Two interesting questions

[Hitman]

In my Psychology lesson today we were given a couple of questions... they were interesting and the responses were very interesting. I can't remember exactly what it was called, it was to do with morality - do people do bad things with good intentions? Anyway, to the questions. You cannot change anything in this, you must either do one thing or the other. You cannot weevil your way out of it or do nothing. If you're going to reply then choose an option.

OK, so here it is: A woman has planted an atomic bomb somewhere in London and it will go off unless you can find it and stop it (the woman isn't in London, so she wont be affected). However, to find it you must torture the woman's baby. If you do so she will tell you, saving the people in London. If you don't then these people will die.

Now, you're faced with two horrible choices. Torture a baby and save the whole of London, which will include thousands of other babies and children, or not torture this one child but let all of the people in London die: many more babies will die in horrible ways from radiation poisoning, etc.

What would your choice be? Remember, you must choose one choice... DON'T say "well the Police can search for the bomb"... doing so defeats the whole point of the question: this question needs an exact answer of "torture or not torture".

Some people in my class said torture the baby... you will be doing something so wrong to one child, but saving so many more. Or do you not commit this terrible act and allow many children to die?

Remember this is just a question to point out morality... not to see if you're a sicko... both options aren't good.

Now, answer this:

There are 7 people dying in a hospital ward and need organ transplants but there are no organs. You walk through the ward and the doctor says "you, come here. We will use your organs to cure these people". Would you allow yourself to be killed to heal these people you don't know, or would you allow them to die?

Again, interesting responses... I personally said I'd save myself. Then it's like letting all of the people in London die...

I think this is the right place, sorry if it's not... kind of like a debate.

Thanks for reading and I'm interested in answers...

Thread moved by iAdam (Forum Super Moderator); From 'Members Debates'
Thread closed by invincible (Forum Super Moderator) due to bullying.

[Seatherny]

I would torture the baby. Yes the baby will suffer pain, but atleast that way no one dies - neither does the baby.

[Japan]

For question one:

I'd go back in time and kill the woman when she's still a baby. I'd probably leave the baby and get a taxi out of London (oh how selfish ;o). I don't know how to explain, but I'd rather have nothing to do with the events and just let it go by default (if you get what I mean).
Though it depends on what happens to the baby- does it die after all the torture?

Question Two:

I'd save myself TBH. I know that is horribly selfish, but in my opinion a perfectly healthy and innocent human shouldn't have to die because 7 others are dying.

[scottish]

In my Psychology lesson today we were given a couple of questions... they were interesting and the responses were very interesting. I can't remember exactly what it was called, it was to do with morality - do people do bad things with good intentions? Anyway, to the questions. You cannot change anything in this, you must either do one thing or the other. You cannot weevil your way out of it or do nothing. If you're going to reply then choose an option.

OK, so here it is: A woman has planted an atomic bomb somewhere in London and it will go off unless you can find it and stop it (the woman isn't in London, so she wont be affected). However, to find it you must torture the woman's baby. If you do so she will tell you, saving the people in London. If you don't then these people will die.

Now, you're faced with two horrible choices. Torture a baby and save the whole of London, which will include thousands of other babies and children, or not torture this one child but let all of the people in London die: many more babies will die in horrible ways from radiation poisoning, etc.

What would your choice be? Remember, you must choose one choice... DON'T say "well the Police can search for the bomb"... doing so defeats the whole point of the question: this question needs an exact answer of "torture or not torture".

Some people in my class said torture the baby... you will be doing something so wrong to one child, but saving so many more. Or do you not commit this terrible act and allow many children to die?

Remember this is just a question to point out morality... not to see if you're a sicko... both options aren't good.

Now, answer this:

There are 7 people dying in a hospital ward and need organ transplants but there are no organs. You walk through the ward and the doctor says "you, come here. We will use your organs to cure these people". Would you allow yourself to be killed to heal these people you don't know, or would you allow them to die?

Again, interesting responses... I personally said I'd save myself. Then it's like letting all of the people in London die...

I think this is the right place, sorry if it's not... kind of like a debate.

Thanks for reading and I'm interested in answers...

I would torture the baby, no questions.

And I would allow them to die.

[Hitman]

I would torture the baby. Yes the baby will suffer pain, but atleast that way no one dies - neither does the baby.
Interesting answer indeed. What you said is a good point.

What about the second question? What would you do there?


For question one:

I'd go back in time and kill the woman when she's still a baby. I'd probably leave the baby and get a taxi out of London (oh how selfish ;o). I don't know how to explain, but I'd rather have nothing to do with the events and just let it go by default (if you get what I mean).
Though it depends on what happens to the baby- does it die after all the torture?

Question Two:

I'd save myself TBH. I know that is horribly selfish, but in my opinion a perfectly healthy and innocent human shouldn't have to die because 7 others are dying.

You can't leave. You must torture the baby and save London or leave the baby and let London get blown up. No alternatives (that's the whole point of this). The baby would live I assume, unless you decided to kill it after you got the answer...

I am in agreement with the second.


I would torture the baby, no questions.

And I would allow them to die.
Honest answer. I suppose we must look at the interests of the people... one baby would suffer pain or thousands of people would die and suffer pain on the same level.

[Tash.]

I'd torture the baby, wouldn't be easy but you can't save 1 life from being harmed and allow hundreds/thousands of others to lose theirs.

And I would save myself, supposing I was completely healthy at this point of course. It's against human nature to do anything different.

[Seatherny]

For the second one, I would save myself.

[FlyingJesus]

What implements do I have that I can torture the baby with?

[Smits]

I'd otrture the baby. That simple. I don't know whether being required to actually kill the baby would change my decision though.

For the second question, i would save myself and walk out.

The two cases can't really have anything in common since the differences are so severe.

[Hitman]

I'd torture the baby, wouldn't be easy but you can't save 1 life from being harmed and allow hundreds/thousands of others to lose theirs.

And I would save myself, supposing I was completely healthy at this point of course. It's against human nature to do anything different.Indeed. That is weighing up the interests, and the thousands of people have greater.


What implements do I have that I can torture the baby with?Anything (that would cause pain).


I'd otrture the baby. That simple. I don't know whether being required to actually kill the baby would change my decision though.

For the second question, i would save myself and walk out.

The two cases can't really have anything in common since the differences are so severe.The thing I saw about them both is that you have to either save one person or many. In the first it seems neutral, you don't personally die/get hurt.

Now look at this. Most, if not all of us, have chosen to torture the baby to save all of the people, BUT we've saved ourselves and let the others die. So 1 person gets injured because we want to save many, but in the second scenario seven die because we want to save ourselves. We switch it around... indeed, the circumstances are different, but if you look at the first one we're only torturing the baby because loads of people > baby. But when it's us as risk it's us > loads of people.

[jackass]

I would torture the baby, no questions.

And I would allow them to die.

Agreed with this guy here. ^

I know it sounds harsh, but to save 1000s of people - it's worth it.

And for the second one, I can't explain it, but I know in my head.

[Hitman]

Agreed with this guy here. ^

I know it sounds harsh, but to save 1000s of people - it's worth it.

And for the second one, I can't explain it, but I know in my head.
Could you try explaining, I'm very interested Jack.

[jackass]

Could you try explaining, I'm very interested Jack.

Well, it's kinda hard! But, the objective of life is basically to survive - I know it sounds really bad, so don't judge me!

But then, saying this... live together, die alone. So we're back to square one!

[Tash.]

Indeed. That is weighing up the interests, and the thousands of people have greater.

Anything (that would cause pain).

The thing I saw about them both is that you have to either save one person or many. In the first it seems neutral, you don't personally die/get hurt.

Now look at this. Most, if not all of us, have chosen to torture the baby to save all of the people, BUT we've saved ourselves and let the others die. So 1 person gets injured because we want to save many, but in the second scenario seven die because we want to save ourselves. We switch it around... indeed, the circumstances are different, but if you look at the first one we're only torturing the baby because loads of people > baby. But when it's us as risk it's us > loads of people.

Most people would torture the baby because it's for the greater good, it's morally correct to save hundreds/thousands of others. But for the second one it's within human nature, intrinsically to save yourself over others. Perhaps a better question would be:

You either shoot yourself in the head (aka killing you definitely) or a person will let off a bomb killing thousands in london. What do you do?

[Smits]

That is interesting, but i still think the two can't compare because the baby doesnt necessarily die, and the 7 people are already ill.

That being said, i can't say i'd kill myself to save thousadns either.

[Seatherny]

Hitman, in the baby scenario, what would you do?


You either shoot yourself in the head (aka killing you definitely) or a person will let off a bomb killing thousands in london. What do you do?

My decision would be affected by many factors e.g. my age, who will die in the bomb? My family? Am I healthy or ill?

What would you do in that situation?

[FlyingJesus]

Anything (that would cause pain).

Sexy I'd definitely torture the baby then

For the 2nd I'd save myself because I quite like being alive

[Tash.]

Hitman, in the baby scenario, what would you do?



My decision would be affected by many factors e.g. my age, who will die in the bomb? My family? Am I healthy or ill?

What would you do in that situation?

The factors are - your age right now, the people would be who is in london right now.. so if you're family/friends aren't in London now they won't die. And you're as healthy as you are right now.

In that situation, I know it's selfish but I wouldn't be able to kill myself with those factors.

[Seatherny]

The factors are - your age right now, the people would be who is in london right now.. so if you're family/friends aren't in London now they won't die. And you're as healthy as you are right now.

In that situation, I know it's selfish but I wouldn't be able to kill myself with those factors.

Even then I would find it hard to shoot myself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes to the first and No to the second.

[Nixt]

I would torture the baby, of course I would. I wouldn't think twice. I think almost everyone would say they would... of course, being put in that situation you may well find that you wouldn't be able to do it. I think I would though, I can be a cold and heartless ******* at times.

As for question two, I would let them die fer sure. I wouldn't let myself die for the sake of others unless I was going to be seen as like, a full on hero for it.

[Black_Apalachi]

I wouldn't be able to torture a baby. I'm guessing the deaths of the people of London would be pretty quick, so I would see torturing a baby as the worse option.

The second question really depends on my circumstances. I mean I couldn't do that to my family but if I had no family, I'd possibly consider it. Put it like this, I'd be way more likely to agree to die to save others than to torture a baby. End of.

[Titch]

Couldnt even considering torturing the baby, thats just sick in the head, i would rather die.

[scottish]

I wouldn't be able to torture a baby. I'm guessing the deaths of the people of London would be pretty quick, so I would see torturing a baby as the worse option.

The second question really depends on my circumstances. I mean I couldn't do that to my family but if I had no family, I'd possibly consider it. Put it like this, I'd be way more likely to agree to die to save others than to torture a baby. End of.

1 life vs thousands, lol.

Torturing the baby is the better option, not worse :P

[Hitman]

Hitman, in the baby scenario, what would you do?



My decision would be affected by many factors e.g. my age, who will die in the bomb? My family? Am I healthy or ill?

What would you do in that situation?
Torture the baby. The intrests of the thousands of people in London are greater than that of this one baby.


Couldnt even considering torturing the baby, thats just sick in the head, i would rather die.Evidently you either didn't read the post properly or you don't understand this at all. Both options are sick - both options will result in something very nasty happening, but one must be chosen. You dying ISN'T an answer. You must choose to torture the baby or allow thousands of people to die (in painful ways aswell). If you don't want to answer the question then don't post, otherwise your post is utterly pointless.

The whole idea is about morality: both are wrong, so you must act morally wrong but with good intentions (saving thousands of people, or not causing pain to a baby).

[Black_Apalachi]

1 life vs thousands, lol.

Torturing the baby is the better option, not worse :P

No because the baby isn't gonna die, it's just going to suffer. Quick death is better than that kind of suffering.

[Hitman]

No because the baby isn't gonna die, it's just going to suffer. Quick death is better than that kind of suffering.
Remember those in London will experience pain. Many will die instantly, those who don't will have radiation poisoning and thus be in as much pain.

[scottish]

So you'd take the guilt of thousands of deaths being on your shoulder just to save one kid from some suffering.

[Titch]

Torture the baby. The intrests of the thousands of people in London are greater than that of this one baby.

Evidently you either didn't read the post properly or you don't understand this at all. Both options are sick - both options will result in something very nasty happening, but one must be chosen. You dying ISN'T an answer. You must choose to torture the baby or allow thousands of people to die (in painful ways aswell). If you don't want to answer the question then don't post, otherwise your post is utterly pointless.

The whole idea is about morality: both are wrong, so you must act morally wrong but with good intentions (saving thousands of people, or not causing pain to a baby).

I do understand the question.


*REMOVED*

Edited by invincible (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't make inappropriate comments

[Hitman]

I do understand the question.*REMOVED*.
From what you said before it appeared that you didn't, but what you've posted now shows you do.

Your answers are interesting... first is different to everybody else's. Maybe so but many babies (children, men and women too) will be in a lot of pain and will die.

They're dying because they don't have the organ, but if they do then they'll be fine.

[Seatherny]

I do understand the question.
*REMOVED*

In London:

Christian 58.2%
No religion 15.8%
Religion not stated 8.7%
Islam 8.5%
Hinduism 4.1%
Judaism 2.1%
Sikhism 1.5%
Buddhists 0.8%
Paganism 0.3%
Other 0.2%

So are you calling Christians stupid as its "full" of them?
Either way, your post is highly racist and you seem to be a highly ignorant kid with little knowledge of anything. Racism (you obviously don't seem to realise) is against the law and you can be put in prison for it.
If you hate foreigners* so much, then leave the forum as its owned by 2 non British/whites.

[Tash.]

I do understand the question.

1)*REMOVED*.

Ok I respect your opinion on this but thats a terrible thing to say if you meant that..

Infact are you saying that if the question stated only 'purely british' people would die would your answer be different? That's an appalling attitude.

[Seatherny]

Ok I respect your opinion on this but thats a terrible thing to say if you meant that..

Infact are you saying that if the question stated only 'purely british' people would die would your answer be different? That's an appalling attitude.

People like him are ignorant and have no idea what they are on about :) They annoy me a lot due to their attitude. I am being careful with my words here.

[LoveToStack]

Torture the baby to the first.
Save myself to the second.

I value millions of lives over the life of one baby, however I value my own life over that of seven others. In the second case self preservation plays a part but in the first it's 'for the greater good'.

[Stephen!]

I would allow everyone to die.

I wouldn't live with myself if I did that so I would rather be blown up too.

[Inseriousity.]

Yes I would torture the baby. It's obviously a clever baby if it knows where the bomb is and can tell you (no their intelligence wouldn't affect my decision. I just try to make jokes out of terrible events, it's my way of coping!) I probably wouldn't like doing it but I would and I would ease my conscience by concentrating on the good that came out of it.

No, I would not give my organs away while I was still alive, excluding kidneys as we can live with one of them (so I would save one person!). Unless I didn't read your post properly, I'm guessing they're old to have such massive health problems (obviously youngsters need transplant sometimes but I'll go with generalisation of ill = fairly old) whereas I feel like I've got a lot more life left to live.

[scottish]

Yes I would torture the baby. It's obviously a clever baby if it knows where the bomb is and can tell you (no their intelligence wouldn't affect my decision. I just try to make jokes out of terrible events, it's my way of coping!) I probably wouldn't like doing it but I would and I would ease my conscience by concentrating on the good that came out of it.

No, I would not give my organs away while I was still alive, excluding kidneys as we can live with one of them (so I would save one person!). Unless I didn't read your post properly, I'm guessing they're old to have such massive health problems (obviously youngsters need transplant sometimes but I'll go with generalisation of ill = fairly old) whereas I feel like I've got a lot more life left to live.

Point in torturing the baby is to get the mother to tell you where they are, not the baby :P

[Inseriousity.]

Point in torturing the baby is to get the mother to tell you where they are, not the baby :P

LOL so it is. I'm not reading properly today. :P

[Titch]

I am not ignorant, i gave MY opinion, did i ever say it was right? NO, i gave my opinion which i am entitled to. it was not racist at all, Did i say there a munch of (insert n word here), NO. I have my opinion on the situation which i am entitled to do. And funny you mention the law, because i am currently studying Public Services at A level (and plan to study it at uni), so i know dam right that what i said is not racist, and i could do get "Done" at all.

So don't try and think your all above me because you have a different opinion.


People like him are ignorant and have no idea what they are on about :) They annoy me a lot due to their attitude. I am being careful with my words here.


In London:

Christian 58.2%
No religion 15.8%
Religion not stated 8.7%
Islam 8.5%
Hinduism 4.1%
Judaism 2.1%
Sikhism 1.5%
Buddhists 0.8%
Paganism 0.3%
Other 0.2%

So are you calling Christians stupid as its "full" of them?
Either way, your post is highly racist and you seem to be a highly ignorant kid with little knowledge of anything. Racism (you obviously don't seem to realise) is against the law and you can be put in prison for it.
If you hate foreigners* so much, then leave the forum as its owned by 2 non British/whites.

[scottish]

what you said was entirely racist, lets leave them to die their foreign :rolleyes: Clearly not racist or anything. Just because you didn't use the N word doesn't mean its not racist, lol.

[Hitman]

Guy's, let's not take this in the direction of race: Titch, thinking back to what you said was indeed quite insensitive. Let's stop the race discussion here and focus on the topic's original questions and discussions.

Inseriousity., it seems most of us are in agreement. It's funny though, that we value the lives of many others over a baby yet value our own over seven other people. :P

Stephen, you could do one or the other then commit suicide if it made you feel better. But one must be done... if you do nothing then that'll be saving the baby over the people of London.

[Seatherny]

I am not ignorant, i gave MY opinion, did i ever say it was right? NO, i gave my opinion which i am entitled to. it was not racist at all, Did i say there a munch of (insert n word here), NO. I have my opinion on the situation which i am entitled to do. And funny you mention the law, because i am currently studying Public Services at A level (and plan to study it at uni), so i know dam right that what i said is not racist, and i could do get "Done" at all.

So don't try and think your all above me because you have a different opinion.

I really hope you reconsider your choice to do Public Services at university as you are obviously not very good at it if you think what you said was not racist.

Also back to the original topic, I think torutiring a baby, even though its horrible, is a bit better than torturing a full grown person.

[ecstasy]

1) Torture the baby
2) Save myself, let them die

I'd do anything to save others, as long as it didnt involve me dying

[Pazza]

I really like this thread, it's quite clever to see how people think about things.

Personally, i'd torture the baby, i believe that risking one life is worth that to save thousands.

However, for the second one there are tonnes of variables that would affect my decision, however if I assume the current state of health i'm in now, I'd let myself live.

[FlyingJesus]

Point in torturing the baby is to get the mother to tell you where they are, not the baby :P

Oh I missed that bit too, in that case just give her some chocolate, mad women will do anything for chocolate


I really hope you reconsider your choice to do Public Services at university as you are obviously not very good at it if you think what you said was not racist.

tbh I didn't even know it was an A level let alone uni degree, it's just a pointless half diploma everywhere I know of for kids who failed all their GCSE's

[Smits]

I am not ignorant, i gave MY opinion, did i ever say it was right? NO, i gave my opinion which i am entitled to. it was not racist at all, Did i say there a munch of (insert n word here), NO. I have my opinion on the situation which i am entitled to do. And funny you mention the law, because i am currently studying Public Services at A level (and plan to study it at uni), so i know dam right that what i said is not racist, and i could do get "Done" at all.

So don't try and think your all above me because you have a different opinion.

Heres my oppinion; you are a nationalist. Saying something as stupid as that? I really do suggest you trace your routes. As should any other 'British' person who is against foreigners.


But yeh, i think most people would opt to save themselves over others, purely human nature. Anybody who dies for someone else has alot of courage. I once saw a memorial to a soldier who died covering a bomb while his friends ran.

[brandon]

I would torture the baby and let the 7 in the Hospital ward die. Take whatever is of any use when I die but I won't go out of my way to die.

[Pyroka]

tbh I've gotta agree with Brandon, I'd torture the baby just because if thats what it takes, thats what it takes, ya gotta man up to save london and all that. plus id wanna go on the london eye afterwards.

i mean if i couldnt put up with the horror of killing a baby id donate myself to save 7 people, but otherwise i dont think i could do that. Its pure instinct of survival, its not modern psychology or anything, its just basic instincts that we were brought upon.

[Seatherny]

tbh I didn't even know it was an A level let alone uni degree, it's just a pointless half diploma everywhere I know of for kids who failed all their GCSE's

LOL I was thinking the same about never hearing about the course being available at college.

[Black_Apalachi]

So you'd take the guilt of thousands of deaths being on your shoulder just to save one kid from some suffering.

I couldn't torture a baby. End of.

I don't think I'd feel guilt cos I didn't make the bomb.

[Titch]

tbh I didn't even know it was an A level let alone uni degree, it's just a pointless half diploma everywhere I know of for kids who failed all their GCSE's

Needed 5 GCSE's at B or above to get on the course so not exactly for idiots, all hopeless ******s to the level 1&2 (GCSE level). I only chose it because i want to be an customs officer and that's my best route in at a higher level.

After looking back i see what i said was yes wrong and rude, but its just my opinion, i am fed up of going into london and getting all these rude forgiens everywhere, if they were polite i wouldn't mind, just pisses me off that they are always so bloody rude. I mean, in kent we get alot of polish people, and they are as nice as hell, very polite and always a pleasure to talk to, its not like that in london which is really why i dont care much for the people who live there.

[scottish]

Lmao to do public services in uni you only need any one A level at grade C (or equiv. 80 tarriff points for any other education system) or higher

[Eoin]

1) london can burn because theres no way im torturing a baby
2) id tell the doctor that he could give up his organs and ill do the surgery :):)

[kk.]

Lmao to do public services in uni you only need any one A level at grade C (or equiv. 80 tarriff points for any other education system) or higher

'Points accepted: 240
Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 240 '

http://search.ucas.com/cgi-bin/hsrun/search/search/StateId/DdyZaG7V99CLcJvMbBMpv1EcRXrJo-4bz-/HAHTpage/search.HsEntryReq.run?n=1004973#ER-A

i dont know what he wrote but its his opinion and if he thinks that then let him think what he wants and voice his opinion.
as for hitman (i think it was you who started the thread lol), you shouldnt be trying to convince people who have chosen to let the people die to torture the baby. you asked the question and you shouldnt try to convince them otherwise lol

[Seatherny]

Needed 5 GCSE's at B or above to get on the course so not exactly for idiots, all hopeless ******s to the level 1&2 (GCSE level). I only chose it because i want to be an customs officer and that's my best route in at a higher level.

After looking back i see what i said was yes wrong and rude, but its just my opinion, i am fed up of going into london and getting all these rude forgiens everywhere, if they were polite i wouldn't mind, just pisses me off that they are always so bloody rude. I mean, in kent we get alot of polish people, and they are as nice as hell, very polite and always a pleasure to talk to, its not like that in london which is really why i dont care much for the people who live there.

I have met very rude white people, but I have also met some very nice white people. So just because I met some rude white people, I dont hate them all. I judge people differently as everyone is different. Just because a few are rude, majority of the people wont go IDC IF THEY ALL DIE.
Its plain ignorant.

[Titch]

Lmao to do public services in uni you only need any one A level at grade C (or equiv. 80 tarriff points for any other education system) or higher

Sounds good!

I get 4 A levels for doing this course so that's cool. I don't care if everyone "thinks its crap or whatever". It gets me to where i want to be in life and that's all that matters.

and to sav, as i stated again, its my opinion, i am entitled to my opinion, so just bloody stop moaning and get over yourself.

[Seatherny]

Sounds good!

I get 4 A levels for doing this course so that's cool. I don't care if everyone "thinks its crap or whatever". It gets me to where i want to be in life and that's all that matters.

and to sav, as i stated again, its my opinion, i am entitled to my opinion, so just bloody stop moaning and get over yourself.

Everyones entitled to an opinion, but expressing your opinion in public should be to a limit. If someone hated white people and went around posting I HOPE ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE DIE IN A FIRE IN LONDON, I am sure you wont moan.

[Titch]

Everyones entitled to an opinion, but expressing your opinion in public should be to a limit. If someone hated white people and went around posting I HOPE ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE DIE IN A FIRE IN LONDON, I am sure you wont moan.

am i saying i hate all white people? or all black people ? NO

I am saying i would rather let the bomb go off than torture the baby because i find many people in London are just rude foreign people and i just dont care for people who come to England for a better life or whatever, and then can be so rude and up themselves, i don't go on holiday and be rude and up myself to people, so why should they. I know this is only a small number of people, but it just makes me really hate people in London. If the bomb was say in Manchester or Liverpool i would probably torture the baby (however much i would hate myself for doing it) but London i just wouldn't, end off. Maby my opinion will change as i visit London more when i am older, but as it stands its that.

[scottish]

'Points accepted: 240
Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 240 '

http://search.ucas.com/cgi-bin/hsrun/search/search/StateId/DdyZaG7V99CLcJvMbBMpv1EcRXrJo-4bz-/HAHTpage/search.HsEntryReq.run?n=1004973#ER-A

i dont know what he wrote but its his opinion and if he thinks that then let him think what he wants and voice his opinion.
as for hitman (i think it was you who started the thread lol), you shouldnt be trying to convince people who have chosen to let the people die to torture the baby. you asked the question and you shouldnt try to convince them otherwise lol

Which uni is that, i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.


Sounds good!

I get 4 A levels for doing this course so that's cool. I don't care if everyone "thinks its crap or whatever". It gets me to where i want to be in life and that's all that matters.

and to sav, as i stated again, its my opinion, i am entitled to my opinion, so just bloody stop moaning and get over yourself.

Racism is still unacceptable even if it is your opinion

[Titch]

Which uni is that, i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.



Racism is still unacceptable even if it is your opinion

1) Not sure if i will go to uni of kent, will look round and choose the best for the course.

2) I am saying i wouldnt help them becuase i dont like the people in london, thats not racist.

3) your can not even talk about racism, you are the most racist person on habbo i have ever seen!

[scottish]

Saying you don't like people in london because their foreign is racist, lol...

And i beg your pardon i'm not racist? so yeh just because you are don't accuse others to try and take fact away that you are.

[Titch]

Saying you don't like people in london because their foreign is racist, lol...

And i beg your pardon i'm not racist? so yeh just because you are don't accuse others to try and take fact away that you are.

you are ALWAYS being racist on habbo and i am sure many others will agree. And i am not racist.

[kk.]

Which uni is that, i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.



Racism is still unacceptable even if it is your opinion

sheffield hallam. sorry didnt know the search would time out :(

sunderland:
Points accepted: 240 - 360
Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 240

[scottish]

Tariff score Points accepted: 80
Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 80



Also 4 GCSE's at C is accepted, gcses at uni lol

[kk.]

where the hell are you looking? :S

http://prospectus.shu.ac.uk/CourseEntry.cfm?CourseID=876&CurrTab=5

[scottish]

Can you not read or aren't you smart enough to understand


i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.


i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.


i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.


i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.


i looked at Uni of Kent which is where he lives so.

[kk.]

i did read it... but why youre bringing up the uni of kent again i dont know? you asked a question i responded, then you go back to kent, even after hes said he probs wont go there..

[scottish]

He might not go there, because hes not going there doesn't instantly mean hes going to sheffield? rofl

And i simply replied proving the qualifications necessary for the joke of a course in Kent

[kk.]

no he might not but i was proving a point because you were picking on him because of the course he wants to do, and how you need '80 tariff points' to get in and not calling it a real A level..

[scottish]

I believe someone else posted saying it was a joke of a course or whatever before i even posted in relation to that?

[Titch]

Scott, Just becuase i am not a smart arse mother ****** doesnt mean its a joke of a course, i actually want to go to uni and do something with my life, most of the kids where i live dont even make it to college, so i am happy, i dont care if you think the course is a joke or what. *REMOVED*

Edited by invincible (Forum Super Moderators): Please do not be rude to, or insult other forum members.

[Seatherny]

Any course which wants 80 tarrif points is just laughable. Anyone who goes to a uni to do a course asking for just 80 tarrif points is wasting their time and money. 80 points, I think, is a C. 1 C at A Level to get into university is a pure joke.
And Titch, which course do you think he is doing?

[scottish]

Scott, Just becuase i am not a smart arse mother ****** doesnt mean its a joke of a course, i actually want to go to uni and do something with my life, most of the kids where i live dont even make it to college, so i am happy, i dont care if you think the course is a joke or what. *REMOVED*.

Lol? i never claimed i do "the hardest course" so another typical lie you make up im assuming? My course isnt hard and as its the first year its the basic stuff so? fail. And how wouldn't i have time, i do 15 hours of uni a week and im currently off just now as its exam season, so again, fail.

*REMOVED*


Any course which wants 80 tarrif points is just laughable. Anyone who goes to a uni to do a course asking for just 80 tarrif points is wasting their time and money. 80 points, I think, is a C. 1 C at A Level to get into university is a pure joke.
And Titch, which course do you think he is doing?

Lol at first bit and i'm doing computer science.

Edited by invincible (Forum Super Moderator): Please to not bully other members.

[kk.]

Any course which wants 80 tarrif points is just laughable. Anyone who goes to a uni to do a course asking for just 80 tarrif points is wasting their time and money. 80 points, I think, is a C. 1 C at A Level to get into university is a pure joke.
And Titch, which course do you think he is doing?

seriously? im not sure if youre applying the laughable bit to the course at all unis or just kent. some universities require less because its not taught as well.

ive just done a quick searcha nd found a computer science course which is 150. ok its more than 80 but going on your reasoning, 150 is also 'laughable'

now please get back on topic, its not a thread about tariff points and courses..


i personally would torture the baby, and keep myself alive. Im on the organ donor registry because id like to know i have the possibility of helping people when i die, but i wouldnt die just so someone else can have a few more years.

[Seatherny]

Lol? i never claimed i do "the hardest course" so another typical lie you make up im assuming? My course isnt hard and as its the first year its the basic stuff so? fail. And how wouldn't i have time, i do 15 hours of uni a week and im currently off just now as its exam season, so again, fail.

*REMOVED*

Lol at first bit and i'm doing computer science.

Well maybe he bought 560T worth of credits on his banned account. Then logged on and realised he was banned :) Its possible :P hahaha. I think its better to spend the money on buying a Throne than buying Habbo Credits, but it depends how much the person spends. If for e.g. I HAD to put £10 into Habbo, I would use that to buy a Throne instead of Habbo Coins. But however, if someone starts spending hundreds on pounds on Habbo (buying credits or furni) then its lame.

Anyway, computer science is actually a hard course and requires real A Levels and good grades (depending on the uni).


seriously? im not sure if youre applying the laughable bit to the course at all unis or just kent. some universities require less because its not taught as well.

ive just done a quick searcha nd found a computer science course which is 150. ok its more than 80 but going on your reasoning, 150 is also 'laughable'

now please get back on topic, its not a thread about tariff points and courses..


i personally would torture the baby, and keep myself alive. Im on the organ donor registry because id like to know i have the possibility of helping people when i die, but i wouldnt die just so someone else can have a few more years.

I have no knowledge of the course or the university hence the laughable comment wasn't directed at the course or the uni. It was directed only at the universities wanting 80 points.

[FlyingJesus]

After looking back i see what i said was yes wrong and rude, but its just my opinion, i am fed up of going into london and getting all these rude forgiens everywhere, if they were polite i wouldn't mind, just pisses me off that they are always so bloody rude. I mean, in kent we get alot of polish people, and they are as nice as hell, very polite and always a pleasure to talk to, its not like that in london which is really why i dont care much for the people who live there.

London is still white in the majority (71% at last census, probably a bit less by now but still a majority) and as you've alluded to it's more London that's rude than foreign people. Opinions are fine and no-one can really knock you for having an opinion, but that's only true as long as your opinion is an informed one and not a prejudiced one based on false facts.

Shall we get back to the discussion instead of fighting about who's the more racist Habbo?