• Women and Children first
    300 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34525519]It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women. It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours. It's just how our brains are wired. Thank. You.[/QUOTE] The y chromosome doesn't automatically make the person into a massive super strong manly man.
Like I've tried to explain several times before: it has [U]nothing[/U] to do with physical strength or other superficial masculine traits.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34526397]If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. [b]They are worth more.[/b][/QUOTE] What exactly leads you to this conclusion though?
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34526397][I]If[/I] time was a real factor, then I think there would be fewer casualties if all the men focused on gathering the women and the children before saving themselves, instead of just every person on its own. If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more. If time isn't a factor, and there's room for everyone to be saved, then of course it doesn't matter and there's no point in prioritize any group.[/QUOTE] Case 1: Women are capable of organising themselves, why do they need men to gather them up? In this case people just need to pull together, help each other and not panic. Case 2: Everybody is important to someone. I kind of agree with you about children, but I disagree that some people are worth more than others. You can talk about instincts if you like, but we are capable of disregarding our instincts. Women are not worth more than men.
Well... if you feel that way, then you feel that way.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34526397][I]If[/I] time was a real factor, then I think there would be fewer casualties if all the men focused on gathering the women and the children before saving themselves, instead of just every person on its own. If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more. If time isn't a factor, and there's room for everyone to be saved, then of course it doesn't matter and there's no point in prioritize any group.[/QUOTE] Or, what about: If time was a real factor, get as many people on as possible on, with children and <B>PARENTS</B> given allowance to skip through queues. Then able bodied people on next. Maximises survival. If time isn't a factor, but their is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize children, parents and then able bodied people in order youngest to oldest. Also, if current trends continue, 1/3 of people will be obese. If they use up 2 seats each, current guidelines of 125% capacity will not be enough. Increase capacity or leave them behind? [B]Edit:[/B] All adults could give up their place assuming capacity or time was short. It would be [B] VOLUNTARY[/B].
kk you win, I was wrong.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34528051]kk you win, I was wrong.[/QUOTE] I detect sarcasm.
[QUOTE=Goberfish;34525833]We are also naturally wired to react violently to certain situations that do not call for it. Should we just give into that as well?[/QUOTE] That's stupid, the only relation that has to women is that its instinctive. Are you suggesting that if someone were to have a girlfriend they brutally murder the living shit out of anyone nearby?
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34531542]That's stupid, the only relation that has to women is that its instinctive. Are you suggesting that if someone were to have a girlfriend they brutally murder the living shit out of anyone nearby?[/QUOTE] Instinctively if someone was trying to chat up their girlfriend they would react violently. Of course we're beyond such animalistic behavior now (at least some of us are any way)
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;34527711]Case 1: Women are capable of organising themselves, why do they need men to gather them up? In this case people just need to pull together, help each other and not panic. Case 2: Everybody is important to someone. I kind of agree with you about children, but I disagree that some people are worth more than others. You can talk about instincts if you like, but we are capable of disregarding our instincts. Women are not worth more than men.[/QUOTE] I agree, I would be broken if I had to leave so many people I love to die just because they are male. Children are one thing ,but adults irregardless of gender usually have someone who loves them. Women are not worth more than men.
It's become a manner, but in the society we live in, women are still different to a man, in the way they want. A man with someone who loves him compared to a hooker, are both worth the same, even though on class, they might be different.
If I were in a crisis where the people I love most (ie. My hypothetical wife and child), of course I would choose their lives over mine. It's not a matter of whether they're independent or strong enough to take care of themselves, it's simply the fact that I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I chose my life over theirs. Even if it were someone else's wife and child, I would feel better knowing that I put their lives before mine in a disaster.
[QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34538235]If I were in a crisis where the people I love most (ie. My hypothetical wife and child), of course I would choose their lives over mine. It's not a matter of whether they're independent or strong enough to take care of themselves, it's simply the fact that I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I chose my life over theirs. Even if it were someone else's wife and child, I would feel better knowing that I put their lives before mine in a disaster.[/QUOTE] The first part I can understand, though I don't get the second part. How would you be able to feel better? You would be dead. What logical reason is there to want to die for the sake of someone else. Your hypothetical wife and child would have you missing from their lives all because you though it was appropriate to die for someone else's wife and child (also, why not someone's husband?)
[QUOTE=Noble;34541654]The first part I can understand, though I don't get the second part. How would you be able to feel better? You would be dead. What logical reason is there to want to die for the sake of someone else. Your hypothetical wife and child would have you missing from their lives all because you though it was appropriate to die for someone else's wife and child (also, why not someone's husband?)[/QUOTE] Of course I would try my best to save a man, it's just the topic is about women and children. I guess my logic may seem weird, but I believe in life after death. I would definitely feel better knowing I used my life to save someone else. I'm not denying that my wife and children would feel sad, but I would forever be known as a hero both to them, as well as the family of the person I've saved.
[QUOTE=Noble;34541654]The first part I can understand, though I don't get the second part. How would you be able to feel better? You would be dead. What logical reason is there to want to die for the sake of someone else. Your hypothetical wife and child would have you missing from their lives all because you though it was appropriate to die for someone else's wife and child (also, why not someone's husband?)[/QUOTE] Well considering you'd saving two people surely that would be better than selfishly saving yourself. As for whether it be husband or wife, I think that's up to that family to decide.
In a life-or-death situation, anyone comparing this rule to basic niceness/chivalry is being a massive dumbass. I GUARANTEE people will not go 'oh, these unknown females/children get to go before me, and it's okay, since it's just like offering a coat to a lady who's shivering'. In the latter, you will be inconvenienced slightly by cold. In the former, you DIE. Survival instincts and all that. With this, I do not mean that [b]willingly[/b] sacrificing yourself in itself is dumb, but that kind of comparison makes me cringe. Personally, unless there's anyone on board whom I personally know, I'd try to get on a lifeboat ASAP without trying to figure what groups of people have or haven't been saved. I am fully aware that some see this as highly egotistical, or in layman's terms, "the asshole way". Yes, it is exactly that; I value my life more than anyone else's. I do not care whether people agree with me about this (which they will not), I want to live. Before someone tries to state the obvious; These examples are made up with the presumption that there are not enough lifeboats/enough time to fill them.
[QUOTE=MKH90;34588920]In a life-or-death situation, anyone comparing this rule to basic niceness/chivalry is being a massive dumbass. I GUARANTEE people will not go 'oh, these unknown females/children get to go before me, and it's okay, since it's just like offering a coat to a lady who's shivering'. In the latter, you will be inconvenienced slightly by cold. In the former, you DIE. Survival instincts and all that. With this, I do not mean that [b]willingly[/b] sacrificing yourself in itself is dumb, but that kind of comparison makes me cringe. Personally, unless there's anyone on board whom I personally know, I'd try to get on a lifeboat ASAP without trying to figure what groups of people have or haven't been saved. I am fully aware that some see this as highly egotistical, or in layman's terms, "the asshole way". Yes, it is exactly that; I value my life more than anyone else's. I do not care whether people agree with me about this (which they will not), I want to live. Before someone tries to state the obvious; These examples are made up with the presumption that there are not enough lifeboats/enough time to fill them.[/QUOTE] The sooner you get in the lifeboat, the sooner you are out of the way of anybody else wanting to get in. So long as you aren't pushing people out of the way or starting fights (making the evacuation slower) I think it's the best attitude. If everybody thought like you, the evacuation would by pretty quick because there would be less confusion and more purpose.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34545249]Well considering you'd saving two people surely that would be better than selfishly saving yourself. As for whether it be husband or wife, I think that's up to that family to decide.[/QUOTE] What is the standard by which my sacrifice would be "better"? It's certainly not "better" for my own well-being, or for my own family's emotional well being. And what I mean by the husband or wife thing was that he said he would put his life on the line for someone else's wife and child, so I was saying, why not someone else's husband and child, assuming the wife is out of the picture somewhere?
[QUOTE=Noble;34603491]What is the standard by which my sacrifice would be "better"? It's certainly not "better" for my own well-being, or for my own family's emotional well being. And what I mean by the husband or wife thing was that he said he would put his life on the line for someone else's wife and child, so I was saying, why not someone else's husband and child, assuming the wife is out of the picture somewhere?[/QUOTE] Which I did explain.
[QUOTE=Noble;34603491]What is the standard by which my sacrifice would be "better"? It's certainly not "better" for my own well-being, or for my own family's emotional well being. And what I mean by the husband or wife thing was that he said he would put his life on the line for someone else's wife and child, so I was saying, why not someone else's husband and child, assuming the wife is out of the picture somewhere?[/QUOTE] Yeah but you'd be saving two people rather than yourself and your family being happier, surely two lives are far more valuable than one?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34605075]Yeah but you'd be saving two people rather than yourself and your family being happier, surely two lives are far more valuable than one?[/QUOTE] Humans aren't exactly going extinct, so why is saving a few more important than saving one self?
[QUOTE=Impact1986;34605272]Humans aren't exactly going extinct, so why is saving a few more important than saving one self?[/QUOTE] Because morally two people dying is generally worse than one person dying.
[QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34538235]If I were in a crisis where the people I love most (ie. My hypothetical wife and child), of course I would choose their lives over mine. It's not a matter of whether they're independent or strong enough to take care of themselves, it's simply the fact that I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I chose my life over theirs. Even if it were someone else's wife and child, I would feel better knowing that I put their lives before mine in a disaster.[/QUOTE] And if your wife resisted and used the exact same logic you're using?
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34631053]And if your wife resisted and used the exact same logic you're using?[/QUOTE] Then they both would die.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34631053]And if your wife resisted and used the exact same logic you're using?[/QUOTE] Just because someone's life is of equal value to mine, doesn't mean I wouldn't rather they have a better chance of living than I do.
Never agreed with this. You can call bias on me if you want, but I really disagree with this policy. This also brings back to the point that women say [b]equal[/b] but there's usually higher rather than equal.
[QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34634102]Just because someone's life is of equal value to mine, doesn't mean I wouldn't rather they have a better chance of living than I do.[/QUOTE] But it's not like you can force her to leave without you if she's adamant in staying.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34645449]But it's not like you can force her to leave without you if she's adamant in staying.[/QUOTE] Why would she stay? There would be no reason for her to stay except to meet her demise. Unless you're saying she'd stay behind to help others, which I could understand. But I would make sure that she would be the second last to leave, if she's so insisting.
[QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34648816]Why would she stay? There would be no reason for her to stay except to meet her demise. Unless you're saying she'd stay behind to help others, which I could understand. But I would make sure that she would be the second last to leave, if she's so insisting.[/QUOTE] Why would you stay? There would be no reason for you to stay except to meet your demise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.