Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by binarythoughts)
    Not to intervene in this pleasant and constructive debate but the dude is simply saying he's done some research on the topic and you do keep retaliating with his age; you can do better than that
    I think you'll find he was the first person to start attacking me.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Just stating the obvious. Telling you that you don't understand what you're talking about (which is a logical statement based on a lot of evidence that you've generously given me) isn't the same thing as telling me that I've got "my head in my arse". One's a fact, the other's an insult.
    No it's not. Also, a fact can still be an insult. That doesn't negate anything whatsoever. It's also fact that you were the one who started with the insults and then cried foul when you got them back and were spoken to in the same condescending manner you speak to others.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    I don't have to be an active research scientist to understand the basics of climatology! I don't understand what's so difficult to get about that! That's like telling an A-Level student they don't understand basic differential calculus because they're not a PhD researching advanced topology! I'm not claiming to be at the forefront of climatological research, I'm claiming to understand the basics - which I do, in contrast to you. You do not have to be a world-leading researcher of your field to understand it! You wouldn't tell a voter that they don't understand politics on the basis that they didn't study it at university!
    What part of devils advocate do you fail to grasp? For someone that professes to be quite quick at grasping the basics you seem somewhat incapable of grasping the fact that I actually agree with your stance, just vehemently disagree with the approach you take on this forum in abusing and taking a condescending attitude with those that have a different viewpoint. The difference is, I believe man has had an impact on global warming to some degree. How much is very much open to debate and that is still discussed within the scientific community now. The difference is I don't go around the forum jumping down peoples throats and abusing them like I'm some know it all even at my age now. i certainly didn't at your age.

    The entire point of my initial post was not to put forward my viewpoint on climate change because if I wanted to do that I'd go and discuss such a topic with academics in the field on sites like Reddit as opposed to GCSE level teenagers on here. My point was exposing you for the condescending and abusing person you are. As illustrated, I've clearly been successful.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    I never. claimed. to. have. done. academic. research. I have read a lot around the subject and therefore understand the basics. I understand the overall arguments and the foundations of climate dynamics. I don't have to be a published academic to understand that.
    Oh right. I have read a lot about artificial intelligence and string theory as well but that doesn't make me a genius who has the right to go around the forum being condescending towards others who have a different viewpoint.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Back to the topic of this thread, I think there should be a system which stops one from giving rep to rep baiting posts (that is, posts just containing something funny and only vaguely related to the topic of the thread [often regarding a play on words] for the sole intention to get rep without actually contributing to the thread- I admit that I am very guilty of this myself], although I do not know how a system could work in practice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-colony.html

    My family originate from both Kenya and India. In my opinion, from what I've seen and heard from my family, I believe both of these of these countries were better off and still would be better off under colonial rule. That said, the people living in those colonies should all be under the same rules and have the same privileges regardless of race, gender, sexuality ect.

    The decline happened when westerners couldn't afford to run the colonies any more and pulled out, leaving huge holes in the countries that the natives weren't equipped to fill.
    When you say India and Kenya, do you mean indian migrants who settled in Kenya?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    Certain people are weak-willed individuals who choose to ignore the people who tell them the cold hard truth, such as 'I am better than you' or 'there is no opinion here, here are the facts, I am right you are wrong'. This goes back to special snowflake entitlement complex
    Who is better or not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I never did. I never claimed I was a published academic. The only one claiming that I said that is you. Half of your arguments have been based on my age, which is completely irrelevant. I've explained explicitly several times now that I'm not and never claimed to be a published academic and I also explained that you don't have to be a world-leading researcher to understand the basics of a subject - yet you're blanking me.
    You still seem unable to comprehend that you were drawn in like a little fish on a hook. It's a great shame really but your undying emotive driven intolerance of anyone with a different viewpoint on the subject was your downfall here. The concept of devils advocate is one that has been used in debating for years and years.

    I agree with your stance but find your brash, insulting and condescending attitude towards anyone with a different viewpoint disgusting. Not only that, but for that attitude to come from someone who is 18/19 is even more laughable when you have done no proper credible research of your own. Please tell me how you can critically analyse research methods when you've never done any of your own on such a sophisticated level? I actually find it incredibly hilarious.

    One day you'll probably go on to become very successful but in order to do so you really need to stop being so bloody emotive about something and open your eyes to the wider perspective on a subject.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix.forllz)
    Who is better or not?
    is complicated but would also get me banned.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Men and women should remain virgins till marriage.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SheldorOfAzeroth)
    As well as behavioural characteristics e.g. aggressiveness, politeness, intelligence even..
    Source?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    is complicated but would also get me banned.
    But you said you didnt get how peopleget on, how is that better?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrightonDunkley)
    1) The burqa should be completely banned

    2) Immediate deportation of illegal immigrants

    3) All rapists should be castrated

    Personally I have no idea why any of these would be considered controversial but apparently they are

    I wonder why you think the burqa should be banned...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    When you say India and Kenya, do you mean indian migrants who settled in Kenya?
    Yep, my great grandparents on my dads side and my grandparents on my mums side. Although the majority of my dads family still lives in India
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    I think you'll find he was the first person to start attacking me.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    No it's not. Also, a fact can still be an insult. That doesn't negate anything whatsoever. It's also fact that you were the one who started with the insults and then cried foul when you got them back and were spoken to in the same condescending manner you speak to others.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    What part of devils advocate do you fail to grasp? For someone that professes to be quite quick at grasping the basics you seem somewhat incapable of grasping the fact that I actually agree with your stance, just vehemently disagree with the approach you take on this forum in abusing and taking a condescending attitude with those that have a different viewpoint. The difference is, I believe man has had an impact on global warming to some degree. How much is very much open to debate and that is still discussed within the scientific community now. The difference is I don't go around the forum jumping down peoples throats and abusing them like I'm some know it all even at my age now. i certainly didn't at your age.

    The entire point of my initial post was not to put forward my viewpoint on climate change because if I wanted to do that I'd go and discuss such a topic with academics in the field on sites like Reddit as opposed to GCSE level teenagers on here. My point was exposing you for the condescending and abusing person you are. As illustrated, I've clearly been successful.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    Oh right. I have read a lot about artificial intelligence and string theory as well but that doesn't make me a genius who has the right to go around the forum being condescending towards others who have a different viewpoint.
    I was never "abusive". If you're accusing me of being "condescending" then yes, I'd happily accept that. I try to be respectful but respect has a limit. If all of the data you're able to produce is a time series from one point on the planet and a random array of conspiratorial arguments with no evidence to back them up, I am not going to treat you with the same respect as someone who's trying to have an evidence based discussion. We're not discussing something arbitrary like the existence of God, climate change is an incredibly important issue. It's precisely this contrarian, "I'll believe what I want because I know better than the experts" attitude that's the prevailing cause of denialism. Climate change is too important for that, the stakes are too high to allow people to parade around believing whatever suits their political orientation.

    You use the word "belief", but belief has absolutely no part in this discussion. The only important thing is science - the argument should be scientific and only scientific. All of the evidence is strongly in favour of the prevailing scientific opinion and once again, you've not brought forward any evidence that negates that. If you've got an argument and someone keeps screaming "YOU'RE WRONG" over and over and over again without any kind of evidence to back them up, you're going to lose your patience eventually! I'm more than happy to have a calm discussion with someone if they're willing to use evidence but you're not.

    And with your last paragraph... I don't understand why you've got this attitude that all "viewpoints" are respectable in science. If your point of view is contradicted by virtually all available evidence, it's not a respectable point of view. If you know something about string theory, a subject I don't know much about, and it makes sense and it's backed up by data then I've got no reason not to accept that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix.forllz)
    But you said you didnt get how peopleget on, how is that better?
    sorry I don't follow?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Yep, my great grandparents on my dads side and my grandparents on my mums side. Although the majority of my dads family still lives in India

    Whole different story then. Indians were given opportunities and jobs by the british in african colonies such as kenya. So under British most INDIAN migrants would have benefited due to projects such as building railways in africa, not the actual INDIGINEOUS kenyans.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Such a naive thing to say. Do you really think the inhabitants of the middle east and africa would just let to control their lands... Ofcourse not.. Countries such as Tunisia have reformed constitutions and are very free. They don't need the West to further destroy their ruined countries in the name of "freedom".
    No but then that's why it would require controversial means. Indeed, i respect a Tunisia a lot (an Arab Spring country which elected a secular government) and i also respect Morroco (slowly transitioning to a constitutional monarchy) however we would'nt take the nations doing fine on their own. Unfortunately though between the likes of Syria and Iraq and Mali or the Sudan there are plenty of countries which are nothing but stains on our world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I was never "abusive"..
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post53178527

    Also a liar.

    This conversation is done. I don't wish to discuss anything with liars.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    You still seem unable to comprehend that you were drawn in like a little fish on a hook. It's a great shame really but your undying emotive driven intolerance of anyone with a different viewpoint on the subject was your downfall here. The concept of devils advocate is one that has been used in debating for years and years.

    I agree with your stance but find your brash, insulting and condescending attitude towards anyone with a different viewpoint disgusting. Not only that, but for that attitude to come from someone who is 18/19 is even more laughable when you have done no proper credible research of your own. Please tell me how you can critically analyse research methods when you've never done any of your own on such a sophisticated level? I actually find it incredibly hilarious.

    One day you'll probably go on to become very successful but in order to do so you really need to stop being so bloody emotive about something and open your eyes to the wider perspective on a subject.
    Because I have a brain and I have common sense. I have read about the arguments put forward and they make complete sense. I've read through experimental protocols and whilst I'm not an expert on the subject, I can't see anything wrong with them (whereas I can see a lot wrong with the arguments put forward by the other side) and on top of that, there's absolutely no reason why the entire global climatological community would be saying one thing if there wasn't a very good reason to believe it. Consensuses can be wrong. On the other hand, consensuses are built on the best available data and since that's all we can act upon, we should accept the consensus. It's just common sense. There's no reason to do the polar opposite of what the people best informed to know are telling us to do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Because I have a brain and I have common sense.
    You really need to withdraw your head from your own ******** and I say that as someone that agrees with your viewpoint. However, your attitude is ****ing disgusting. Grow up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am pro-benefits
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No but then that's why it would require controversial means. Indeed, i respect a Tunisia a lot (an Arab Spring country which elected a secular government) and i also respect Morroco (slowly transitioning to a constitutional monarchy) however we would'nt take the nations doing fine on their own. Unfortunately though between the likes of Syria and Iraq and Mali or the Sudan there are plenty of countries which are nothing but stains on our world.
    If you looked into the history of many of these countries you class as "stains" you'd discover that the "superior" values of the West have lead to such "stains" such as in Iraq, by firstly supporting a dictator, then illegally going in and taking him out, causing civil war, anger, which has ultimatley lead to what it has today. Sudan's failure as a state has also been due to colonialism, both from the west and the arab world. These countries don't need "invading", they need "rebuilding". A coup will solve nothing as we have seen time and time again from history.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.