Assume Nothing

It seems that no one has chosen the avenue for no partner at all. Is it worth it?

If we endanger the prospects of the future working-population, then aren't we putting ourselves in a worse position? Too many people are taking courses for the fun of it, instead of taking something valuable from it. It would be money better spent if everyone who took a degree earned more on average - which could happen if more people filled in the gaps for the courses I've listed in my original post.

The one with no brains. The typical bimbo who gets the attention of the entire neighbourhood stereotype.

Banned for not making sense.

Given that a moderator warning a posted seconds before I pressed submit, I'd like to give this thread a slight change in topic. I'm annoyed at the excessive use of emotional appeals by activist organisations. I'd post some pictures, but I'm not sure if its too inappropriate at the moment - I'd contact a mod first. Here's a hint - it's from PETA.

Try pointing out which ones, Hedge. We've discussed the other reply, and it's more useful if you quoted it in context. It may have been necessary/useful if it was quoted within the passage as opposed to taken out into a list. There's no point arguing if you're referring to some random term in a very old post, because I wouldn't know what you're referring to.

Banned for causing it by anticipation of it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Please read the replies to that. Considering that you've taken it completely out of context by stripping out everything but the single term, there's little room for critique. The point is - 'is it unnecessary?' We could only know if its in context.

I've never intended for that to happen, so anything that is interpreted is not a true representation of my intentions. I'm always accused of using unnecessarily complicated words, yet no one has bothered to quote some of my older posts (or more recent) to point out which specific terms are unnecessary. I'm still waiting. It's not disputable if you're not going to point out what we're disagreeing on. I may consider a post fine, when you would say its too complicated.

To clear up confusion - I've requested Randox to separate the posts into its own thread because we were veering too off-topic. I think I'll have to quote my other reply, so give me a moment. EDIT - Randox is a ninja and moved the other replies too. Feel free to continue the discussion here.

So it's not about the ugly, it's about the intelligence gap. I see now ;).

Banned for not realising the paradox. If it was true, then it must also be false. If it was false, then it must also be true. Both of which would be admitting a falsehood since it can't happen at the same time, therefore it cannot be either positions, thus admitting a contradiction. EDIT - Banned for the ninja.

Banned for contradiction.

The raise in tuition fees would be a method of redistribution of people who choose to do these courses. The problem seems to be that too many are attending University to do a soft course, to enjoy the social experience as opposed to actually take something valuable from it to earn more, raise standards of living (and happiness), and contribute more to the government because it's so costly to fund these courses. It is an arguable point that they may be less happy because of potential dissatisfaction with non-media/art courses due to passion, but I think they won't get left out because they'd choose that course anyway. They'll have to pay more, but they'd repay slowly as a form of tax so it shouldn't be too much of an issue for them.

Banned for not playing along.

Could you briefly tell me why you wouldn't choose the unattractive? I don't disagree with you, but I don't understand your reasoning yet.

It's not what I consider to be an appropriate 'fancy word' to use, so by your example, of course it didn't provide clarity. You deliberately chose a more ambiguous, yet technical term to use. It might be an idea to quote an old post of mine instead. I think I might want to explain the proximus genus thing later.

I don't think that was what I was arguing. I'm arguing that it would benefit society and the government, making little reference to individuals. If we grant that it is for the interest of the individuals, then we're still faced with the problem that one of the implied objectives of attending University is to receive a good income. I'm pretty sure that graduates of media/art courses earn less than satisfactory on average, but I may be wrong so don't quote me on this. It is rather subjective on what is 'satisfactory' though.

I'd say that's a poor analogy. On Tip.it, we're engaged in a debate, not delivering an essential work-based communication. Even if we grant that the analogy is valid, your terms aren't exactly clear considering the different ways you can interpret 'personal protective equipment' (which is no better than saying protective gear).

Banned for fabricating irrelevant facts.

It's a well accepted notion that good education in those courses is more likely to get a higher income than those who take arts/media courses, in general. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the concept that many of the arts/media industries are pretty full, so they're unlikely to pay off well unless you make it big. If we prioritized course tuition, then the demand for some of the softer courses would go down whereas the 'better' courses may increase (law of demand).

I need examples of whats considered normal terms, and whats considered specialist (complex) terms. We've done the latter, so we need the former.

Clearer to whom? If you're referring to graduates who know a majority of the terms well, then it definitely should. If you're referring to typical forum users, then maybe you're right, which is why I've stated that I'll bare it in mind. EDIT @Gingy - It depends on who's doing the reading. I believe that most people who would engage in a dispute would know these terms well, and see how they do fit in context. If I'm receiving responses from those who don't understand these terms well, and post because of misinterpretation, that's not my fault.

I do think it depends on context. In a more formal post, I wouldn't say 'after that'. I don't think they're that complex and obscure either. I don't see what's wrong with a slightly bigger vocabulary for variation and clarity, so long as it's used correctly (I realise that I've misused several words in the past, which I've promptly addressed). I do think they provide clarity, but perhaps not around this specific audience. I'll bare that in mind and try to limit myself to extremely 'small' words. EDIT @Quyneax - Good find. That was a genuine mistake. I should look it up a little more. I blame bad wording/interpretation. To allege = to assert, typically without proof. I've got it now.

This is an unlikely dichotomy, but it's worth playing a little thought experiment. If you had to choose between a girl with Emma-Watson like beauty with little education, 'cute' girl who's merely somewhat attractive with some education, and a girl who's considerably unattractive with a lot of education and strong academic merits - who would you choose?