Poll: Do you believe in "women and children first"?

[DanielBrown]

Kids(with their parents) first. I may not like children, but I still think they're the most important to save.

Though, as many has pointed out, I'd probably screw over the kids and try to save myself first.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

I'll focus on saving my own skin first. If I have any significant others I'll save them at the same time. If I can rescue anyone else along the way then I will but if I have to drag/carry them then forget it. If I see a life boat then we are getting our ass in there ASAP, I don't care if there are children, disabled or elderly who'll need it more than I will. As far as I'm considered my life comes ahead of complete strangers.

 

[Phasmal]

I don't believe it. Neither does it actually happen any more: http://news.discovery.com/history/titanic-women-children-120413.html.
So maybe people can shut up going `Oh well at least you get first on the lifeboat`.

Anyway, children and pregnant women first. And then people who cannot swim.

 

[David Bjur]

Women and children weigh less, and should thus get on the lifeboats first since then more people could be saved. Plus, if it's organized this way, we could probably squeeze in some men too, since there were spots on titanics lifeboats that nobody used because of the panic.
And yes, I'm a man.

 

[Rariow]

Only in "Children first". If women want equality, then chivalry is dead. I'm all for women's rights and giving them an equal chance, but if they want to be equal, they're going to be EQUAL. I'm not rude, I'll still hold a door open for them (Just as I do with anyone, man or woman), but no more "ladies first".

The day children start campaining for rights equal to adults, I'll stop giving them preference to. For now, they're young, the future of our species, more vulnerable than us, and have less freedom. So I think they deserve a little bit of privilege in other areas.

Looking at it from a completely "floating out in space" perspective, I'd say this: The weak and the mistreated first.

 

[Sansha]

No.

While I lean more towards children first, a great deal of tragedy from Titanic is that families were split up - women made single mothers and children without one or both parents. Critical important in a society with little to no social welfare.

That's not to say single people should be shit out of luck - it should be first on deck, first in the boat.
Personally I have a will to survive, and I cope well in dangerous and stressful situations - but I don't like to be first off.

Even so, you can wait your turn nowadays because there's more than enough boat and raft space for everyone on every ship.

 

[Screamarie]

I believe in chilren first and then 1 accompanying parent, whether male, female or somewhere in between.

Then after all the children are gone, first come first serve and hopefully everyone gets to safety.

 

[VonKlaw]

My kids > My wife > Me > Other peoples kids and vulnerables (ie. disabled) > > Everyone else

Sorry guys, but when crap hits the fan I'm gunna care about me and mine first.

 

[Ickorus]

I have no idea how I would react, I have the feeling I'm the "Save yourselves!" sort but I'll not know unless it happens to me.

There are a couple of people who I think I'd be willing to risk my life for though.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

I believe in it to the extent that it should stop stronger men from pushing their way past everyone to get the seats.

 

[chadachada123]

It's not so much "women and children first" as it is "anyone less-able-bodied than me first."

As it stands, that would be most women and children, and most adults too. I'm a twenty-year-old state swimmer and ex-lifeguard. I've also a damn-strong survival instinct.

I would NOT get off of a sinking ship until I was damn sure that every single civilian was off first, and would even encourage staff to go ahead of me to help those already on the lifeboats.

The primary reason? If thrown in the water, I have the best chance of surviving compared to nearly everyone else. Anyone more-likely to die gets a lifeboat ahead of me. It has nothing to do with being selfless or trying to be a badass: it's my duty as a human being to give the highest chance of survival to the most people in an emergency, even if it risks my own life.

 

[CruisingForBiddies]

I think that it may be optimistic, naive chivalry but I would like to think I could sacrifice myself to save the lives of women and children. Though I cant think of any logical reason to do so? hmm.

 

[Snowbell]

I believe in 'most useful to society' first, yep, I'm one of those horrible people.

Although I'm not one for breaking up families, so if those who go first have kids/spouses I'm definately in favour of them getting off the ship with their loved ones

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

The most helpless first. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, disabled.
Of course, that is a purely moral viewpoint, without any logical consideration -
all Kant, no JSM.

It took two pages but finally someone said what i wanted to say.

Those least likely to survive, the weak, the infirm, the VERY young should go first. Order yourselves by survivablity and file onto the boat. That means the totally helpless first.

Captcha "gone fishing".... thats just sick captcha

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Children first? Definitely. Women first? Not so much, maybe the woman I love but I don't have one of those right now so I'm only saving the children, everyone deserves a shot at life.