Turn on thread page Beta

The Commons Bar Mk IV watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCrackInTime)
    How would that work exactly? Other than "Don't have sex" what more is there to teach? Other than Abstinence +, of course. :holmes:


    Rep for anyone who gets the reference. Unless I've repped you too recently, in which case you'll have to make do with this :awesome:


    or:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Nothos)
    Why?
    As it covers all the bases so that then students can make informed decisions based on having lesson on safe sex and not practising sex at all... what I have said most likely sounds stupid but it is only fair to teach them everything rather than leaving parts out.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    JandT I'm not going to quote your post and reply line by line. I think we're kind of arguing at cross purposes and you're using edge cases.

    Obviously "best" is relative, but it is not as relative or at least a different kind of relativity to "preferred". Let's suppose that there are only 10 people in my village and we are choosing a new representative from the village. I can only think 1 of the people in the village is the best choice. However, I can rank all 10 in an order of preference. This is obvious and is the difference. FPTP looks to find the person who is considered the best by the largest number of people. AV doesn't. AV seeks to find the person who has the total net preference which is something along the lines of "most tolerable" or "least hated" etc.

    You will no doubt agree that everyone who votes for A as their first choice thinks (or ought to think) that he is the best man for the job. That they choose B for their second preference doesn't mean that after A is eliminated they suddenly think that B is the best man for the job. They still think A is the best. This is kind of like the football discussion. Those who think Kaka is the best footballer do not suddenly think Ronaldo is the best if Kaka is not a choice they can make.

    You could argue that AV should be used because an MP has a better mandate if he is the most tolerated. Others would argue that an MP has a stronger mandate if he is considered the best man for the job by the largest group of people. Perhaps this is the point that the No 2 AV people mean to make when they say that second preferences should not be given equal weighting to first preferences.

    Either way, I hope you can understand the point I'm making about the difference between asking "who is the best guy for the job" and "rank these guys in order of preference".
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)


    or:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    You don't get rep. :pierre:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Teaddict)


    or:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1628197

    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    With sex ed it should be telling kids to make up their own mind about 'it', while giving them the facts.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Don John)
    With sex ed it should be telling kids to make up their own mind about 'it', while giving them the facts.
    Is that your speech for Miss Commons next year?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    Is that your speech for Miss Commons next year?
    Nope, I was thinking of recommending it to our Edu Sec. Since we're the ones in government n' all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Oh this is absolutely hilarious.

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Received a yes campaign leaflet. I did this: :facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Received a yes campaign leaflet. I did this: :facepalm:
    That was probably me. The guys at the campaign office gave me the worst leaflets. Its more about encouraging people to vote than anything.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    That was probably me. The guys at the campaign office gave me the worst leaflets. Its more about encouraging people to vote than anything.
    They were atrocious. Encouraging people to vote is a good thing but doing so in tandem with feeding them that kind of nonsense isn't right because plenty of people will read it and believe it unquestioningly - luckily most of these people won't vote though. Oh well, the no campaign hasn't exactly been much better.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    And i don't think you're being entirely honest here, you've personally stated that you find it wrong that people would celebrate the death of Maggie Thatcher, but why not Bin Laden? Okay, i know she's not a war criminal, but look at it in perspective, to some people she is worse as in the grand scheme of things she's done a lot worse than a terrorist. It's impossible to have an absolute scale on whose death you can celebrate. It's ridiculously relative who you find wrong - is throwing thousands of children into poverty daily worse then bombing a hospital? You can't measure these things.
    Sorry, I just re-read this exchange and missed this part of your post, which I think is deserving of a response.

    I appreciate the difficulties in measuring the consequences of actions and determining which is 'worse', but I don't think her policies and actions had a greater negative impact on this country than Bin Laden's did with America. Bear in mind I study in Yorkshire, and have heard lots of first-hand stories from mates here about how the policies of Margaret Thatcher adversely affected their families, so I'm not just saying this from the position of a Londoner living in relative comfort.

    But it's not just the actions themselves. Something which separates Bin Laden from a lot of other people in my view is that I see him as inherently evil. He relishes in the deaths of innocent people who have done him no wrong, actively seeks to terrorise and murder the same people and shows no mercy.

    I'm not saying that there is a wickedness scale, with a certain score meaning we can get out the bunting upon your funeral, but like you, I think that celebrating someone's death is quite an extreme action to take and so I feel a person has to be pretty damn evil for it to be okay. IMO Bin Laden meets the criteria, Thatcher falls way short.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    They were atrocious. Encouraging people to vote is a good thing but doing so in tandem with feeding them that kind of nonsense isn't right because plenty of people will read it and believe it unquestioningly - luckily most of these people won't vote though. Oh well, the no campaign hasn't exactly been much better.
    Well, I'd class inventing 250 million pounds of spending (and including the cost of the referendum in it) as a lot worse than just writing some vague populist nonsense.

    Both campaigns have been terrible tbh, but I think No just edge it.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    Well, I'd class inventing 250 million pounds of spending (and including the cost of the referendum in it) as a lot worse than just writing some vague populist nonsense.

    Both campaigns have been terrible tbh, but I think No just edge it.
    I don't know, I think it is all much of a muchness really - as you say, both sides have been awful.

    I'm tempted to go and vote no yes because Eddy Izzard is awesome :awesome:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I'm tempted to go and vote no because Eddy Izzard is awesome :awesome:
    What? Eddie Izzard is in favour of AV.

    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    What? Eddie Izzard is in favour of AV.

    Oh dear. I meant yes.

    :facepalm:
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?

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.