the arguments most commonly used against peadophilia – i.e. "it's gross" and "it's unnatural" – are the exact same ones as the ones that were used a few decades ago against homosexuality. So, I wondered whether or not it may be possible that, in the distant future, we start fighting for "peadophilic rights", too.
I'm a 17 year old girl who's bored out of her mind, so no, not Savile.
Related discussions
- gay/bi muslims
- International Uni Thoughts
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- self hating lesbian??? (help)
- Gay and Muslim
- gay people at warwick/coventry
- Male boundaries and sexuality
- EPQ title help - homosexuality in literature
- I am I gay or straight
- Psychology 8 marker
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- discuss the view that the idea of Purgatory makes more sense than Hell
- Right lads, pants (underwear) survey.
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Truth or Dare? 😈
- Flamboyant and straight but not effeminate
- is it bad to like mean girls?
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
