Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Metaphor]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.

and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree.

You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it.

Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.

The value of the education is not taken away by not forgiving debt. It is a category error to rabbit on about the value of education, as Toni did, as if the education would evaporate if you had to pay for it.

Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.

See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal.

The education has already happened, with students who entered into a debt with the promise to pay it back.

You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education.

Why can I not? Are you of the opinion that the education will evaporate if people who promised to pay for it continue to pay for it?

And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.

What a strange argument. Who do you think made such an argument?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll tell you what's toxic to society: fucking Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas and everyone else from sun and sundry being a ignorant fucking idiot about shit that they should damn well know as functional adults.

I WANT my tax dollars to go toward that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Yeah, I've read it.

That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.

 

[laughing dog]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.

That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.

 

[laughing dog]

Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Yeah, I've read it.

Reading and reading with comprehension are different.

That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.

Your argument is based on some assumptions that are not empirically verified. For example, your argument requires that the "secondary" benefits are less than the "primary" benefits and that these "secondary" benefits are independent of the actual education.

 

[Jarhyn]

Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Yeah, I've read it.

Reading and reading with comprehension are different.

That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.

Your argument is based on some assumptions that are not empirically verified. For example, your argument requires that the "secondary" benefits are less than the "primary" benefits and that these "secondary" benefits are independent of the actual education.

In some ways the elective degree is the carrot to take the core curriculum.

I also disagree with the orderings of "primary" and "secondary". Having someone who has learned well how to do some task they can learn on the job is less important to my day to day life than having neighbors and peers who can understand that birds are, in fact, real, that contrails are not a chemical distribution conspiracy, and that vaccines are effective preventative treatments.

 

[Metaphor]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.

That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.

You're right. I revise my statement.

No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.

 

[Trausti]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

 

[Metaphor]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

 

[Jarhyn]

No remotely convincing case has been made

And No True Scotsman!

 

[Toni]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

 

[Metaphor]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

 

[Toni]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.

 

[laughing dog]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.

That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.

You're right. I revise my statement.

No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

First, it is possible that Toni's response was also satirical.

Second, given the selfishness/narcissism in your posts, it is plausible you might think it is good idea to be paid for your education by the Australian gov't (since you did not mention the US gov't) even if it is inconsistent with your other positions since no one is consistent 100% of the time.

 

[Metaphor]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.

I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically.

 

[Metaphor]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.

That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.

You're right. I revise my statement.

No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

First, it is possible that Toni's response was also satirical.

I considered that, but I doubt it, given Toni's history of responding to my posts. Or perhaps Toni has been a master troll the entire time, pretending to take literally every single thing I utter, and I am the sucker being played.

Second, given the selfishness/narcissism in your posts, it is plausible you might think it is good idea to be paid for your education by the Australian gov't (since you did not mention the US gov't) even if it is inconsistent with your other positions since no one is consistent 100% of the time.

No, I did not mention the US gov't, but that didn't stop Toni suggesting that's what I meant.

Whether or not you think I am selfish or narcissistic, my extension and elaboration of Trausti's satirical suggestion should have been obvious. And I think it was obvious to you. Just not Toni.

 

[Toni]

With all due respect and complete sincerity, I think that it is inappropriate for me and my posts to be the subject of discussion by anyone other than mods amongst themselves or in private feedback. It’s not flattering to be used as a proxy in a discussion point between two posters whatever their motivations.

For one thing, I’m just not that interesting—not by a long shot. It’s boring and annoying. If someone wants me to clarify something, they can ask me directly and respectfully. I’m busy these days and my participation may be very spotty so some patience is advisable. Or just ignore me! My feelings won’t be hurt in the least.

For another, it’s a massive derail.

The topic at hand is The Biden Administration Announces Partial Student Loan Forgiveness.

 

[Toni]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.

I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically.

Sarcasm is often dependent on vocal tone and inflection. It seems to fall flat just as often as not on line.

I was not being sarcastic. If you were, you should just say so. I’ll reply with a big D’oh, sorry for being an idiot.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Yeah, I've read it.

Reading and reading with comprehension are different.

That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.

Your argument is based on some assumptions that are not empirically verified. For example, your argument requires that the "secondary" benefits are less than the "primary" benefits and that these "secondary" benefits are independent of the actual education.

Why are we even letting LP frame this argument as if the fucking 'market' should drive what people do for an education. Fucking hell, he's got a bad case of capitalism, and it's fully metastasized.

If we let the 'market' determine what people should do, all we get are fucking sportsball players and bad autotune.

No. Just fucking no. We need art, as a civilization. We need dance and music and teachers (there's one the market really fucked up) and nurses and all kinds of professions that the market drastically under values.

Fuck. Capitalism.

 

[Metaphor]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?

It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.

I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.

I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically.

Sarcasm is often dependent on vocal tone and inflection. It seems to fall flat just as often as not on line.

I was not being sarcastic. If you were, you should just say so. I’ll reply with a big D’oh, sorry for being an idiot.

When I said "I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically", I was being sarcastic.

When I said:

+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.

I was being sarcastic.

You don't need to hear me say it to understand the content was satirical and not an utterance of my actual beliefs. The content and context ought have been enough. My actual beliefs are the complete opposite of what I literally wrote. I think it would be a stupid and terrible idea for a gov't to pay people on an ongoing salary merely for having had a tertiary education, and I conveyed that it was a stupid and terrible idea by mockingly endorsing it and elaborating on it.