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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    *Waits for his name to be mentioned*

    *Waits a long time*
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Snips)
    Maths, for me, is simply about learning how to use formulas - after that there's little else. Chemistry A Level is exactly the same, just reading a revision guide. Funnily enough, yesterday my chemistry class was talking about how they actually know very little chemistry; they have simply learned from a revision guide. I grant you physics requires some application of knowledge yes. Further maths I have not done before.
    You may be right. I usually find that there's one or two questions on a paper that test your understanding though - although a couple of questions aren't really enough.

    (Original post by Redemption)
    For the most part, A-Levels are still memory tests.

    I'd say the subject that tests the brain the most is without a doubt Further Maths; but if you have a good teacher and a small class it's not too hard to do fine in.
    I would probably say physics more than further maths - the crazy physics spec my school does relates everything to the real world in such awkward ways it's sometimes impossible to see what the question is actually asking you for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    generalebriety seems to be the fountain of all knowledge to me. :^_^:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnyofengland)
    the crazy physics spec my school does relates everything to the real world in such awkward ways it's sometimes impossible to see what the question is actually asking you for.
    Rather like my school's AS Biology course, which follows two people called jim and fred (or something) and their diseases, and relates all biological "concepts" to them.
    The exam board think this is great. I think it's the worst idea since Germany invaded Poland.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Rather like my school's AS Biology course, which follows two people called jim and fred (or something) and their diseases, and relates all biological "concepts" to them.
    The exam board think this is great. I think it's the worst idea since Germany invaded Poland.
    :rofl:

    Mine likes to try and shoehorn quantum physics into the most unlikely of places, and usually ends up failing miserably.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can play like 7 guitar chords, and I read the massive harry potter book. I'm very clever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Define clever?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Pavlik does make some good points.

    It's a 'birds of a feather...' thing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    That's a rather scary and, to be frank, distressing thought, Pavlik - that morality, for you, only applies to those who are related to you to a greater extent. In other words, whilst torture would be immoral against a white man, you'd be saying that black people need not be applied under Human Rights acts such that it would somehow wouldn't be immoral if they got tortured. There is no justification for this here and it certainly isn't a desirable conclusion. If it's immoral to do something to human then, regardless of race, it should not be done to a human. That the unchangeable and random colour of a person's skin somehow plays a role in this is quite bizarre and most unreasonable. Furthermore, survival interests do not reside in race! I will live regardless of the colour of people's skin around. Racial replacement (i.e. that there will be less white people being born in an area in the future) does not mean that anyone is physically dying out as an individual. You're using language most misleadingly because if you did use it honestly then you'd see that you would not have a decent point to make. No individual physically dies - you're merely speaking of a racial group reducing in number over time - which isn't, in itself, a bad thing; and it's certainly preventable if similar-minded racists voluntarily had intercourse to produce white offspring.

    Furthermore, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy. That you have what you claim to be a "natural instinct" does not make it desirable nor rational. Thought and reasoning far outweigh what you claim to 'feel' is natural.

    Furthermore, what's wrong with the indigenous Americans? They weren't physically killed, nor would that occur in any modern society. They merely adopted a new and better culture. The world and its culture changes. Britain in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000 were each different political, social and economic landscapes. Anyone living in America now would have a better stand of living than at the time of the founding fathers. The same applies to Britain today compared to Britain in 1965. This doesn't mean the people of those cultures were "replaced". They evolved. They weren't killed. It's rather misleading to imply that they were being 'replaced'. No individual suddenly became replaced with a different race. Again, I'd come back to the question of why race would even matter.

    Furthermore, Britain should not be regarded as your homeland. I hardly believe you have done anything to deserve power over such a sizeable amount of land. And moreover, that instincts may be prior to thought does not mean that thought is always inferior to instincts in terms of its reliability. "Logic" always outweighs mere "feelings".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    That's a rather scary and, to be frank, distressing thought, Pavlik - that morality, for you, only applies to those who are related to you to a greater extent. In other words, whilst torture would be immoral against a white man, you'd be saying that black people need not be applied under Human Rights acts such that it would somehow wouldn't be immoral if they got tortured.
    I didn't say that there are no moral considerations for other human beings, just that I am not, or do not wish to be, a universal altruist - hence morality is conditional on relatedness, as tends to be the case regarding the preferential behaviour extended to close family.

    There is no justification for this here and it certainly isn't a desirable conclusion. If it's immoral to do something to human then, regardless of race, it should not be done to a human. That the unchangeable and random colour of a person's skin somehow plays a role in this is quite bizarre. Furthermore, survival interests do not reside in race! I will live regardless of the colour of people's skin around. Racial replacement (i.e. that there will be less white people being born in an area in the future) does not mean that anyone is physically dying out as an individual. You're using language most misleadingly because if you did use it honestly then you'd see that you would not have a decent point to make. No individual physically dies - you're merely speaking of a racial group reducing in number over time - which isn't, in itself, a bad thing; and it's certainly preventable if similar-minded racists voluntarily had intercourse to produce white offspring.
    It is just a semantic issue. I would say that a parent has a survival interest in their offspring, apparently you would use a different word.

    As for race-replacement being preventable in the manner you describe - no that is not the case, but I have tried to explain that to you enough times already so I shan't repeat myself.

    Furthermore, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy. That you have what you claim to be a "natural instinct" does not make it desirable nor rational. Thought and reasoning far outweigh what you claim to 'feel' is natural.
    I don't believe so. I am not claiming that ethnic nepotism is necessarily a desirable behaviour for you to participate in.

    Furthermore, what's wrong with the indigenous Americans? They weren't physically killed, nor would that occur in any modern society. They merely adopted a new and better culture. The world and its culture changes. Britain in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000 were each different political, social and economic landscapes. This doesn't mean the people of those cultures were "replaced". They evolved. They weren't killed. It's rather misleading to imply that they were being 'replaced'. No individual suddenly became replaced with a different race. Again, I'd come back to the question of why race would even matter.
    I see. This is a very unfortunate way of thinking, to me - but you are entitled to it.

    Furthermore, Britain should not be regarded as your homeland. I hardly believe you have done anything to deserve power over such a sizeable amount of land. And moreover, that instincts may be prior to thought does not mean that thought is always inferior to instincts in terms of its reliability. "Logic" always outweighs mere "feelings".
    I know how an Indian would react, if you told him that India was not his homeland and millions of white people were going to migrate there en masse and replaced the natives. Still, there is little I can do to dissuade you from your universal altruism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in a similar genetic group to all males. It does not follow that I must preserve the existence for all males and deny all females their human rights and other niceties associated with being a human. At the end of the day, all females are humans. And if males choose to allow them into their property, then there's nothing you can do to stop them. I can choose to place zero value on the concept that I am similar to most males. Likewise, other people are free to place zero value on the fact that people share similar religious beliefs (black and white Christians or Muslims). I can choose to place little emphasis on racial/genetical similairities, or the variance amongst the human population. What I can't do is deny people their human rights, nor can I feel justified in denying people living with humans who they want to live with. You can't go around raping women just because you feel they don't deserve human rights as a human because they happen to have a fundamentally different chromosome. Likewise, I see little reason to treat other genetical variance with different approaches. In a similar manner you can't, in law, decide to place different moral values on different acts with "race" being a leading consideration. "Race" has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of an event. If you kick somebody, then your intention should be judged. The reason for why you kicked them should be judged. The whole situation should be judged. However the colour of the skin cannot ever be a reason for why the morality of the situation should change. The colour of the skin is mere random accident and unchangeable, independent of the act being carried out. I cannot consider anyone who believes that the race of a person, in itself, would change the morality surrounding a whole circumstance, to be a "clever" person in the slightest. Just because you may feel that it's instinctually "moral" to kick a black person does not mean that it is so based on the reasoning that they are, after all, another human - and as humans who can share empathy, we reaslise that he can feel pain and thus see that kicking any human would not be a nice thing to do. Currently, you've provided nothing firm to support your position. Apart from that, there isn't anything else to refute in your post; I'm certainly content.

    Anyways, this isn't a race thread in case you hadn't noticed, Pavlik.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematician!)
    Prove it, lol
    A picture of my trophy and I? :P
    haha it by no means is impressive tho, the competition for the title in switzerland is pretty poor!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Rather like my school's AS Biology course, which follows two people called jim and fred (or something) and their diseases, and relates all biological "concepts" to them.
    The exam board think this is great. I think it's the worst idea since Germany invaded Poland.
    It is because not enough people are doing engineering. Engineering is applied science, and is often a very good way of teaching something. I would hazard a guess that it is less effective with regards biology or quantum mechanics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Do you see academic achievements as being clever and only that? Anyway, there are people who have PhDs who frequent here, a Professorship is an internal promotion AFAIK.
    Not at all, but then I consider umpteen peer reviewed publications etc to top succesfully managing business enterprises or whatever and so if considering intellegence, for ease of debate, as achievement then I'd say academic achievement in that sense presented a stronger case.

    To be honest, I cant begin to imagine how we could answer a question like this and it was more his importance within scholarship that swayed me to throw his name forward.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone remember the girl who swallowed a tampon and asked for advice here? No-one here can compete with the brightness of her clever mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nices)
    Does anyone remember the girl who swallowed a tampon and asked for advice here? No-one here can compete with the brightness of her clever mind.
    It was you, wasn't it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S_Dimelow)
    Not at all, but then I consider umpteen peer reviewed publications etc to top succesfully managing business enterprises or whatever and so if considering intellegence, for ease of debate, as achievement then I'd say academic achievement in that sense presented a stronger case.

    To be honest, I cant begin to imagine how we could answer a question like this and it was more his importance within scholarship that swayed me to throw his name forward.
    Fair enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NW8_SW1_EC3)
    It was you, wasn't it?

    Omg, how did you find out?

    My clever way of trying to get public acceptance for my action got revealed. You definitely are cleverer than me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Kublai Khan has a tsr account, i heard he's a bit smart
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    A picture of my trophy and I? :P
    haha it by no means is impressive tho, the competition for the title in switzerland is pretty poor!
    Haha, I actually meant having a debate with me, but then I realised it could last a few days lol
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.