1: Children
2: Old/disabled
3: Me
4: People I know
5: Steve.
No, in fact, I'm trowing Steve overboard. Fuck him.
2: Old/disabled
3: Me
4: People I know
5: Steve.
No, in fact, I'm trowing Steve overboard. Fuck him.
Cruiseliner disaster: "Women and children first" Still relevant today?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Children/elderly/injured/disabled, then 50/50 men and women.Lilani said:
One point just because you have kids does not mean that you should get preferential treatment either. Parents can take their chances just like everyone else
.As other poster have mentioned non-swimmers, errr, we have these wonderful things called LifeJackets. It doesn't matter if you can swim or not, they still work!.
Im so meh on this situation. Im ok with letting children pass, since they are "our" future even if the world isn't exactly lacking in population and they have the rest of their life ahead.
After that...Im really not so sure. The side of me that likes acting chivalric is thinking "yeh women first too!" but the rest of me has all sorts of problems with that, most of which have already been mentioned.
Honestly I feel my best chances of survival would be to solo it and escape on my own means, imo in a survival situation everyone tries to screw each other over and notions of civility and courtesy get thrown out of the window, a woman is just as likely to purposefully trip me over or push me overboard if she thinks it would improve her chances of survival as a man would.
After that...Im really not so sure. The side of me that likes acting chivalric is thinking "yeh women first too!" but the rest of me has all sorts of problems with that, most of which have already been mentioned.
Honestly I feel my best chances of survival would be to solo it and escape on my own means, imo in a survival situation everyone tries to screw each other over and notions of civility and courtesy get thrown out of the window, a woman is just as likely to purposefully trip me over or push me overboard if she thinks it would improve her chances of survival as a man would.
If it makes you feel any better I thought of it too.Wolfram01 said:
I actually have no idea what order I'd go for besides children first, and as much I don't like myself for saying it, elderly last.
Whether the women like it or not I'm going to give them priority and they probably won't be complaining about sexism on a sinking ship.
Also You've always got to think of the children.
Also You've always got to think of the children.
Nah, fuck all. I think everyone that books a cruise should die in such an event. Who in their right mind books a cruise?!
Yeah, it's sexist. But it's also impractical. In a life-or-death situation it'll be all about split-second decisions. Children and the elderly, the handicapped, and yes, the ladies. There will be some that volunteer to help, so let them. But far more will give up their feminism and leap right onto those life-boats. There's usually no time to find out who can and can't swim, who is weak, etc.
And no matter which way you spin it, men are typically more fit than women.
On paper, yeah "women and children first" is inappropriate, but practical.
But I think it'd work best as "mothers and children" first. Then the elderly and handicapped.
And no matter which way you spin it, men are typically more fit than women.
On paper, yeah "women and children first" is inappropriate, but practical.
But I think it'd work best as "mothers and children" first. Then the elderly and handicapped.
Well, I know this has been answered to hell and back, but I have had similar experiences with saying I'm an advocate for Minority Rights.Phasmal said:
As a person in that group, yes, it's easy to lose sight with all the names and causes that are just, those people who are not suffering along side you can't identify that readily with your plight. And when you label the battle against the plight under a banner which that person will never be physically or mentally be apart of, the person will easily think 'that's their issue and I'm not involved'.
Simply put, if I say I'm a black rights activist, people are going to think I'm only about black rights. Because I chose to introduce myself as being about black rights. If I add later 'Black rights are HUMAN rights', the first logic thought anyone should say is '... then why didn't he say he was a Human rights activist?'
People are simply more inclined to listen to something that will involve them FIRST HAND, not second hand. If I say I'm a human rights activist and describe the plight women still feel today, I'm pretty sure most will go 'Well, Women are humans, and as a human I wouldn't want that to happen to me'. Boom. Instant open mind.
OT:
It's strange, being part of the forums this long had actually created two answers. My answer and an Escapist answer.
My Answer: I completely agree with 'capable aid noncapable'. I mean, Women and children first... Ok, what about the 6'2 muscle bound guy who just recently broke his foot falling off of the rock climbing wall? His foot is in a cast. He can't move around that well. Should he suffer because he was born with a Y? There are MANY circumstances that will hinder people just because they aren't a woman or a child.
Most Importantly, women aren't all weak any more. I see what women do in the gym every day. They might not lift as much as guys, but they damn sure can take care of themselves.
Escapist Answer: ... It's kind of stupid to doom people who still have a long life left to live because we want to be concerned with people who are going to check out in a couple of years.
Yeah, I equally believe in both thoughts. And I side with my answer more than my Escapist Answer. But it's there... and I blame YOU people for putting it there.
agreed.Andy Shandy said:
no offense to old farts, but you've lived your life, if there is even the slightest chance of room and i can just float by holding onto the boat, then yeah i might just give my spot up for an old person, but otherwise screw that, ill toss a child on that boat with myself before letting an old geezer with two hip replacements on there.
in short, it all depends on the situation and how many boats their are and how far we are away from land, but i'd probably toss most children onto the boat before myself then it'd be mostly a free for all with family/friends in front of me.
The problem I have with this is boat crashes tend to be escalating disasters. You have the initial hit, then as time passes the conditions get worse. The tilt of the boat in either direction becomes more extreme, power failures and shorts make for lower visibility and make communication harder, and naturally the people still on board are going to get more and more on edge. As the boat becomes less stable, life boats become harder to launch. They actually had this issue with the boat that ran aground--the boats were swinging freely away from the boat and became harder and harder to get into the water safely. They were requiring more manpower and more group communication and cooperation to get things done.Stublore said:One point just because you have kids does not mean that you should get preferential treatment either. Parents can take their chances just like everyone elseLilani said:
That is why I still think children and AT LEAST one parent, preferably both, should be boarded first. Children are going to be absolutely no help as things get worse, and will require constant attention. They'd just be a nuisance to others, and make the process more difficult and unsafe. So it's best for everyone to get them off ASAP. As for the parents, if they aren't with their kid they are going to be an emotional wreck at best. At worst, they'll be so desperate to hurry things along so they can be with them their judgment will be clouded and they will make stupid mistakes which will further endanger everyone around them. And if they don't get anybody killed they'll only add onto the escalating panic to everyone on board.
The people who are on the boat last should be the most physically and MENTALLY capable of the bunch. If all you have left at the end is a whole bunch of panicked families with squalling children chances it lessens the chances of survival for everyone else.
I'd say it's still relevant. Children because they have yet to live a life. And women because by having a preference of one gender above the other in the boats, there's - hopefully - less arguing, shoving, fighting over a place on the boat which means there's less time wasted and more lives saved.
No reason to give younger people or people of another gender any more priority to live than males.
It's not that I don't care about other people but if there was a chance I might die on a boat because of this rule I'd not be following this rule.
HOWEVER if my chances of dying are slim and I could help dozens or even hundreds of other people? Sure I'll play superman.
I'm utopic but not altruistic.
I want a perfect world but wouldn't die for it. Mostly because I wouldn't be here to enjoy it so its kinda a bust for me.
The last cruise ship I was on had enough boats to carry everyone easily. Comfortably? Hell no. But easily.
Assuming the boat isn't sinking at light speed everyone would get onto a life boat and be taking pictures before shit hit the fan (well they close those thing sup tight so that's a lie too I guess).
Either way, its highly unlikely anyone you know or will know is going to die on a boat with life boats.
HOWEVER if my chances of dying are slim and I could help dozens or even hundreds of other people? Sure I'll play superman.
I'm utopic but not altruistic.
I want a perfect world but wouldn't die for it. Mostly because I wouldn't be here to enjoy it so its kinda a bust for me.
This was more relevant when boats didn't have more life boats than people.Christopher N said:
The last cruise ship I was on had enough boats to carry everyone easily. Comfortably? Hell no. But easily.
Assuming the boat isn't sinking at light speed everyone would get onto a life boat and be taking pictures before shit hit the fan (well they close those thing sup tight so that's a lie too I guess).
Either way, its highly unlikely anyone you know or will know is going to die on a boat with life boats.
This didn't appear to help the boat that wrecked in the Italy area so recently. The captain left!
This is possibly the best point in the whole thread...especially the last sentanceflaming_squirrel said:
I think if I was in the situation myself, I would convince myself (justified or otherwise) that the emergency protocols and lifeboat situation was sufficient to get everyone off the boat and safe in a 'best case' scenario, and I would make sure the people I care about (family) are safe before finding a boat and getting out of dodge
I'm not ashamed of this, im pretty sure if a situation arose where I could save both my own life and someone elses, I would go at it in a shout, but in a situation of 'Me or stranger', I come first
It sucks, because I contribute very little to the world compared to some people and I know alot more people would deserve to live more than me (in a practical sense), but I contribute 100% of me to my own life and those around me and its too much for me to throw away because i wanted to do the 'right thing'
On the sexism topic, I'm always of the opinion that everone is treated equally, and I hate genuine racism and sexism (internet jokes make me smile, sue me). But equality means that women have no more right to be on that boat than I do, and I choose the excercise that right with no prejudice
I would rather be a coward and be alive
Woman or Man to boat first <-- didn't EQUAL RIGHTS answered that ALREADY?! yet:
As a man(or 22yo boy) I would let go first every woman that is not feminist, then I would let go in all these feminists that are for equal rights and not "all men are pigs! they all are sexist! we want equal rights! and guaranteed job place in every company/parliament/government even though there come candidates for position with better qualifications we must get that job place or sue companies boss for being sexist!!!!!" Then I would fight to death remaining feminist "women" for a place on boat (would loose most likely).
Children can go first. Unless they are some .... you know ... "pricks" (bad english, you get the idea).
Disabled (men)- escapist mods drown, no questions asked.
Reality - everyone would fight to death for these boats - children would be stomped to death, disabled people left on ship... Only strongest would survive.
As a man(or 22yo boy) I would let go first every woman that is not feminist, then I would let go in all these feminists that are for equal rights and not "all men are pigs! they all are sexist! we want equal rights! and guaranteed job place in every company/parliament/government even though there come candidates for position with better qualifications we must get that job place or sue companies boss for being sexist!!!!!" Then I would fight to death remaining feminist "women" for a place on boat (would loose most likely).
Children can go first. Unless they are some .... you know ... "pricks" (bad english, you get the idea).
Disabled (men)- escapist mods drown, no questions asked.
Reality - everyone would fight to death for these boats - children would be stomped to death, disabled people left on ship... Only strongest would survive.