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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    To encourage more people (especially from poorer backgrounds) to enter higher education. A more educated population is a better one.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You only pay back when you are earning £21,000 or more so people who are dis encouraged are just ignorant and why would people from poorer backgrounds not go as a result?Poorer students should really be encouraged by the current system as the student grants offered to them are very generous.

    At the moment there is far too many people going in for degrees such that a lot of graduates can't get a job, there should only be so many places to university such that everyone who passed was guaranteed a graduate job on completion of the degree(the places would be calculated adjusting for several factors like those going in for PHDs/Masters and those who will fail the degree).

    To add to this, degrees are far too overcrowded it can be very hard to see or listen to whatever is on a board or whatever the lecturer is saying packed into a lecture hall, there can be 200 students in just one lecture ridiculous:eek:

    You can see the extent to the problem from what happened in my AS Geography lesson ,where we found out virtually everyone was working class and we were all trying to become middle class by studying A Levels to get into University and get a good job clearly all the working class can't become middle class so there is a big problem of over ambition in the country, we need people to work in Mcdonalds and to stock shelves and in large numbers or businesses couldn't sell to customers and loads of jobs would be lost, we need people to fail to become middle class.

    I find it surprising how so many left wing supporters are opposed to tuition fees and I can never understand the reason for it(I am a Green Supporter but tuition fees are one policy I disagree with them on) because the way it works where you pay back 9% of all money over £21,000 is exactly like a tax and yet the Green Party and left wingers generally support tax and this tax is being charged on those with good jobs at pretty low rates when you think about it £90 you pay back a year on £22,000 a year.

    It is perfectly reasonable for people once they have been successful and got a good job to expect to give back to the University that helped them get the job.Without high tuition fees then the Universities probably wouldn't be funded as well and our higher education wouldn't be one of the best in the world or even possibly the best.

    The raise to £9,000 actually was a good idea as this raised the repayment starting rate to £21,000 and from this link you can gather that students aren't on average going to pay more as the Government isn't making any more than it did under the old system but what actually is happening is that the new system is targeting those on really high wages, who will now pay three times as much as they did before.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    I can't see anything that supports your claim that half of all smokers die from smoking.
    I'm not fully certain about that statement about half of smokes dieing from the habit, although it is most probably true. What I do know which is enough to back up the fact that the cons completely outweigh the pros is that every 15 **** that you smoke causes a mutation that leads to cancerous tumours.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    We should reduce foreign aid massively
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Top line "Tobacco kills up to half of its users."


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This doesn't support what you said. The phrase is 'up to'. They are being deliberately vague and liberal in their estimation despite having no scientific evidence to support that claim. If you can find me a single piece of actual scientific research that concludes that smoking kills half of its users I will concede, but I know that isn't going to happen because it isn't measurable and I very much doubt it's true.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    That loving the same sex is not natural
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jgco2chem)
    That loving the same sex is not natural
    I share that view tbh.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of feminists either have daddy issues or cant pull a guy.
    Religion is laughable and should be mocked as such.
    People who lack qualifications should be shamed.
    Subjects like art and music have no place in schools.
    etc etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Charlotte15)
    I'm not fully certain about that statement about half of smokes dieing from the habit, although it is most probably true. What I do know which is enough to back up the fact that the cons completely outweigh the pros is that every 15 **** that you smoke causes a mutation that leads to cancerous tumours.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    These mutations sometimes lead to cancerous tumors, but they mostly do not. That is why 85% of lifetime male smokers and about 90% of lifetime female smokers do not get lung cancer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Charlotte15)
    I share that view tbh.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If we all loved the same sex, then the human race would become extinct
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Northern Ireland should be told to **** off.

    Being religious should count against immigrants as much as not speaking fluent English does.

    The license fee should be increased.

    Smoking should be banned in all public places and around children in any place.

    Israel and Palestine should both be told to **** off.

    The special relationship with the U.S. should end and any U.S. President who keeps extra-judicial prison camps open or who drones innocent people should be banned from entering the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adipoptosis)
    But a 15% chance of getting a disease which is incurable and almost always deadly is a huge risk.
    Perhaps you are more cautious than I am, but I do not see how anyone can view a 1.5/10 chance as 'huge'. The point of our discussion is whether that risk has been over hyped, and if one was to estimate this risk from the media hysteria about smoking having no previous knowledge on the subject I would wager a strong bet that the vast majority of people would estimate it to be much higher than it is - it is a risk, but an over hyped one.

    When doctors tell people to stop smoking its not to meet some target, i promise you.
    I choose not to believe that. Some doctors will act independent of this incentive but doctors are humans and economic actors who do respond to incentives - it's the key factor in the vast majority of them spending years in intensive education and training and going on to work in a stressful role and environment. The fact is that doctors are in a conflict of interests on this issue and the credibility of their position on smoking is therefore undermined.

    Its because we are exposed to the massive morbidity and mortality which smoking leads to, we see it everyday and to us it is a preventable problem.
    What you're essentially saying here is that due to the nature of your work, treating the ill, you have a blinkered view of smoking as something that rains death on anyone who indulges in it. Do you have the same view towards cars as a result of seeing a disproportionate number of injuries as a result of road accidents?

    The only positive health implication is on mental health - stress relief (that I know of). I would argue there are healthier ways to achieve stress relief.
    You clearly know very little about a subject you are so confident speaking about. Smoking has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the chance of Parkinson's disease, breast cancer, ulcerative colitis and a vast range of other illnesses and diseases. More generally, it has been shown to improve memory, enhance concentration and motivation and reduce stress and anxiety - independent of addiction. The fact that a doctor doesn't know about these is testament to just how ridiculously vilified smoking has become. It is the Jew of contemporary society.

    I would concede that for people who are already heavily addicted its difficult to do something about it but we should try as hard as possible to stop people from starting.
    I think we should let people alone to make their own lifestyle choices.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That if homosexuality is ok incest should be too


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous #2)
    I forgot about all the small children going around reading warning labels.
    Uh, yeah. I guess you did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    ...
    Well now you mention it I do remember being taught about UC and Breast Cancer. But the reason we don't remember these things is because they're so irrelevant. You're not going to tell someone to smoke to reduce their risk of breast cancer by some tiny amount when smoking has a 15% chance of lung cancer! (and causes Head & Neck and Upper GI malignancy). The slant is anti-smoking. As it should be because the benefits are so marginal compared to the risks.

    I do have that view towards dangerous drivers yes. Definitely. The amount of avoidable death and injury there is completely staggering. Just because some idiotic drivers feel the need to get somewhere 5 seconds faster.

    What you're saying about doctors being economic actors may be true at a theoretical level and I actually agree in this notion of everyone being driven by economic factors but the application of this principle to smoking is completely and utterly ridiculous if you understood the dynamics of the NHS or had an practical experience. Just take my word for it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    These mutations sometimes lead to cancerous tumors, but they mostly do not. That is why 85% of lifetime male smokers and about 90% of lifetime female smokers do not get lung cancer.
    Yeah but lets be fair here, do you share this view because you smoke yourself and all smokers seem to be extremely ignorant and deluded to the risks?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Hey guys,

    As the title says, what is the view you hold deemed most "controversial" in this society we live in today in Britain?
    I guess something people always get outraged about is that I think muslims are worse than nazis.

    not that i think the nazis are ok. i think nazis were evil. but i just think islam is worse.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    no more exams! everything should be practical
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    I guess something people always get outraged about is that I think muslims are worse than nazis.

    not that i think the nazis are ok. i think nazis were evil. but i just think islam is worse.
    Hmmm ok....

    Wait Islam or muslims?
    Do you think that every single muslim is evil. Ironic because I think many Germans would have thought the exact same thing about the Jews.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Charlotte15)
    Yeah but lets be fair here, do you share this view because you smoke yourself and all smokers seem to be extremely ignorant and deluded to the risks?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't understand what you're asking. What I said in that quote weren't views, they were facts.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    I don't understand what you're asking. What I said in that quote weren't views, they were facts.
    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1422145498.278545.jpg
Views: 388
Size:  121.0 KB
    Where are you getting your facts from? Just found the complete contradiction to your post before.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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.