NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the proposed Resolution, by my esteemed colleague, the Grand Oxymoron of the Armed Republic of Magiqa:

Description: UN Resolution #24: Metric System (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Whereas, both the Metric and English system have advantages; and,
Whereas, the Metric system and its use of dsecimals is viewed as adavntageous to some nations; and,
Whereas, the English system and its use of fractions is viewed as advantageous to some nations; and,
Whereas, the burden of choice should fall under United Nation Resolution #8 and the self-rule provisions thereof;
Therefore, be it Resolved by the General Assembly of the United Nations here assembled, that United Nation Resolution #24 be repealed.
Be it further resolved that, each member nation, or the people thereof, be charged with dedciding the best measuring unit.

We must pass this resolution and repeal #24. The metric system has advantages, but it also has many disadvantages, which I will go more in depth into should this come to a bigger debate. However, the important thing is to make sure we have enough votes to get this to debate. This deserves passage, so if you are a regional delegate, vote in favor.

There are two major reasons why we need to repeal #24:
The Metric System is not fool-proof, it has many disadvantages which would want someone to stick to the customary system of measurement.
Secondly, it's a freedom of choice issue. Let the individual nations, their people, and their governments decide what system they feel is most advantageous to their nation.

So go to the UN proposals, go to the search box, type "metric" and vote in favor of this.

-Joe Gravellese
Field Manager
Commonwealth of Spirit Nation

You say that the metric system is not foolproof and has flas. Please provide more detail.

Here is the proposed Resolution, by my esteemed colleague, the Grand Oxymoron of the Armed Republic of Magiqa:

I believe we've shot this down before.

Description: UN Resolution #24: Metric System (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Whereas, both the Metric and English system have advantages; and,
Whereas, the Metric system and its use of dsecimals is viewed as adavntageous to some nations; and,
Whereas, the English system and its use of fractions is viewed as advantageous to some nations; and,

Those are not the only two systems in existance. If he's going to mention systems, try to mention them all.

Whereas, the burden of choice should fall under United Nation Resolution #8 and the self-rule provisions thereof;

1) Name the resolution, not the number of it.

2) That resolution deals with citizen decisions on government, not measurement. Two entirely separate issues.

Therefore, be it Resolved by the General Assembly of the United Nations here assembled, that United Nation Resolution #24 be repealed.
Be it further resolved that, each member nation, or the people thereof, be charged with dedciding the best measuring unit.

And there goes international trade.

We must pass this resolution and repeal #24. The metric system has advantages, but it also has many disadvantages, which I will go more in depth into should this come to a bigger debate. However, the important thing is to make sure we have enough votes to get this to debate. This deserves passage, so if you are a regional delegate, vote in favor.

No, it deserves failing, as the repeal author failed to get the drift of why the resolution was passed.

There are two major reasons why we need to repeal #24:
The Metric System is not fool-proof, it has many disadvantages which would want someone to stick to the customary system of measurement.

1) Which customary system of measurement?

2) The main advantages of it are related to trade and tourism, as under it there is a set standard for everyone, eliminating the unneccessary conversion books.

3) The metric system is the customary system of all UN nations. Part of membership.

Secondly, it's a freedom of choice issue. Let the individual nations, their people, and their governments decide what system they feel is most advantageous to their nation.

No, it's an economic issue, as clearly stated in the resolution. Here, let me post part of it:

This would breakdown barriers in sharing of research and in the international marketplace. Tourism would also be benifited from the common standard. This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing, whereas the common standard would improve their ability to compete in the international market place.

The few parts that don't focus on economics focus on science and ease of conversions in education. None of it focuses on just a single nation.

So go to the UN proposals, go to the search box, type "metric" and vote in favor of this.

Will not do.

our official stand is to support the use of metric system.
it is already so diffcult to keep up with 1 set of formula! why support 2 or more? :rolleyes:

First of all, let me note that I see a lot of "rookie logic" in these forums- that is, shooting down resolutions based on typos, poor word choice, whatever, rather than actually getting to the heart of the argument. Now, if you want more detail, let me give it to you.

Read this carefully, with an open mind.

'In some countries, you can buy jam in returnable jars, and once I finished my jar, and was cleaning it, and in the glass at the bottom was "3/8 L". And this sort of threw me, because I was a big metric fan, and the great advantage of the metric system was that it got rid of all those silly fractions. So why were they using them here in metric-land? Then I figured the jar was only so big, so it took up less space to print 3/8 L rather than 0.375 L.

But there was another possibility. <b>That being that although the metric system looks good on paper, people/society finds fractions useful.</b> So ok, we have the metric system for important stuff, but for certain situations, fractions will be used.

So then, I'm slowly picking up some Dutch, and we go out for beers, and Filip is always asking for "A Pincha", and I find out that actually he's saying "a pintje", meaning "a small pint". So here we are in metric land, and people are ordering their beers with<b> English terms! </b>

This is really throwing me, and I say, yeah but Filip, it's not a pint, it's 250 milliliters! Why do you call it a pint? You've got the metric system, why don't you use it? Why don't you order in metric? You don't need those silly English measurements, you have New and Improved Metric units. When you go into a cafe, instead of shouting "Een Pintje Alstublieft" you should say, two-hundred-and-fifty-milliliters alstublieft."

He just gave me a strange look, and mumbled something about it being too hard to say. And ok, maybe giving the precise amount of milliliters is a bit extreme, but he could at least say, "A quarter liter alstublieft." But then maybe even that would be too difficult after lots of beer, so <b>maybe just giving that one unit a name makes sense. </b>

But then that means that something screwy is going on. Not only are they turning the metric system back into fractions, but they're giving names to them! We change everything into metric, then people find it more useful to use fractions, and then they <b>give names to these fractions, and before you know it, we're back where we started from!</b>

Then I got fired from my job, or was asked to resign, or whatever you want to call it, I had LOTS of free time and not much to do. I read what I could find, but since my French and Dutch were so bad, this consisted of reading cookbooks.

So I was reading these cooking books, and it was weird, because these <b>recipes would have "half a cup" of one thing, and an "eet-lapel" or "koffie-lapel" of something else. </b>

I said, "Hey Filip, what's an eet-lapel?" And he told me it's an <b>eating spoon (which is really a soup spoon), and a koffie lapel is a coffee spoon, like the English teaspoons. And I say, "But hey, we're in metric-land! Dat gaat niet!" And he says, "Of course we use the metric system, but in that one case, they're just writing it that way for the easiness of the people."</b> (i.e., to make it easy on everyone).

So then I go to my mother-in-law-to-be, and I say,<b> "Hey, these recipes call for cup of something, how much is that exactly?"</b> And she pulls out her cup that she drinks coffee from to show me, and I say,<b>"Yeah, but aren't different cups sometimes different sizes?" </b>

And then she said, "Ja zeker!" And she took me to her china cabinet and showed me all the different cups she has and all the <b>different</b> sizes there are. And then I said, "Yeah but Francine, doesn't this like, ever become a <b>problem in knowing exactly how much to use?"</b> and she shrugged her shoulders and nodded!

So that means the <b>Metric kitchens are less precise than English.</b> They just take <b>any old cup, any old spoon! So where is the advantage of being metric?</b> Then Filip says, yeah, but MOST recipes don't call for volumes, they call for weights, and this is true. BUT, how do you WEIGH a teaspoon of basil?!? How about a quarter teaspoon of nutmeg?!? And now he's going to baking school, and you should see him trying to weigh out his salt on our scale that I only use for weighing mail. It's so sad!

Then I get out my Joy of Cooking, <b>and all these crazy units sort of start to make sense, to fit together. There are even conversions between weight/volume and length like in the metric system. A pint weighs a pound, and is 3 inches cubed. Half a pint is a cup, half of that is half a cup, half of that is a quarter cup, half of that is 2 tablespoons, and half of that is one tablespoon, and all these units in an ENGLISH kitchen can be measured out. </b>

Then I start to realize that for length there is a similar problem in the metric system, in that you <b>can't divide a meter continuously by 2 without getting fractions.</b> In the English system, the rulers are divided by quarters and eighths and 16ths, but the metric ruler is divided into units of ten, so any fraction of that you just have to guess. It is <b>IMPOSSIBLE</b> to divide a meter by three, because you get 0.333333333 etc meters; using the metric ruler, a third on a metric meter doesn't exist! So then I start to think, hey, <b>THAT'S why there are 12 inches in a foot, you can divide all sorts of ways, by 2, by 3, by 4, by 6, no problem! Cool! </b>

We have this friend who is a carpenter, and I see him, and I say, "Hey, Freddie, when you have a board a meter long, how do you divide it into 3?" And he sort of gives me a funny look, and says why would he want to do that. And I say, well, "How does that work? Because in the metric system, a third of a meter isn't marked on your ruler so what do you do? Don't you ever have a board of one meter that you have to divide by three?" And he says, "No." And I'm sort of crestfallen, and then he adds, we don't buy boards by the meter, the standard lengths they sell are in <b>120 centimeters. </b>

!!!!!

SO now there is a NEW unit of measurement, call it the-standard-length- that-carpenters-buy-their-wood-in, and it is 120 centimeters! The THICKNESS of the wood is even in a number that is easily divisible, that is, 2.4 centimeters, and they call that a <b>thumb!</b> How long before the length of 120 centimeters has a name all to itself, and how long before some lunatic is going to come along, and say, "Hey, this-here is darn CONFUSING having that-there unit being 120 centimeters, and this-here unit being 2.4, we need a NEW measurement system, one where everything is in units of ten!"

So this is getting really interesting, and I head to the library, and look up measurement, and ALL THROUGH HISTORY, societies have used units of measurements that are evenly divisible at least 3 ways. Now we have this great metric system, and we can only divide by 2 and 5 without getting a fraction.

<b>Progress? Whassat? </b>

Ok, and then there is the temperature thing.

I always liked science because it was the one field of study that would be consistent throughout the world. I always found it a waste of time to study French or botany, because if, for example, you were on a desert island, these French words or plant names wouldn't do you any good. Science on the other hand was (WAS, past tense) a kind of ultimate truth for me, and this desert island thing used to be a kind of test as to whether something was valuable.

And it appears I'm not alone, because last time I was arguing, I was voicing my opinion on the metric system, and someone said, "If I were on a desert island, I'd use a system that was divisible by ten." And I said, "But would your number system be based on ten?" The ONLY advantage of the metric system is that it can easily be written because we write our numbers in base ten. But that doesn't mean that if you were on a desert island YOUR number system would be in base ten. In fact, if you were on a desert island, and you needed a ruler, you wouldn't be ABLE to generate a precise system on base ten, because you'd have to estimate where to put the markings on the ruler! What you'd have to do is take your ruler, <b>and divide it in half, and that in half, and put the markings THERE, and you'd end up with a ruler divided into 16 or 32 or 64 or something, but not ten! </b>

And for thermometers, it seems that is precisely what Fahrenheit was up to. <b>Fahrenheit</b> was playing around and playing around and finally set ice water at 32, and body temperature at 96, so that there were 64 divisions between the two. That way, no matter where you are in the world, you can re-generate his thermometer. You stick the thermometer in ice water, and mark it there. Then you stick it under your tongue, and mark it there. Then you get a string, and <b>fold it in half 6 times, </b> and you have the 64 divisions between 32 and 96!

It was only after Fahrenheit died that body temperature was changed to 98.6. And this being because the boiling point of water was later deemed more reliable than body temperature. So boiling water was set at 212, and that made 180 "degrees" between it and the freezing point of water. But whoever made that change was probably completely ignorant of the problems Fahrenheit had gone through calibrating his thermometers.

Then the French Revolution came around, and a bunch of intellectuals were sitting around. And these intellectual types, they aren't sitting in labs, or making things, DOING measurements, they just looking at the measurements on paper. So to them, all these fractions were a pain in the ass, and they decided that everything should be changed.

So they spent SIX YEARS deciding how long a meter should be, and then passed all sorts of laws REQUIRING everyone to use the measurements; people were FINED for not using them!

So then we had a new thermometer, in degrees Celsius. Then hot air balloons were getting popular and Boyle and Charles were playing around and trying to figure out how temperature affects volume and pressure of gases. But there was one hitch, that is, they wanted to be able to divide by the temperature of the gas. This was a problem whenever the temperature was zero. So eventually a number was found that could be added to the measured temperature so that all their equations would work out nicely, and this new temperature was called Kelvin.

Then a bunch of intellectuals came around once more, and decide that these gas laws, instead of being a TOOL, used to DESCRIBE the properties of gas, that these laws were some kind of ultimate truth. And then they decided that since the equations won't work at zero Kelvin, that nothing can possible exist at that temperature!

And now that's what they teach us in physics class! I HATE that! If the fields of science and history even overlapped a little bit, we MIGHT be able to move in a direction we refer to as "progress", but the way it is now is completely ridiculous.

Any praise for the metric system hits a raw nerve with me. The metric system is a symbol to me of the division of the ruling class and the people doing all the work. The ruling class (no pun intended) makes all these rules that are completely impractical, and everyone else has to sort of make due, find their way around it. The metric system also symbolizes to me this blind faith we have in science, that science is some kind of ultimate truth, instead of a tool we use to make life easier for ourselves. And because of this blind faith we have, "science" ends up making life harder, less practical for ourselves."
-My good friend Joan Pontius.

And wait, there's more for you to know. The Base 10 Myth
The fact that metric units are base ten in fact has virtually no relevance either to day-to-day life or to scientific and engineering manipulation. This is because conversion between units of the same dimension (e.g. centimeters to kilometers) is rarely necessary or useful. Just consider practical experience. If you are working in a unit, say miles or kilometers, you stay with that unit. So if a distance is 121.5 miles you do not also think that it is 213,400 yards any more than you think that 121.25 kilometers is also 121,250 meters.

Also, if you must travel 294 miles from one town to another and then 35 miles onwards to a third town, the calculation 294 miles + 35 miles = 329 miles is just as simple as would be, 294 kilometers + 35 kilometers = 329 kilometers. The fact that the metric system uses base 10 for inter-unit conversions does not make the calculation any simpler or more accurate.

Even so, if you want to convert between units, we today can do it much more easily than our ancestors because of technology. If American measurements are so complicated how did our parents and grandparents and their ancestors survive when they did not even have calculators? Now, we have far more powerful technical mathematical tools than previous generations had - calculators, computers etc. Interestingly, none of these machines use base 10.

Without getting too technical, the reason that these tools are non-decimal is because base 10 is a poor system of calculation. This is because it can be divided by relative few other numbers ... 1,2,5 and 10 ... without yielding a fractional/decimal result. Half of ten is 5. Beyond that it gets messy. Half of 5 is 2.5. Half of 2.5 is 1.25 and so on. 12 is better. It can be divided neatly by 1,2,3,4,6 and 12. And dividing by 2 gives us 6 and then 3. 16, found in our weight and volume units, is even better - with factors 1,2,4,8 and 16. Dividing by 2 gives us 8,4,2,1 etc.

This points to advantages of manipulation in many American units because when we work with amounts we often manipulate in terms of halves, quarters and even thirds. To be sure of being objective, think of situations free of American or metric units. Sharing out a cake. Dividing up a document so that it fits on a diskette. Folding a piece of paper. More often than not divisions with which we are comfortable, halves, thirds, quarters come into play. Divisions out of which our customary system of measurement has grown. Half a foot is 6 inches, a quarter is 3 inches a third is 4 inches. Half a meter is 50 centimeters, a quarter is 25 centimeters and a third is 33.3333.... centimeters. Take your pick.

There is a simple piece of empirical evidence that points to the fact that the entire world can handle units that are not in base ten ... Time. Nowhere are there 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour and 10 hours in a day etc. And yet the world manages to tell time and to calculate time-related problems.


Listen, I see the reasons for using metric, but it's ridiculous to say that we should all use it, especially with all of its flaws. The fact is, many metric users realize the value of new set units of varying size, and of being able to use fractions, and divide by more than 2, 5 and 10.

It should be up to each country to determine what measuring system they want.

1/10 is still part of the metric system. 3/8 is still part of the metric system.

The metric system does not equate with decimals versus vulgar fractions.

For example in base 16 (hex) 1/2 would indicate half the value - so 1/2 * F would be F/2 (which is 7 1/2 for example).

Metric means everything is base ten. So that there are multiples of ten in the calculations. So 10 mm to a cm, 100 cm to a m. 100 pence to the pound and so on, and so on.

It makes maths easy, it makes estimating things easy. And by now all nations int he UN should be using it, so there will be no reason that anyone should have conversion issues.

to quote myself: conversion between units of the same dimension (e.g. centimeters to kilometers) is rarely necessary or useful.

The fact is, look at carpentry, for example. They have their 1-meter board.. how do they divide it precisely into thirds, with no such markings on the ruler? That's why they've started using the 120-cm boards. 12.. doesn't that sound familiar?

The metric system is not perfect, my friends.

Spirit, it is obvious you are passionate about this but I think you are still missing the target, and while I am not going to go through all of your examples, I will tackle a couple of them.

From a temperature perspective, this is primarily for scientific purposes and scientists are going to use whatever scale they need to make their job easier.

The pint issue, well, everyone knows what a pint of beer is and regardless of the measuring system, things like that are not going to change. Besides, glassware is made to accommodate exact quantities, so until the glassware changes, the pint is going to stick around.

From a wood perspective, remember, wood has been cut to certain thickness and lengths for years. Your carpenter friend should be able to tell you that these cuts have never been accurate. For example, a 2 x 4 here in the states, indicates a piece of wood that is 2 inches thick by 4 inches wide, but if you have ever worked with wood, you would realize that these measurements aren't really accurate. After the wood gets cut and shaved, the size is actually smaller than the designation but we still refer to it as a 2 x 4. Does that make sense? No. Do carpenters work around it? Yes. Is the metric system any better? Maybe not but the metric system resolution was not designed to make sense of all the measurements.

Also, there is no "metric police". No one is going to get arrested for using the older systems, but this resolution does convert several of the commonplace items and things we use, to the metric system. This is helpful for tourists, trade, etc.

I would agree the existing resolution was probably not the best-written resolution on the books but rather than repeal it, perhaps we can amend it and clarify some of its positions rather than simply repealing it. Overall, I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Let me, as author of this resolution, answer all of the questions brought up by the DemonLordEgnigma.

I believe we've shot this down before.

Regardless of whether or not we've passed a similar resolution, I ask that you look at the advantageous qualities that having a self rule system, letting each member nation choose. This is all about choice.

Those are not the only two systems in existance. If he's going to mention systems, try to mention them all. [/QUOTE
]

I chose the English to compare to the Metric becauuse it focuses on fractions, and the Metric system focuses on decimals. This resolution would allow member nations to choose among any and all measurment systems, and that's what this resolution is about, choice.

[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma] 2) That resolution deals with citizen decisions on government, not measurement. Two entirely separate issues.

The Resolution he speaks of is resolution #8, that protects the people of UN Member states and their right to self-government. I called upon that resolution because the right to self-government is all about choice, choosing one party over the next, choosing one candidate over the next, and yes even choosing one system of weights and measures over the next.

Even if you live in a nation that has a policy of the metric system. I ask that you support this to allow other nations their right to choose.

And there goes international trade.

This resolution is designed to do anything but limit free trade. Free trade is about choice itself. I choose to trade with the Commonwealth of NationX because I think it is more benifitial to my nation that trading with the Dictatorship of NationY. This repeal would allow nations that very same right to choice.

No, it deserves failing, as the repeal author failed to get the drift of why the resolution was passed.

I can see why the resolution was passed, it was passed for ease of trade and encourage sharing among nations, a noble goal. The problem is that it ended up simply ending a choice that should be made by the people of our nations. We shouldn't force metric conversion. This is all about Choice and keeping agencies from Forcing our citizens.

3) The metric system is the customary system of all UN nations. Part of membership.

It is now, and I wish to change that for the future. If we're being forced into something we shouldn't just sit by and let it happen. The extreme case of this logic is Southern Blacks saying, "slavery is the customary fate of all blacks down here, it's part of membership." We need to end tyranny, that includes forcing nations to comply against their will.

DemonLordEnigma also mentions some very compelling reasons why the metric system is better, and I agree. Given the choice, I would probably choose metric for my own nation, the operative words being "given the choice."

We need to keep protecting the right to choose, and choice is the key message of this resolution. I don't want to get rid of the metric system, I just want metric conversion to be my choice.

Grand Oxymoron
Armed Republic of Magiqa

I would agree the existing resolution was probably not the best-written resolution on the books but rather than repeal it, perhaps we can amend it and clarify some of its positions rather than simply repealing it. Overall, I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Unfortunatly, we have no means to amend, but if I were to submit an amendment, what would it look like. I believe Spirit Nations essay shows the duality of measurment, that the metric system, and the english system, may very well both be better. If you feel it is a worthwhile endeavor than please vote for it, affirm it. Because when it comes down to it, this doesn't outlaw the metric system, just provides alternatives.

Grand Oxymoron
Armed Republic of Magiqa.

Let me, as author of this resolution, answer all of the questions brought up by the DemonLordEgnigma.

Record time for the reply.

Regardless of whether or not we've passed a similar resolution, I ask that you look at the advantageous qualities that having a self rule system, letting each member nation choose. This is all about choice.

Your proposal is about choice. The resolution you are trying to repeal is about economics.

A self-made system's main disadvantages is a major hit to international trade, which quite a few of us rely on in some form or another, in that it creates the problem of having to send people out to check the amount the other nation is sending and seeing what their amount translates into with your system. With metric, 32 tons in my nation is the same in others, eliminating the conversion problem and allowing for easier trade.

I chose the English to compare to the Metric becauuse it focuses on fractions, and the Metric system focuses on decimals. This resolution would allow member nations to choose among any and all measurment systems, and that's what this resolution is about, choice.

No, the resolution is about economics. Your repeal is about choice. Don't mix the two up.

The metric system is a simple base-10 system designed to where you can do it in your head with ease. Can you name how many people require years of schooling just to do simple conversions in the English system?

The Resolution he speaks of is resolution #8, that protects the people of UN Member states and their right to self-government. I called upon that resolution because the right to self-government is all about choice, choosing one party over the next, choosing one candidate over the next, and yes even choosing one system of weights and measures over the next.

Weights and measurements are not related to who rules. #8 is about who rules and letting the people some say in that. It's being used in a way in which it does not apply.

Even if you live in a nation that has a policy of the metric system. I ask that you support this to allow other nations their right to choose.

If you wish the right to choose, resign from the UN. The UN is about improving the world, not about choice.

This resolution is designed to do anything but limit free trade. Free trade is about choice itself. I choose to trade with the Commonwealth of NationX because I think it is more benifitial to my nation that trading with the Dictatorship of NationY. This repeal would allow nations that very same right to choice.

The international trade issue in this case has nothing to do with who you trade with. That arguement is worthless.

I can see why the resolution was passed, it was passed for ease of trade and encourage sharing among nations, a noble goal. The problem is that it ended up simply ending a choice that should be made by the people of our nations. We shouldn't force metric conversion. This is all about Choice and keeping agencies from Forcing our citizens.

Guess what? Most UN resolutions trample all over national sovereignity. Trying to repeal it just because of that is worthless and a sign you didn't read the FAQ.

It is now, and I wish to change that for the future. If we're being forced into something we shouldn't just sit by and let it happen. The extreme case of this logic is Southern Blacks saying, "slavery is the customary fate of all blacks down here, it's part of membership." We need to end tyranny, that includes forcing nations to comply against their will.

National sovereignity arguement. Invalid due to you agreeing to give that up when joining the UN, the FAQ basically saying the UN overrides it, and the extreme number of resolutions that trample over it. You want national sovereignity? Resign from the UN.

DemonLordEnigma also mentions some very compelling reasons why the metric system is better, and I agree. Given the choice, I would probably choose metric for my own nation, the operative words being "given the choice."

We need to keep protecting the right to choose, and choice is the key message of this resolution. I don't want to get rid of the metric system, I just want metric conversion to be my choice.

See above.

As DLE has provided the long cut down of the argumentation, I'll provide the summary.

Converting from one system to another is bad. That's why all U.N. member nations use the metric system, because that way no one has to make any conversions and everyone does better for it. There is already an absence of conversion in (last I checked) approximately 37,000 nations because of this. Repealing the resolution causes those restrictions to disappear, thus making conversion an issue once more.

Metrics are a reliable system and there is no reason to get rid of them. The only resolution I would support would be one that replaces the overriding system with an even better one than the current base-10 system, and currently none have been presented. Even then, I would probably not repeal the resolution due to the fact that it would change the unified system of the entire United Nations, essentially creating minor chaos until the new system has been fully installed.

On a side note (doesn't count for argumentation as it is a real life example, but just to make you think), the U.S. once LOST a spacecraft several years back because some of their equations were in metrics, and some of them weren't. Lack of a single unifying system of measurement is very, very costly.

that's the spin that was put onto the story, but the actual story is more alarming and anti-metric. since this is not part of "debate," i'll pull up the story and post it in a little bit.

honestly, i feel that the metric system is not reliable enough to be enforced upon all people.

honestly, i feel that the metric system is not reliable enough to be enforced upon all people.

Please say why. Why is it unreliable? Where has it failed? What, specifically, do you have an issue with? And preferably, in less than 10 paragraphs.

From what I can see, your argument is that it is inconsistent. You seem to take issue with the fact that the standard length of wood boards is 1.2 m instead of 1m. What, exactly, is wrong with this? The idea of metrics is simplicity. Thus it would be self-defeating to be having a different name for all the sizes and measurements, as it appears you advocate.

The meter does actually have a definition based on a physical constant which I can dig up if you really want to know, but to the average guy like you and me, in practice it's a just convenient, arbitrary length we can base everything on. I know exactly how long a "standard board" is instead of having to guess. And say I want to package a standard board and send it somewhere. Isn't it easier and better if I tell FedEx or whatever, "I need a box 1.2m long" rather than "I need a box the length of a standard board." Let's not forget that the "standard board" might vary and I might be given a box too short or too long.

As for the Celsius vs. Fahrenheit thing, at sea level, water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius and boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Certainly a lot more reliable than body temperature, and a lot more logical than "water freezes at 32 degrees"

And I think the case for a standardised system of measurement is a very good one. Besides the obvious advantages in not mixing up miles and kilometers, litres and gallons (or even US gallons and UK gallons), Celsius and Fahrenheit etc. when you travel from one place to another, things like the Gimli Glider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider) and the NASA screw-ups could have been avoided. And the standard might as well be a simple set of units in an easy-to-understand format, which all work together.

If you've ever done physics, you'll know what I mean. For a simple example, the acceleration of an object in freefall on Earth is 10 m/s^2, i.e. 10 meters per second per second. This gives you the conversion for mass to weight - on Earth you multiply by 10, so 1kg = 10 N, and also gives you the value of gravitational force which is used in countless other equations, like pressure (height*density*gravity) and potential energy (mass*gravity*height).

I say, if it's good enough for the scientists, it's good enough for us.

8 paragraphs, including this one. If I can make a case in 8 paragraphs, surely you can do the same.

Spirit Nation, a few pointers to do with the kitchen.

A standardised metric cup does not equal an imperial cup. A metric cup is 250 mL, an imperial cup 8 fl. oz. Similar size, but the metric one is larger by approximately 15 mL.

A metric teaspoon is standardised at 5mL. Whether this is the same in the imperial system, I do not know.

A metric tablespoon can be either 15 mL or 20 mL (depending where you are in the world).

While these measurements are based upon the imperial system, they are not the same.

Oh, and on the topic of conversions, here's something of use. 1 gram of water equals 1 cubic centimeter of water equals one millilitre of water. I'm afraid I don't see the same ease of conversion in the Imperial system.

In the argument of Metrics vs Imperial system, Metrics are always better. They're based off of a physical constant (The earth's diameter, I believe), so it will never, ever change. They have that ease of conversion from gram to cubic centimeter to milliliter (and if you didn't know that, you shouldn't be attempting a bill to stop the metric system simply because you've never used it properly), they're easy to understand, and they make calculations and conversions much, much easier because of the base-10 system. The Imperial system, I believe, originally based volume off of the ra, or about a mouthful. A foot was the distance between a kings elbow and his inner arm, or some such nonsense. It changed many times before they finallly set it to the current distance. It has no constant base. The system it is based off makes conversions difficult.

I've already made my arguments as to why this should be put to rest. I suggest we ignore this proposal, the ten thousandth of it's kind, and go consider other, more credible ones (see topic thread - Reforming the Global Library ;) )

PRCC opposes the resolution as it believes the decimal system to be the most logical and simple for our less than educated population.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the original resolution required use of the metric system in the inner dealings of every member nation. Doesn't it just apply to international communication, cooperation, and trade?

Wait a second, WHAT?? Meters are based off of a physical constant, so they will never change?

a) Since when does the length of an inch change? Or did i just miss this?

b) If you want to get technical about it, the Frenchies who made up the Metric System and imposed it on their people actually MIS-MEASURED what they wanted a meter to be. Funny how that works.

People who like to say that the metric system doesn't have flaws are not doing their homework.

Wait a second, WHAT?? Meters are based off of a physical constant, so they will never change?

a) Since when does the length of an inch change? Or did i just miss this?

b) If you want to get technical about it, the Frenchies who made up the Metric System and imposed it on their people actually MIS-MEASURED what they wanted a meter to be. Funny how that works.

People who like to say that the metric system doesn't have flaws are not doing their homework.

1) If I remember correctly, feet and inches would change based on the body measurements of whoever was the monarch at the time. Of course, now they're fixed to a physical constant, but in their origin, they were not.

2) The metre was originally based as a fraction of the diameter of the Earth. Considering that you can't exactly stretch a measuring tape across the Equator, I think you'll appreciate that mismeasuring is really easy. Since you brought it up, according to National Geographic it's defined as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during the time of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

I accept that nothing is free of flaws, though I feel that given the completeness of the SI system and its simplicity it is the best we have. But you have yet to tell us what these flaws are, or show two important things which you'll have to show if you want my, or indeed anyone's support for the repeal -

a) The metric system is so flawed as to be unsuitable for use.
b) There is no need for a worldwide standard, regardless of what system it is, or that maintaining a worldwide standard is too impractical.

The Metric System is not fool-proof
Foolproof from what?

Foolproof from what?

Things like the regressive Spirit Nation.