I thought underwater basket weaving was the accepted term for an imprudent choice of college major.
Please feel free to insert your own imprudent choice of major and continue the discussion.
I don’t know what real major you would consider to be “impudent”.
Yup.
That is, I wouldn’t say “evil”. Evil is doing harm for the sake of doing harm, or at least with massive disregard for the harm. But sometimes you have to do a wrong thing; because sometimes there is no right thing to do.
But it’s crucially important to remember that it’s still a wrong thing; because if we start thinking it’s a right thing because it was a necessary thing, it becomes much more likely that we’ll do the thing again when it isn’t necessary.
People shouldn’t be punished for doing a necessary thing when it really is necessary. But saying they shouldn’t be punished isn’t the same thing as declaring that doing it was right.
And I really do not see how it’s not possible to discuss dangerous situations, and things one can do when one thinks a situation is dangerous, without going on about how the victim was Imprudent. What do you do when you’re telling a kid not to run into traffic? Do you think you have to come up with a case in which a specific person got run over and squashed in order to do that?
And why do you think that somebody who’s going to ignore your advice about danger will suddenly take it if you throw the magic word Imprudent in there?
I graduated high school in 1994 from a public education system that did a great job of preparing me for college. The administrators measured success by how many graduating students went on to college but they were but one voice in the cacophony of those telling me telling me college was my best avenue to success. We take these young people whom are told that college is the only way and set upon them as lions would upon sick gazelles saddling them with predatory loans that will drown them in debt for years to come. Fortunately I wasn’t saddle with student loans I couldn’t get out from under, but we’ve set up a system seemingly designed to hurt young people.
Of course it’s possible. I’m not saying it’s not possible. The reason that you ‘really do not see’ it is because that’s — not what’s being discussed.
I’m not sure they’d ignore the advice in the first case, and I’m not sure they will take it in the second. It’s just that, on the one hand, I think the odds are better of learning from someone else’s mistake if we mention that someone made a mistake; and, on the other hand, refraining from clearing my throat and politely using the word ‘imprudent’ becomes irrelevant if the person hearing the cautionary tale asks whether I think something ‘imprudent’ was done — because, at that point, I’m going to, uh, be honest.
That is a huge jump in thinking. FTR: I’m perfectly OK killing an intruder, road rager, etc. if the alternative is me or a family member being murdered. I don’t think from there I’ll be a shoot-first muder-death-kill 187 lunatic.
Now we need another thread. Is a Necessary Evil Really Evil?
And “college” that would allow that is one of those fake 'diploma mill" colleges, like trump university, and the student has been conned.
In CA, the 2 year colleges are more or less free, or close to it anyway. I think in other states that is true also. So, a bright young student, without riches or a scholarship should go, find out if college is right for them, and come out with either ready for the 4 year degree, or having learned a life lesson. Very smart students could find out that the academic life is not for them and instead get a 2 year degree in nursing, Law enforcement, or several other practical skills. And then find out they are making more $ than their friends with a BA, and no loans to pay off. (or maybe a very small loan, books can get pricey).
In fact, that should be a law- if you cant pay for a 4 year degree by parents, or a scholarship, or whatever you cant get a loan until you have finished your undergrad word at a community college.
I think the problem will be a lot of people have a wide range of that they consider “necessary”.
Then we’re in agreement. I, too, would be traumatized, not just from the threat but from having taken a life, no matter how justified. Hell, I won’t even eat meat. I don’t want any animal, human or otherwise, to die because of me.
I would agree that while some people (like myself) dismiss anecdotes when statistics are readily available, others are shaped by them. Planes are safe, but plane crashes make the news.
I have a friend who teaches self defense classes. Her first pitch involved anecdotes of bad and preventable things happening to people at the hands of criminals. She found that many shut down and stopped listening when it appeared that she was victim blaming. So she prefaces her discussions with a statement that no violent crime victim deserves what they get - the blame attaches to the offender. And she advises her assistants to do the same. It doesn’t take too much time, and it presumably overcomes certain barriers that some people have to learning how to protect themselves.
IMHO, this stuff is gendered. Dudes like pondering violence and threats of violence: they ponder what they would do in certain situations if shit really went down. This may be less helpful than is imagined at times. Women in my experience are more sensitive to victim blaming. For myself, I don’t consider diplomacy to be beneath me: I consider it supportive of constructive presentation.
By the same token, if pointing and laughing at morons encourages others to behave better, by all means do that, provided you direct this at an audience you know to be receptive and you have a solid grasp of their behavioral responses. But too often such antics seem to me to be more about stroking ones own ego than advancing the common good. Hey, I’m often guilty of that: I’ll admit it here.
I dropped my wallet on a visit to Cleveland, Ohio. A Black gentleman found it the next day and went through the phone book until he found my parents’ phone number and took a chance that I was at that number and reached me, and arranged a meeting to return my wallet. I was mortified by embarrassment that I was short of the cash I’d promised him as a reward. I tried to find my wife to get more cash to give him, but she had gone shopping somewhere. This was before cell phones. The guy was nice about it. He wasn’t looking for a reward and just wanted to do a good turn for a stranger.
I wasn’t thinking of so drastic an individual reaction (though I suppose an occasional rare individual might by doing so discover that they liked killing people.) What I meant was that the society that responds ‘That was a good thing to do!’, instead of responding ‘That was a terrible thing to do, it’s awful that you had to do it’ becomes, I strongly suspect, somewhat more likely to shoot the person who knocks on the wrong door at night; or turns around in the wrong driveway. And the individual who’s unreservedly praised for doing what’s considered an entirely Good Thing may become more likely to do it again if they think the circumstances are similar – and at least slightly less careful about whether the circumstances do indeed make it necessary. That’s not remotely the same as thinking that everybody who kills someone in an emergency and then defends themselves to themselves by thinking ‘that must have been Good because it was Necessary’ is going to turn into a randomly murderous “lunatic”.
Yup. Even in big cities, such things happen. Quite a lot of people just aren’t thieves.
No, self-defense is a different circumstance. It is entirely OK for you to defend yourself, even in circumstances where doing so requires lethal force. That’s not you setting out to kill/kidnap/rape but defending yourself. That all of those nasty outcomes may result from you defending yourself might be seen as severe side effect of applying the force required to protect yourself.
Your attacker could have either refrained from those acts requiring you to defend yourself or left your vicinity prior to permanent/fatal results.
At least from my perspective you should only use as much force as required to end a threat and no more (obviously, the devil is in the details and real life can be messy).
You know, people sometimes deliberately put themselves in that sort of harm’s way. Back in my day we called it “lookin’ for trouble”.
Let’s say it was a provoking decision. Perhaps imprudent. Certainly not a wise decision.
Yes, the citizens of Watts are guilty if they assault someone. Just because someone is doing or saying something provocative does not mean you are required to respond.
However, it was pretty damn provocative. That would, to my mind, make it a mitigating circumstance and arguably a reason for reduced penalties on the part of the Watts citizens. Not a guarantee. Details matter.
The current system of student loans where lenders don’t have to care about the end results because the borrower will be eternally in servitude to them is a very bad one - for the borrowers. For the lenders it’s gold. Which says a lot about our society and nothing good.
Back in my day how much you could borrow was sharply limited, and limited in part by your major. Someone going into say, medicine could obtain more and larger loans than someone going into, well, underwater basketweaving. Lenders didn’t encourage stupidity on the part of ignorant young adults. Borrowers weren’t crushed for decades under debt. Much better for the borrowers and, I would argue, society as a whole.
Anyhow - if someone is told over and over that college is their ticket to a good life and they MUST borrow money but it given no advice whatsoever about just how lucrative their planned career might be… well, if you don’t know (and expecting 18 year olds to be expert in anything is ridiculous) then no, it’s not your fault.
And if lenders are stupid enough to lend money to people who can’t pay it back then I have zero sympathy for them. They took a risk, it didn’t pay off, they have to deal with the consequences. No one forced them to take that risk, it was a choice. Indeed, I have never made any loan or any investment in my life without being provided information about the potential risks involved. Are you asserting that people making students loans to students are not aware of the risks of lending money to young adults with only a high school education?
Yes.
It’s the lesser of two evils. Avoiding killing someone in the first place and somehow else ending the threat would be a morally superior course of action. Real life being what it is that is not always an option.
I don’t see a reason to take pride in killing someone else. It may be necessary to preserve your life or that of another, but it’s not a good thing. Just a less bad thing.
Should someone who kills someone in self defense be punished for it? Depends on the details. I realize that is not as satisfying an answer as some would want, but context is important. Someone who tried every other means to avoid killing an attacker (attempting to run away, use of less than lethal force, etc.) should not be punished if killing their attacker was the only means to avoid dying. Other circumstances might be different.
The problem with “imprudent choice of major” is that what, exactly, is a good choice and what isn’t can change surprisingly fast. Faster, in fact, than than the time it can take to earn a degree, much less pay back a loan. That change can come due to a change in technology, or just from the job market being flooded by thousands of people who chose that major because it seemed like a good bet but now there are more people with those certifications than there are job openings for them.
I got a degree in math which was stupid considering I wanted to work in the computer field and only got into teaching by accident. Then I was told that it was stupid to get a master’s in math to teach middle school. BOTH degrees became very valuable long after I started thinking I F’ed up getting them.
Ha ha ha … no. They’re not
I’ve lived in five different states. In not one of them is 2 year/junior/community colleges free. They are less expensive than 4 year institutions but earning any kid of degree or certifications would cost thousands of dollars a year. A couple years ago I looked into just auditing one class at local schools (I was interested in further my foreign language skills) and the cheapest was $900 to audit (no credit received) just one class. For an in-state resident.
These may be free or nearly so in California. That is NOT the case for the rest of the US (it may be true in some locations other than CA, but probably few of them)
Please adjust your frame of reference accordingly. Thank you.