Cruiseliner disaster: "Women and children first" Still relevant today?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh God.., could you PLEASE ditch the colorful writing and the little signature? It is a pain to read and frankly comes across as an obvious attention whore and trying to be recognised. I hate to come across as that rude guy, but that stuff really gets me angry. Just. PLEASE write normally like everyone else does...OmniscientOstrich said:
Well it is an easy thing to yell, but yeah I think the modern equivalent should be "Parents with children, elderly and disabled first", outlines those who need the most help and are less likely to survive swimming or being in the water.
I'm curious while it think it should be parent (yes, singular you don't need two parents) and children first. Why elderly people too? I would want to go last if I was old it's your duty and privilege as an old person to sacrifice yourself for the young. Like these awesome old people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13598607
I say in the event of an emergency they throw weapons all over the ship and cut all the lifeboats off the ship except one. Live on pay per view.
OT: In all honesty I would put children in front and probably elderly people, but women are just as capable as men and some even more so when it comes to swimming (usually float better).
I do not however know how I would react. Maybe I would be that jerk who takes a boat for himself.
You really do not know how you will react in a life or death situation until either (A.) one has occurred before that you had time and the mental capacity to make some kind of moral decision. or (B.) It is happening out of the blue and your survival instincts kick in.
OT: In all honesty I would put children in front and probably elderly people, but women are just as capable as men and some even more so when it comes to swimming (usually float better).
I do not however know how I would react. Maybe I would be that jerk who takes a boat for himself.
You really do not know how you will react in a life or death situation until either (A.) one has occurred before that you had time and the mental capacity to make some kind of moral decision. or (B.) It is happening out of the blue and your survival instincts kick in.
I like Omni's train of thought here.OmniscientOstrich said:
Well, except I don't have much empathy/compassion during normal times.
Well I'm pretty sure the law is that all boats have to have a least enough lifeboats for everyone on board so it's not like it was in the old days where pretty much some people had to stay behind. I agree with children first but really their parents should go with them otherwise what sort of life would that child have? Disbaled and handicapped should go before children though, I've been around some mentally disabled people and I can only imagine how terrified they would be in that situation and it would be better for all to get those who can't help themselves to safety first.
I would translate the OP's question as "Would you, in a situation of great emergency, give your life to save someone else's?". I don't think gender is relevant. And the answer is yes, for my significant other, my sibling or a child under 18. Anyone else? No.
Well I've always supported the "If you get in my way in a situation where my life is threatened I will kill you and anyone else in my way myself" rule, but I do personally believe the weakest and feeblest, I.E. the elderly, the children and disabled, should have the right of way.
Children first is okay, and I can see getting their parents off along with them being a good idea, but women having priority over men is an outdated, sexist attitude with no real justification that we need to get rid of if we want to create a fair and equal society.
I don't know why but I agree. Fuck little Timmy and Grandma Sally, move ***** I'm livin' today. While that may seem like a prickish thing, I know that I will lose all morality when faced with a crisis. Quite honestly, I'm sure that a few men on the Titanic tried to rush people off so they can get on the boat themselves, I don't think that my mind can really hold its bearings when I'm faced with straight up death.Nimcha said:
This doesn't mean that I don't think that children shouldn't go first, but in a situation that is that tense, I very much doubt I could keep a level head.
I agree with the free for all mentality, but less with the riot that it implies.
Honestly, I don't think children should get a free pass just because they're children in all situations, and find it seems that most people who state otherwise are just looking for a moral high ground rather than stating their honest opinions - or at least the opinions they'd display when it came down to proving it. My own opinion is that no one is more entitled to their life, their happiness, or their continued existence than anyone else. Children should be allowed the assistance required to maneuver them into a position to achieve that on their own, when applicable, but not at the cost of other people.
Honestly, I don't think children should get a free pass just because they're children in all situations, and find it seems that most people who state otherwise are just looking for a moral high ground rather than stating their honest opinions - or at least the opinions they'd display when it came down to proving it. My own opinion is that no one is more entitled to their life, their happiness, or their continued existence than anyone else. Children should be allowed the assistance required to maneuver them into a position to achieve that on their own, when applicable, but not at the cost of other people.
It'll be interesting to see where you got your evidence that I said anything *whatsoever* about women being so much worse at swimming in open water than men. Can you point out that part for me? I'm having trouble finding an open water swimming gender comparison part in my post. At all.Mortai Gravesend said: