I wouldn't consider it a pure meritocracy, as students in the educational system can still progress more if they have strong financial backing from wealthy parents. I believe that to get a pure meritocracy a nation must first remove inheritance as then everything a person gets is what they worked for.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there, a few years back I completed a PhD in Religious Studies in which I specialised in theology. The idea that the Judeo-Christian God destroyed towns and civilizations can be interpreted as moral because it is a sign to the rest of mankind of what is right and what is wrong. Jews and Christians believe that God acted in this way as a form of judgement, if you look into their religious texts, you will see that the destroyed peoples were endorsing acts of human sacrifices to heathen idols.
Here is a quote from the Christian Bible: "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)".
I'm also very confused about the topic of this debate, I thought this was a platform for us to open up something about ourselves, but it seems Prodigee believes it to be directly about me.
I'm slightly offended by your aggression, you insult me for debating properly on one of your debates and then you claim that I sent you a nasty message, the image in the link has been edited in someway, which is quite easy to do.
I don't understand what it is I've done to upset you, but I'm only here to debate.
May I ask you to explain your reasoning?
When I was doing my PhD in Sport Sciences, we had a lecture on the most popular and common sports in America. Football was the most popular while golf was around 6th or 7th most popular.
When I was doing my PhD on Comparative Politics (Specialisation: Empirical Data Analysis), we found that lobbying is one of the main platforms in which people can appeal to their governments. This ensures that there is communication between state and population, which can be vital when important decisions are being made.
I've actually been to the Heart Attack Grill when I was doing my PhD on Biomedical Engineering, the group I was with decided to go visit the HAG so we could interview the owner, Jon Basso, who claims to be a doctor.
If you actually see many of the patrons of the HAG, they are a prime example of obese people, one of the main patrons died at aged 29. The food they sell at that establishment is highly dangerous and can severely damage your consumption system if you go there on a regular basis.
I would prefer it if you weren't so rude. I'm only trying to debate here.
I suppose the fault was partly mine, I do tend to go on a bit about my PhDs, but hopefully my presence and expertise encourages people to debate more formally.
If a principle of science is not taught, then it blocks the paths for us to research other sciences. For example, if I had been unable to do my PhD in Evolutionary Biology, I wouldn't have been able to complete my PhD in Gerontology. To deny a population to learn an aspect of science will only choke the advancement of technology for out nation.
I remember looking into this during my PhD for Anthropology, I found that while there are many historical cases of SHC (nearly 200), most of them are discovered to have been ignited by an external source, making the combustion not spontaneous.
I suppose I'm just used to lecturing at universities, they do like it if you state your credentials before hand.
I've often seen cases where lecturers have forgotten to outline their expertise at the start of a speech, studies show that when this happens a higher percentage of the audience will doubt the reliability of the content. I should know, I did a PhD in Sociology ( in which I wrote a paper on Paranoid Social Cognition), while post-nominal letters may seem unimportant to many, it can be surprising how significant they are others.
I suppose I did tell a mistruth, when I said political philosophy I actually meant political science. Sorry for the mistake, I hope this reply has cleared up any past confusion.
I have a PhD in Political Philosophy (Specialism: Monarchism) and one of the main points that I learnt was that monarchies are a medium for dictatorship and tyranny, there is nothing democratic about a hereditary head of state and only the most backwards of countries still have them.
However, the British Monarchy is slightly different, it's constitutional monarch has limited power, the only reason they still have monarchs is purely tradition. But sooner or later the UK will join the rest of us in the 21st century.
I recently perform a lecture and the London School of Economics and Political Science, I have a PhD in Political philosophy, the lecture subject was 'Anarchism: Could it work?'. Anyway, the main point of my lecture was that anarchy is compatible with our modern day society, but to achieve it we must first centralise all power to a single global body of authority, then we must immerse all cultures together to ensure there aren't any demographical divisions in our global society. When we reach a point where conflict is impossible then the government must slowly reduce its control over the population until it is made ineffective.
