Saintandy666

I think if you have done it within a certain recent period of time(is it 2 years?), you can say no, but other than that you can defer, but eventually you have to do it basically as many times as you ask I think. I was reading up on this on the directgov website the other day!

I've chosen my course very carefully thank you very much. I'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming from university! It's something I am very passionate about and I'll love it if I am lucky enough to get offers. You seem very presumptuous about people. The courses I have chosen all have VERY low drop out rates. Not that dropping out is the END of the world, especially if you do it early on. If something isn't for you, why spend time doing it when it will affect the rest of your life? In Mikey's case it's different though, as he is so far along on his course.

Some of you lot are totally out of order. You know nothing of the people on this forum, yet you make sweeping accusations and assumptions.

You're silly if you give up. All great people are defined by set-backs. Take this dip and turn it into a strength!

That's because a lot of it is family run though... or set up with friends within their community. We're talking about just generally advertised jobs... when there is a choice.

A 2 1 from a Russell group university does help.

I agree, I sometimes was thinking I don't like that, but I'm not actually disgusted by it as in physically repulsed. But I guess that is what angry was there for.

In the end, I went for quite low on the wrong scale(as I did on a lot of the questions, as I don't believe there is necessarily absolute morality, just standards that we as humans should aspire to be and also if I support free speech, I have to let everyone have their say. Also, he was only using words, not physical violence), but very high on the anger and disgust scale as to ignore all the facts is absolutely ridiculous and damn right insulting to those who suffered horribly during it.

How do you know this?

I stalled a bit on that question as I tried ot work out what they were saying. In the end I just took it as about Holocaust denial.

Oh, yes a 2:1 is well thought of, but if you have it from a top university as well, it helps even more because it shows you have a certain intellectual level.

Wow, it really breaks it down in the city of morals explanation bit.

​My Results... Your sense of wrongness is lower than average You tended to rate the scenarios in the test as less ‘wrong’ than the average person in our sample study. Your score suggests that you are less sensitive than average to actions that go against your personal view of what is right, and that you are therefore probably more tolerant of moral wrongs. Different factors such as religious belief and personal wealth can influence our attitudes to the action and behaviour of others. The Test Your Morality experiment is exploring the ‘Human Superorganism Theory’ of morality. This theory states that human society behaves like a single, huge organism. This organism has functions like reproduction, memory and waste removal that have parallels in individual organisms and even individual cells. In other words, your personal morality may differ from that of other people because you fulfil a different role to them within the superorganism. If the theory is correct, you are less likely to be one of the people who helps the superorganism deal with threats to its wellbeing by policing the ‘bad’ behaviour of others. Your sense of anger is lower than average You tended to rate the scenarios in the test as less likely to make you angry than the average person in our sample study. Your score suggests that you do not generally feel anger when someone goes against your personal view of what is right. This means you are less likely to react in a confrontational manner towards people who do not share your values. Anger is thought to have evolved as a response to threats from predators. In a social context, anger is common where harm or injury was intentional rather than accidental, and may result in a desire to punish the perpetrator, either physically or by other methods. Some psychologists think that ‘moral anger’ evolved to encourage retribution against individuals who did not support the wider community and attempted to damage society for their own personal gain. Your sense of disgust is lower than average You tended to rate the scenarios in the test as less ‘disgusting’ than the average person in our sample study. Disgust relates to your feeling of revulsion against a person who commits a moral ‘wrong’. The word ‘disgust’ can also relate to something you find physically repellent. Your score suggests that you do not experience a strong emotional response to issues of right and wrong. You probably rarely feel physically sickened by the immoral actions of other people. Interestingly, the concept of physical disgust may play a similar role to moral disgust. Some psychologists believe that disgust evolved as a mechanism to help us avoid disease and parasites. Moral disgust may act in a similar way by causing us to avoid people who we perceive as causing society harm. Your desire to avoid is lower than average We also looked at your desire to avoid individuals who do things that you don’t agree with. You tended to be less likely to want to ‘avoid’ than the average person in our sample study. The desire to avoid is thought to be a consequence of being disgusted by someone’s behaviour. Like disgust, avoidance is associated by some psychologists with perceived threats from infection and parasites. Your score suggests that while you may find some actions morally disgusting, you are less likely to have concerns about interacting with those involved. You may be more tolerant than others in terms of your desire to avoid. Theories suggest that avoidance plays an important role in helping the human superorganism adapt to different kinds of threat, particularly those associated with ‘social parasites’, or people who try to cheat on their social obligations. Your desire to punish is lower than average Finally, we looked at your desire to punish individuals who do things that you don’t agree with. You tended to be less likely to want to ‘punish’ than the average person in our sample study. Your desire to punish indicates how inclined you are to engage in active retribution against an individual who is doing something you perceive as ‘wrong’. This may be a result of the amount of anger you feel towards them. Your score suggests that no matter how strongly you may react to moral wrongs, you do not generally feel a desire to see moral ‘justice’ done. You may be less inclined than others to challenge moral wrongdoers. The Human Superorganism Theory suggests that actively punishing those who do not fulfil their social obligations is one means of regulating social conduct and thus increasing social cohesion. Oh, and the low levels of disgust was what 'defined' me apparently.

And also, most jobs these days aren't so bothered what your course is in, but where it is from. If you are at a Russell Group uni with a 2:1, that'll get you far.

There's nothing wrong with patriotism, but it is very often used as a shield for what is essentially disgusting racism.

I think incidents like this show that racism is well and truely alive only in the recent past - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15735026 Though thankfully, it is less prevalent than it used to be.

Now isolationism is something that doesn't work in capitalism! Look where it got America in the 20's. Mercantilism died out in the 18th century for a reason. It doesn't work in a globalised system.

You clearly didn't read my post.

Ermmm.... that's pretty much what I just said, minus the again ridiculous usage of the phrase 'Liberal Elitist'. I still don't think you understand what Liberalism is. I said that they should be able to employ the best person for the job, and if that is white males, fine, but if it is a black female then also fine. What I am saying is, there are reasons why white males always win at the moment, that positive discrimination WON'T solve. We need better education and treatment of poverty that many ethnic minorities live through... to help even the balance. Not by forcing people to hire certain staff, but by giving everyone the chance to be competitive.

That's a good point actually. You don't want them to be a job interview, so why did you quit after two years? It's an awkward situation.

I think Capitalism is the best system we have, but all systems need rules and regulations and some interference to make it fair. If we want true meritocracy, we have to have equality of opportunity... which is something capitalism does not provide if it is allowed to become rampant.

Postive discrimination is something I am vehemently against. I believe it solves nothing, as it treats the symptoms and not the cause. We want the best people possible in jobs, and it is patronising to minorities/females to suggest they can't get there on their own accord. What we need to do is to solve the issues of why there aren't enough females/minorities in certain jobs compared to the percentage they make up in the population. I say the main issue is poverty and education, but it's a complex issue.

It looks good, I plan to go watch it when it comes out!

I never really understand why people want to go on those types of holidays...

There's no point dropping out, because at the moment you won't get a job good enough to justify it. You might as well complete your course, because 40% of the population are going to have a degree(so better to be in that 40%, especially as you are almost done) and it's better to have one in application for some jobs than not. Apparently some jobs just look to see if you have a degree at 2:1 these days before interviews etc...