NationStates Jolt Archive

For those not familiar with it, "should'a/would'a/could'a" is a phrase that represents what might have been. It is used to show that, while things went another way, they could have been really bad, with the implication that that counts.

Say, a girl had unprotected sex with someone she just met, and although nothing came of it, if circumstances had been different, it might have been a catastrophe. She should have worn protection, and possibily even could have. But even though she didn't, thing are okay. Does should'a/would'a/could'a count in making a judgement of the event?

It's called 'hindsight'.

simple answer yes they do

Well, hindsight is certainly used to see it.

The issue is whether, in hindsight, what might have happened, what should have been done, etc. counts towards a judgement of the situation.

That expression is an excuse people give when they screw up. "But i was gonna..." Yeah. But you didn't.

are you asking if we can assign reckless behavior using hindsight?

for example if nothing "bad" happened to the girl then she was not reckless because there was not a negative result, but if there had been a poor result than she was?

If you do something stupid or dangerous but due to sheer luck you avoid complications from doing so, that doesn't make it acceptable or right; that's like saying driving drunk, doing drugs, having unprotected casual sex, playing in traffic or any kind of self-endangerment is okay because no-one got in an accident, hurt, infected, or pregnant when you did it.

Stupid behavior is stupid behavior and it doesn't matter whether nothing bad happened; you only got lucky, and nothing more than that.

I was under the impression that the expression is used to disparage and rebuff those who talk about what they could and should and would have done.

"I could have been a contender! He would have loved me."
"Yeah, shoulda, coulda, woulda..."

are you asking if we can assign reckless behavior using hindsight?

for example if nothing "bad" happened to the girl then she was not reckless because there was not a negative result, but if there had been a poor result than she was?
If "reckless" is the judgement you're making.

I was under the impression that the expression is used to disparage and rebuff those who talk about what they could and should and would have done.

"I could have been a contender! He would have loved me."
"Yeah, shoulda, coulda, woulda..."
Oh, okay, I guess it has other uses.

If "reckless" is the judgement you're making.
if she had sex without protection it was a reckless action whether or not there is a "bad" outcome.

if she had sex without protection it was a reckless action whether or not there is a "bad" outcome.
But what matters more? That she's alright, or that something *could have* happened?

But what matters more? That she's alright, or that should *could have* happened?
depends does she take from it that she is "alright" and go out and commit more reckless acts, or does she realize how reckless that was and even though she is thankful that she is "alright" she learns to take precautions next time.

But what matters more? That she's alright, or that should *could have* happened?

Neither. It's important to be thankful that she's alright, but it's also important to let her know how dangerous and stupid that could have been. If you just use the attitude that since nothing happened, it's alright, you run the risk of accidentally encouraging more of that behavior in the future.

Unfortunately, people are very susceptible to the Gambler's Fallacy when it comes to decisionmaking and that can be very dangerous to their health and safety.

depends does she take from it that she is "alright" and go out and commit more reckless acts, or does she realize how reckless that was and even though she is thankful that she is "alright" she learns to take precautions next time.
Thanks, Smunkee. You're a good heart.

You reminded me that a judgement is about more than just the issue.

Absolutely. In fact, our judgment of the act should be identical whether or not she contracted an STD or became pregnant, as long as the potential risk was identical. Because she doesn't know what the consequences are going to be, her action is identical; the only difference is in the circumstances, and in judging her and the action, circumstances of which she is not aware are irrelevant.

Thanks, Smunkee. You're a good heart.

You reminded me that a judgement is about more than just the issue.
no problem.

I try to teach my kids that a poor judgment isn't one where they receive bad consequences, it is one that puts them in a place to recieve consequences that they are unprepared for, or don't wish to recieve.

For example if they run across the street without looking, they have made a poor judgement whether they get hit by a truck or not.

This poll needs a what thehell are you talkingabout/smoking option...

but to answer your question, 12.

but to seriously answer your question yes.

Let's say a girl gets in trouble with her parents after she has unprotected sex with some guy she didn't even know. After all, if she has a kid, guess who'll be obligated to pay for it.

She says "I was gonna stop...eventually"
Her parent's rebuttal "Gonna wanna shoulda. Officer, I won't kill again. Government, I was gonna pay my taxes eventually. Armed guy, I was gonna stop threatening you. It's all fun and games until you gets AIDS and we get stuck with another mouth to feed."