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

[Darkcerb]

children and wounded first. Grow a pair guys and gals.

I love all the posts decrying children's worth and potential when they have more potential then anyone older then them that's just common sense.

Given that potential they're worth more then most of us "gamers" by a mile.

And getting the wounded out first is standard practice iirc for most rescue services.

 

[Cheesus333]

Children first, yes. I think people who can't fend for themselves should get priority - in this instance, those who can survive for themselves should really be helping those who can't.
Men and women - assuming disability and age etc. aren't an influencing factor - can fend for themselves. At the end of the day, it's whomever has a stronger love for strangers that's gonna give up their seat on the boat.

 

[dyre]

I don't necessarily believe that women have a higher moral claim to the lifeboat or w/e, but I'd probably let them in first. And kids, definitely. I'm not going to let some ten year old kid die because I wanted to hog a space on the lifeboat. Besides, you can fit more kids than adults on those things!

sure do, but thats because im a misogynistic areshole apparently. (i have actually been asked this question before and this was what my answer earned me)

but I believe that a children should be first and at least one guardian should be sent with them.

Yeah, it's weird how that ends up. If you say "men first," you're a misogynist, and if you say "women first," well...you're still a misogynist!

 

[Captain Pirate]

I believe in other people first in general, really.
Women and Children are included in that, so yeah, I guess I do.

 

[Commissar Sae]

In the event of a disaster and the choice is between me and a woman and her baby I will let them get on first. Basically those who are either dependant or have a dependant should go first since they cannot save themselves. Does this include all women, no of course not. Likewise an infirm man gets precedence over a healthy woman in my mind.

The idea was always to help those who will have the hardest time taking care of themselves first, regardless of gender or age.

 

[SneeringCanuck]

When the urge to survive kicks in, everything else goes out the window.

My family, then me, then anybody else. I'm sorry, but I want to live.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Children first... but you can't just send off boat loads of children by themselves so there have to be some adults along and I would say very young children (infant/toddler) need their mothers very much still, so that may be part of the logic of "women and children" first.

 

[mephet]

Children first by all means, then a parent with each one. Rather than "women and children first" I believe more in "weaker first": stronger women and men alike should in my mind give their place for weaker men and women, the elderly, the disabled, etc. There's no difference in right between equally strong women and men, IMO.
Now, what I absolutely cannot understand is the Darwinian mindset, the idea that if you're strong and quick you're entitled to be selfish and just push through to save your own skin at the expense of the weak and young. That way of thinking makes me feel sick. Doing the noble and unselfish thing in an event like a ship sinking is what truly shows someone's strenght and bravery.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

An adult has much more in the way of valuable thoughts (as cute as the ramblings of most children are, they are hardly useful) and personal dreams, an adult's actions have far more impact on the world and they have a far greater responsibility to society. And what about the adult's family? Who they are probably vital in supporting. Now it becomes a case of the life of someone else's child, at the cost of the livelihood of their own.

And yes, as much as TestECull phrased it somewhat offensively, those children are their parents responsibility, your own life and the lives of those close to you are your responsibility.

 

[Anthony Wells]

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.

Let's see here.

Kids are:

1: Whiny
2: Loud
3: Stupid
4: Annoying
5: demanding
6: they have no filter
7: They don't care about your feelings
8: They don't know how to shut the fuck up and act rationally when they're not in danger. You honestly think they'll be any better when they are?
9: They're far more likely to panic. Adults are panickey enough as it is.
10: Picking them up in an attempt to save their stupid, annoying little asses is just as likely to get you sued to hell and back by their stupid, annoying fuckhead parents as it is to get you thanked. You have a 50/50 shot of being the town hero and being sued so hard you never drive anything nicer than a '91 Geo Metro ever again because every cent you make goes to the fuckhead parents who's annoying little sod you went out of your way to rescue. Neither option is even remotely appealing to me, so I'd rather not play the lottery. Kthnxbai.
11:And did I mention they're fucking annoying?


If they didn't come from my loins, or their parents didn't explicitly put me in charge of them, they aren't my problem. These are the only two conditions upon which I would act to save a child, nothing more. There is a slim chance I might do something if I'm not in any danger, say the idiot wandered out into a public street I happen to be trundling down. I might stop in the lane to keep them from getting hit and usher them off the road. But the hypothetical here is that everyone is in the same situation, for example a cruise liner sinking, so that doesn't apply to this thread.

So yeah. Kids that I'm not in charge of aren't my responsibility and I'm not going to go out of my way to save them if we're all in the same situation. Their parents are there for a reason, as are rescue authorities and any surviving crewmembers of whatever public transit vehicle I happened to be on when the shit hit the fan. If that doesn't agree with you that's your problem.

pretty much this in a nutshell with why i would agree with the fuck kids unless they are mine (or my close friends)

OT: no. just no. no life is more valuable than another..and if i had to be honest..i would say leave the elderly. why? they dont have their whole lives ahead of them still, i do, as do other young people.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I voted no.

I'm a believer that what should be important is saving the most number of lives possible. I think it's pretty horrifying if you have the opportunity to save four adult males but don't and let them die because there's a single woman and a single child in the same situation that could be saved instead. I'm not saying that because I think men are more important than women or children, I'm saying it because I think it'd be better to save four people than two.

UNLESS

Those four men died because they volunteered to wait until the woman and child were saved. That's the exception.

Anyway... I'll leave this here, because it's on-subject and some of you might find it funny.

 

[SpaceBat]

1. Children
2. Pregnant women
3. Everyone else.

I don't see the difference between men and women in this particular situation, but children need to have priority as we are obligated to protect them and they still have a long life ahead of them. Dismissing children for being loud and annoying would be a childish thing to do in itself.

 

[mephet]

pretty much this in a nutshell with why i would agree with the fuck kids unless they are mine (or my close friends)

OT: no. just no. no life is more valuable than another..and if i had to be honest..i would say leave the elderly. why? they dont have their whole lives ahead of them still, i do, as do other young people.

As do children.

 

[Anthony Wells]

pretty much this in a nutshell with why i would agree with the fuck kids unless they are mine (or my close friends)

OT: no. just no. no life is more valuable than another..and if i had to be honest..i would say leave the elderly. why? they dont have their whole lives ahead of them still, i do, as do other young people.

As do children.

You ignored what i quoted though...if i tried to help a child more than likely i would get branded as a pedophile.... i know children have their whole lives ahead of them but its not my responsibility to help them..and even if i do likely i would get in trouble for helping them. So i say fuck'em.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I think the best way to say this is if a pregnant woman and I were racing to the last spot on the lifeboat I'm tripping her.

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

News flash: Women are tough. Tougher than you, tougher than me. They don't need you saving them just because they don't have a dong, hell, they may be the ones saving your ass. The presence or lack of ovaries does not in any way dictate weak or strong.

fun fact: women are proven to have a higher pain threshold than men, which is increased even more so after child birth. women dont need my help, and id love to see feminists scramble for a life boat over men when they preach equal rights.

 

[guitarsniper]

My kids first. Then me. Then your kids (if they haven't done anything to piss me off recently). Then you. Doesn't matter what gender you are.

 

[TheAmokz]

I believe in me first.