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

[Thespian]

Children & Guardians first maybe? Not sure, it's a tough call. Even though I'd be totally freaked out in such a situation and desperate to save myself... I'd probably be unable to live with taking a seat in someone else's stead. I'd always let someone else take my place. Definitely if it was a kid.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

Well, ideally the weakest(the elderly, children, pregnant women, etc) would go first, followed in no particular order by everyone else. The emotional side of me would want to keep families together as well.

Having never been placed in such a situation though I don't rightly know what I would do.

 

[Wintermoot]

although I hate kids they are still the future

 

[Phasmal]

Regarding women: They wanted equality and now they have it.

According to feminists

Is that really necessary given the amount of threads we've had on that topic recently? Could you not just say 'No, I don't believe that women should go before men' rather than making sly little comments like that.

Yeah, that. These kind of threads always get the `Equality hurrr hurr` comments, but threads on actual equality blow up like a nuclear bomb.

And as I pointed out before, the women and children thing doesnt happen anymore anyway. (Link is in my other post.)

But it doesn't really matter to me because I can't swim so I wont get on a boat anyway. But if it was me or my future kid, I'd put the kid in the lifeboat.

 

[bro1667]

to give a little fact aroun the women and children first on the titanic, it was believed that Charles Lightoller misinterped the order captain smith gave around the women and children first. Lightoller heard women and children ONLY, but it was believed that smith said women and children first, which could have saved many more lives.

 

[Abedeus]

No. The orny little shits are not my responsibility, they are their parent's.

Wow... your kind of a prick. I won't put a woman's life over a mans, but I will put a childs life over my own. I don't think one life has more value over another, but I think a younger child deserves to know what it feels like to be an adult more than an adult has the right to know what it is to be elderly.

Hell no.

Whether evolutionary or psychologically (to me), children won't come first.

Other people's children surviving means my offspring will have more enemies to fight over resources (fundings, jobs, houses and universities). And I hate children.

Anyone can claim that "I'd save women and children first!" is either suicidal, doesn't care about his life or a liar and would leg it the second he had a chance to. I know I would. I don't value anyone's life over mine. It's the only one I have.

 

[devilofthemist]

children first yes, but women, no, (i know i'm generally a bit here) women mostly consider themselves to be equal to men, so if we are equal why should they get any special treatment
but it also depends on the condition on the person i s'pose

 

[Phasmal]

My rule, at least theoretically since neither me nor any of you have been in a situation such as the one on the Titanic, is that whoever reaches the life-boat first wins a place in it. I can lie to myself about glory and sacrificing my own life for others all day, as can all of you, but at the end of the day it's far from true for the most of us.

I dunno about throwing my life away for someone else's kid, I'd have to be in the situation to know. But for my own kid, of course I would. Would you be able to leave your kid to drown if you could only save one of you? Thats kinda harsh if so.

 

[Bazaalmon]

I agree with many others here, in that I believe the pregnant, weak, sick, disabled, and/or infirm should go first.

After that, I'm saving those most important to me, and then I'm getting on the boat. I'm not going to stick my neck out to save some random stranger. Even then, I should be one of the first on the boat, being one of the sick. Although being one of the sick (chronic medical conditions suck), I don't know if I'd be on an extended boat cruise in the first place.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

Children first absolutely holds up, for two reasons as I see it.

Reason one: I'm 26. As such, I can only live about a maximum of 80 more years. Objectively, a five year old has more potential life than I do, more years to save if only one of us can survive. The fact that I don't, as yet, have people in my life that need my support does weigh into this, of course... if I was a single father of twins who'd die without me, the equation gets harder.

Reason two: I weigh 160 lbs. I can swim, I can claw, I can bite, I can throw weight around in a way a five year old just can't. I'm more likely to survive the bullet, make it to the shore, fight off the assailant or what have you than that five year old is, meaning that there's a possibility that I can save the kid and survive myself.

Now, I know good and well that there are girls out there who can knock me senseless. I'm no martial artist or particular bad ass, some of them are, and this equality thing cuts all ways. Therefore, I feel no obligation to trade my life for that of a woman, except for those situations in which I'd similarly try to save a guy... wounded buddy, someone needs to support their kid, they're the only one who knows the codes to stop the nuclear apocolypse... pregnancy being about the only difference. Still, I like to think that I'd voluntarily pick the short straw if it came close to making any sort of sense, genders notwithstanding.

Edit: Oh, and people with the strength to secure their places on the boat who try to use it to displace others? Those wonderful specimens of physical perfection go over the side if I can help it. Let 'em use all that strength to swim with.

Last thing we need is for people to start cutting throats when everybody's ass is on the line. I can sympathize with the guy who got to the boat first and stands his ground, refusing to be voted off the island, so to speak, but if anyone tries to go all "survival of the fittest" they'd better be sure that's them.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Ultimately there's really no "Anybody goes first". No life has any objective value or another, or really any objective value at all.

Agreed. Men, women and children first. There, everyone's happy!

 

[Squidbulb]

I think you should try to keep families together. That's not to say all single people should be left out. Let's say one boat has one space left. On it are two kids and their mother. The two people who need a seat are the father and an unrelated woman with no close family. In this case, the father would get on because he can look after the kids, whereas the woman has no real reason why she should be let on. Unless she was a doctor or something.
Which brings me to my main point. This system was probably chosen because it was a quick and simple way to get people to safety. The boat was sinking, there was no time to argue about who should get on the lifeboats.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

If a boat sinks you should evacuate non essential personnel (anyone not needed to coordinate the evacuation) first
passengers (in no particular order) second
evacuation conductors last

 

[Davih]

Only in Children first. Women always wanted to be treated like equals, why should they get special treatment in a crisis?

 

[JoJo]

I voted for children first because they are worth more than us adults, but in reality I'd add the condition that the rest of their family could go with them too since losing a parent or sibling is a terrible thing to go through and the child needs someone to support them. Men and women are equal in my eyes so gender wouldn't factor into any of the decisions. In reality of-course ships are nowadays required to have enough life-boats for all passengers so chances are the only people who will get left behind are the few unlucky sods who end up injured or trapped somewhere.