3 ms·

In this simulation you have a kid. What roommate is going to be okay rooming with a little kid? Then you have to consider safety concerns. Are you okay with you

In this simulation you have a kid. What roommate is going to be okay rooming with a little kid? Then you have to consider safety concerns. Are you okay with your kid living in the same place as some stranger? "Just get a roommate" is not always an option. This applies to lots of other "obvious" solutions people like to come up with when it's not them.

true_religion 8y ago
My home country has no social safety net. In my experience, people with kids just end up room sharing together with other families. It is not common in the US because there are aid programs for people with children that suffice to let them get private housing, and at the very least pay for their childrens food.
esotericn 8y ago
I'm thinking of a "bad health simulator" that starts at age 50 after a lifetime of eating a terrible diet. Obviously there will be no good choices, everything will be limited. It's not an interesting "simulation" because it's effectively just stating that you can run your life into a corner if you don't pay attention.
- bmcooley 8y ago
  I see this attitude a lot when this type of discussion comes up. People seem to focus a lot on the idea that if you "run your life into the corner" then it automatically becomes acceptable that you're stuck with that lot in life or are somehow deserving of all of the consequences. I'm not arguing against responsibility for your choices, but mental health, upbringing, addiction and so much more play huge factors in determining lifestyle and outcome. Regardless, is it in society's best interest to attempt to uplift those in need and help them become more productive members for the greater good? I think so. I don't mean to put words in your mouth or assume what attitudes lie behind your personal thinking, I'm just reflecting on my own thoughts about this.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I don't think that "acceptable/unacceptable" is a sensible way of thinking about it; it's just axiomatic that there are some irreversible situations that cannot easily be gotten out of - time moves forwards, not back. We might be able to move the bar, and that might be a good idea (welfare programs, etc), but that's all we can do, and there is clearly a point beyond which trying to rescue people is throwing good money after bad. There is no way of preventing a human from damaging themselves in the general case (whether that damage be intentional or unintentional; I'm not moralizing here.).
chaostheory 8y ago
I feel both you and esotericn have simultaneously valid points. It would be valuable to students to have different scenarios where you have a kid, or don't. Even scenarios that occur in different countries, one with a safety net and one without would be a really valuable learning tool.

true_religion 8y ago

My home country has no social safety net. In my experience, people with kids just end up room sharing together with other families. It is not common in the US because there are aid programs for people with children that suffice to let them get private housing, and at the very least pay for their childrens food.

esotericn 8y ago

I'm thinking of a "bad health simulator" that starts at age 50 after a lifetime of eating a terrible diet. Obviously there will be no good choices, everything will be limited. It's not an interesting "simulation" because it's effectively just stating that you can run your life into a corner if you don't pay attention.

bmcooley 8y ago
I see this attitude a lot when this type of discussion comes up. People seem to focus a lot on the idea that if you "run your life into the corner" then it automatically becomes acceptable that you're stuck with that lot in life or are somehow deserving of all of the consequences. I'm not arguing against responsibility for your choices, but mental health, upbringing, addiction and so much more play huge factors in determining lifestyle and outcome. Regardless, is it in society's best interest to attempt to uplift those in need and help them become more productive members for the greater good? I think so. I don't mean to put words in your mouth or assume what attitudes lie behind your personal thinking, I'm just reflecting on my own thoughts about this.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I don't think that "acceptable/unacceptable" is a sensible way of thinking about it; it's just axiomatic that there are some irreversible situations that cannot easily be gotten out of - time moves forwards, not back. We might be able to move the bar, and that might be a good idea (welfare programs, etc), but that's all we can do, and there is clearly a point beyond which trying to rescue people is throwing good money after bad. There is no way of preventing a human from damaging themselves in the general case (whether that damage be intentional or unintentional; I'm not moralizing here.).

chaostheory 8y ago

I feel both you and esotericn have simultaneously valid points. It would be valuable to students to have different scenarios where you have a kid, or don't. Even scenarios that occur in different countries, one with a safety net and one without would be a really valuable learning tool.