l0l0lpur34

Simple explanation: Primary school = 4-10/11 yrs old (reception- year 6) High school = 11-15/16 yrs old (year 7 - year 11) (everyone does GCSEs in years 10-11) Then mandatory education ends, and people who stay on in education either carry on in their high school's sixth form (not all high schools have one), or go to an FE college. sixth forms generally do A-levels only, but FE colleges do A-levels, GCSE resits and vocational qualifications. I don't know much about the vocational qualifications but A-levels generally take 2 years (sometimes 3 if people decide to resit a year due to taking the wrong subjects or failing their exams), after which people go to university for 3-4 years. (people are usually 18 when they finish their A-levels - sometimes 17 if born in the summer, sometimes 19 if they did an extra year for whatever reason)

this thread makes me glad I don't live in the USA

Sometimes homework is the only way to truly prove you can do the work, because a lot of the time in lessons everyone just copies off each other so it's very easy for people to just coast along doing no work of their own and end up failing the exams. In one of my classes where the teacher doesn't set homework, in the recent AS-level external exam 3 of the people who were predicted Bs/Cs because of classwork got 2 Us and an E because of not doing enough independently to properly understand the material. (The 3 people got mostly As/Bs at GCSE too - so although you may be able to get away with it at secondary school level, it doesn't work that way at A-level and beyond)

wow this reminds me why i quit rs who cares if you gain 873,393 more xp per 233 hours of playing + it's better to just never use the gem at all anyway.

Even if you were right about this, which you aren't, what is your view on the freedom standpoint? Why should women not have the freedom to have sex for money? Is it the role of government to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself/with others in a consensual relationship? If I govern myself and choose to do something to myself, yet for this the government uses force and coercion against me to lock me in a cell, how is this not tyranny? The only possible justification you could have would be saying that the majority can decide what you can and cannot do to your own body, which is basically the same as saying "the majority owns you." Normally I'd agree with this but it's very rarely "women using freedom to have sex for money".

Only a small fraction of the prostitution which goes on would be "registered" with the government and the stuff which does legally go on would be used as a place to "recruit" for the "unregistered" (illegal) stuff.

Of course not, simply because of the human trafficking etc behind it - "decriminalising, regulating and taxing" it would just make this problem worse.

Lol at all the wannabe tinpot dictators on this thread. But why do you want to make more money? Money shouldn't be an end, maybe a means, but never an end. So I can eat better food, drive a better car and spend more money on hobbies and such. I do not mean just making more money for doing nothing different from anyone else, I mean working harder then the next guy. I should be able to choose if i want to work 18 hrs a day, make more money and buy more land then my friend, even if there may be no point. Why would you want better advantages when you have everything that you need and there's no complaints about it? Because people always want more. And they should goddamn stop at that place. If everyone had that attitude then the machine you used to type that message, wouldn't exist.

Notice how the reason China has been/is booming so much is because of embracing the free market... communism never works, every real-world manifestation of it has being an opressive dictatorship... i've never really understood why communism is "acceptable" to support at all.

I think the researchers know more about this than some teenager on an internet forum :P

Wait... What? 8 guys? That's... insane... I don't even think normal people get 8 guys in a lifetime without getting paid for it. 8 in a lifetime is below "normal" (however 8 at 15 is a lot)

The fact 16% of the world uses 80% of the resources just highlights the sheer greediness and ignorance which has being displayed on this thread by so many people.

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated. Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?) The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two. So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate? The human species is more important than the human life. Ah, so in your opinion AIDS is only good if it isn't killing your pure aryan race?

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated. Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?) The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two. So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated. Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?) [/hide] He isnt saying its good that humans are dying. The point is without any death we would have outstripped our planets resources and would all be dead. That doesnt mean we shouldnt work for a cure for aids and what not, it just means that in a twisted way we do need such things until we advance our technology to help the earth maintain a much larger volume of people. we don't need mcdonalds and other status symbols of the overconsumption by 1st world countries but you seem to be happy with them. (I assume you were saying "do not need" by the rest of the sentance)

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated. Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits. I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep]ing eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep]s, I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.