I want to get married

[dallysingh101]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:42 AM, MisterrSingh said:

I wouldn't say "forced", just "expected." What else were they going to do if they wanted to indulge in carnal relations? Most people weren't going to disgrace themselves.

I think there is a big danger of idealising the past too. It's true that fidelity was infinitely more normative in the few generations before mine, but if we look at our own dharmic literature (and I'm talking mainly about CP here, but also references in other texts like Dabistan), it strongly suggests the image of some 'pure' past is a fallacy. 

Humans have always been humans and the instincts we have today weren't missing in our ancestors.     

[GurjantGnostic]

28 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

Far too many people these days are in higher education who will not get any direct benefit from it or are not suited. Some people who know they are best suited to working in trades should just be able to leave education at 16-17. 

This leads to another question. Some say that 'higher education' is designed in good part, to generate money (e.g. student loans, tuition fees, student accomodation etc) which is definitely true to some extent. What do you think ?

Is 'too much education' actually damaging people's family lives for their futures ?

 

I think education up through highschool could ultimately be accomplished in a few years, and post grad quicker than is done. So education ultimately stems from the effort of a few years. 

The quote "If a college education was free it would be worthless" says a lot about the class structure of a miseducation. 

It used to be in the last century, that any college degree would set you apart and qualify you for a higher pay grade, but these days most degrees don't even do that, since changes to the global economy which became obvious in the 1990s. 

Too much education isn't ruining anyone, it's the time and money it takes to get it. Even if you coast through a doctorate, you're 26 years old. 

And debt laden. 

The most well adjusted children are considered to be those of a peruvian? tribe, who basically have their children follow them and just have a part in everything from the beginning. 

We're wasting our childrens time, potential, and posture sitting in chairs learning lies and mediocrity. 

Alternating, life experience, basic reading writing, mathematics, and college level curriculum would result in much more educated people in a fraction of the time. 

Why learn the same science class, every year, slightly less retarded each iteration? Same fake history, each year slightly less redacted even if still a lie.  Teach the science from the go. Teach the truth from the go. That's how kids get a real start and real education. Extended family groups, bungas, and Gurudwara programs, not everyone can be occupied, I mean have an occupation, just the bare minimum to make the family and Paanthic business successful. 

Also an education and a degree are not the same. One makes getting the other easier, the other does not give you the first necessarily. 

[dallysingh101]

31 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

Far too many people these days are in higher education who will not get any direct benefit from it or are not suited. Some people who know they are best suited to working in trades should just be able to leave education at 16-17. 

This leads to another question. Some say that 'higher education' is designed in good part, to generate money (e.g. student loans, tuition fees, student accomodation etc) which is definitely true to some extent. What do you think ?

Is 'too much education' actually damaging people's family lives for their futures ?

 

I have a lot of teacher friends (used to be one myself for a bit), I hear that highlighted bit above from a lot of them. 

[Premi5]

4 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

I think education up through highschool could ultimately be accomplished in a few years, and post grad quicker than is done. So education ultimately stems from the effort of a few years. 

The quote "If a college education was free it would be worthless" says a lot about the class structure of a miseducation. 

It used to be in the last century, that any college degree would set you apart and qualify you for a higher pay grade, but these days most degrees don't even do that, since changes to the global economy which became obvious in the 1990s. 

Too much education isn't ruining anyone, it's the time and money it takes to get it. Even if you coast through a doctorate, you're 26 years old. 

And debt laden. 

The most well adjusted children are considered to be those of a peruvian? tribe, who basically have their children follow them and just have a part in everything from the beginning. 

We're wasting our childrens time, potential, and posture sitting in chairs learning lies and mediocrity. 

Alternating, life experience, basic reading writing, mathematics, and college level curriculum would result in much more educated people in a fraction of the time. 

Why learn the same science class, every year, slightly less retarded each iteration? Same fake history, each year slightly less redacted even if still a lie.  Teach the science from the go. Teach the truth from the go. That's how kids get a real start and real education. Extended family groups, bungas, and Gurudwara programs, not everyone can be occupied, I mean have an occupation, just the bare minimum to make the family and Paanthic business successful. 

Also and education and a degree are not the same. One makes getting the other easier, the other does not give you the first necessarily. 

I also think that some people who didn't do well in school, just didn't 'get it' at the time'- I certainly feel that way about some things now which I could learn a lot more easily if I had to now. 

We have something called 'The Open University' in the UK which popularised people getting degrees as mature students, and many people it seems nowadays become mature students. Fine if it's to pass time, but I think many people are brainwashed that having a degree (often an arts degree from a lowly university) means they are moving up the social ladder and bettering themselves. 

Although I was lucky enough to study a vocational course, I think young people should gain more life experience first if they don't know what they want to do for their future when they are supposed to make that decision here in the UK, at the age of 15-17. It should not be a big deal if they do not go to University at 18-19 , but then change their mind a few years later when they know more what they want to do/study.

If @dallysingh101looks at this post, I would like his opinion. I think desis are obsessed with the status of their children getting a degree, when many would do better if they start earlier in a trades job. 

[dallysingh101]

22 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

That's a weird one, because from what I've always seen in my own life, family reputation / standing was paramount and non-negotiable. Everything else came second. You'd have to be mad to get a daughter or sister involved with a family of besharam kanjar.

The truth is that plenty of 'respectable' families are full of besharam kanjars, they just hide it really well. They know how to play it off, but underneath their kids get into the same stuff as the rest of them. The other families get dumped on.   

[dallysingh101]

28 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

I also think that some people who didn't do well in school, just didn't 'get it' at the time'- I certainly feel that way about some things now which I could learn a lot more easily if I had to now. 

Absolutely. I barely scrapped through GCSEs as a teenager. There were family problems, racial gang warfare going on.  It was a crazy time. Then later I resat them I got A and A*s in all the core subjects, and that too in a year.  

Quote

 

We have something called 'The Open University' in the UK which popularised people getting degrees as mature students, and many people it seems nowadays become mature students. Fine if it's to pass time, but I think many people are brainwashed that having a degree (often an arts degree from a lowly university) means they are moving up the social ladder and bettering themselves. 

Although I was lucky enough to study a vocational course, I think young people should gain more life experience first if they don't know what they want to do for their future when they are supposed to make that decision here in the UK, at the age of 15-17. It should not be a big deal if they do not go to University at 18-19 , but then change their mind a few years later when they know more what they want to do/study.

If @dallysingh101looks at this post, I would like his opinion. I think desis are obsessed with the status of their children getting a degree, when many would do better if they start earlier in a trades job. 

 

I'm lucky to have both (which reminds me I have to redo a test to renew my blue CSCS card!). You know I have relatives with degrees who work in media who make decent money but I know plenty of young people who didn't get diddly squat in school and make a grand a week bricklaying, doing carpentry etc. 

And you're right about the desi obsession, after I graduated, I had a few friend of mine who'd tell me that their parents were putting the boot into them saying: "Dally grew up without a father and he got a degree, we did everything for you, and you couldn't do it. Useless!" It caused tensions, and I think (at least a part of it) was because they felt  their status had been diminished in some way? 

[MisterrSingh]

15 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think there is a big danger of idealising the past too. It's true that fidelity was infinitely more normative in the few generations before mine, but if we look at our own dharmic literature (and I'm talking mainly about CP here, but also references in other texts like Dabistan), it strongly suggests the image of some 'pure' past is a fallacy. 

Humans have always been humans and the instincts we have today weren't missing in our ancestors.     

I get that, but that salacious, carefree, sexually adventurous past was hardly something any bottom-of-the-social-ladder individual could indulge in with abandon without consequences. Ostracism and more was rightfully practiced to ensure some form of societal conservatism kept things ticking along for those who liked to flirt wit danger. The lives of the Indian elites such as royalty and whatnot bore very little relevancy to the guy and gal in the pind. I'm not sure gang-bangs in the khet using the Kama Sutra as a manual is something I'd ever want to see become a cultural norm for my people in their ancestral homeland.

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

I get that, but that salacious, carefree, sexually adventurous past was hardly something any bottom-of-the-social-ladder individual could indulge in with abandon without consequences. 

Bro, there are chariters that describe EXACTLY this going on in the pind. It isn't all about the upper echelons. 

Go to SA and trawl through the threads on individual chariters from CP from about chariter 90 onwards and see for yourself.   

[Premi5]

23 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

That's a weird one, because from what I've always seen in my own life, family reputation / standing was paramount and non-negotiable. Everything else came second. You'd have to be mad to get a daughter or sister involved with a family of besharam kanjar.

I didn't mean anything morally bad, just other things

Some a little politically incorrect maybe. I mean, my Mum's side considered themselves more handsome, fairer skin, generally better educated, more land. That's what I meant. 

[dallysingh101]

23 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

On what grounds? Looks or other stuff?

Looks; one side of the family might be more jungly than the other. Different religious values. Different ideas about career/status aspirations.