Personnaly at the risk of sounding like a complete ass im very mutch every peson for themself so yeah id be getting me off the boat at all costs.
Poll: Do you believe in "women and children first"?
- Thread starter Goofguy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Physically fit people first, wounded/disabled/crying people should go last. Survival of the fittest, Overpopulation and all that jazz. If we only have the weak surviving then what odds do that give us in the future, also children = overpopulation so as many of them should left behind as possible.
If i were in a situation like this I would probably give a small child some slack but teens and up male and female would do well to watch their backs.
I had always viewed the reason for "Who gets the lifeboat" as being "Who is utterly useless in this situation but your presence can cause problems and should the worst happen you'd drown first?". NOT "Whose life has the most value?" - That is an absurd, subjective and ironically immoral way to start classing people.
Put simply - "Who is the least physically able?" should get the lifeboats first because it is more demonstrable and objectively quantifiable.
So Children, Old and frail people, the injured or pregnant. They can't help each other, nor help themselves, but they can hinder the survival of others; So they need to be removed from the situation ASAP.
Physically fit adults (I would class 16+ as "Adult" in this situation) can have whatever life boat is left in whatever order they come to but no group or subset amongst that group should be given preference based on gender; That is patently sexist. Those who don't have a lifeboat left at the end are most likely to survive the waters out of every group on the ship - Physically fit, mentally able, uninjured people.
IF "Women" want to be included in that original group of "Useless" individuals then by all means, but quite frankly I will be collecting your right to equal pay and equal treatment as "Selfish, hypocritical ****" tax.
Put simply - "Who is the least physically able?" should get the lifeboats first because it is more demonstrable and objectively quantifiable.
So Children, Old and frail people, the injured or pregnant. They can't help each other, nor help themselves, but they can hinder the survival of others; So they need to be removed from the situation ASAP.
Physically fit adults (I would class 16+ as "Adult" in this situation) can have whatever life boat is left in whatever order they come to but no group or subset amongst that group should be given preference based on gender; That is patently sexist. Those who don't have a lifeboat left at the end are most likely to survive the waters out of every group on the ship - Physically fit, mentally able, uninjured people.
IF "Women" want to be included in that original group of "Useless" individuals then by all means, but quite frankly I will be collecting your right to equal pay and equal treatment as "Selfish, hypocritical ****" tax.
I read that the captain shot the men who wouldn't want to give their place to a woman or child on the Titanic. I do think that in a situation like that, people would do everything to save themselves. Survival is our basic programming after all.
"Woman and children" first isn't relevant anymore. I think i'd trade place with a child, only if i could off myself before dieing of drowning or the cold. Drowning sounds atrocious to me. I already had a longer life, too bad it'd end then. That kid better do something with his life though, otherwise i would personally come back to life to kick its ass !
"Woman and children" first isn't relevant anymore. I think i'd trade place with a child, only if i could off myself before dieing of drowning or the cold. Drowning sounds atrocious to me. I already had a longer life, too bad it'd end then. That kid better do something with his life though, otherwise i would personally come back to life to kick its ass !
gamezombieghgh said:
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.Yopaz said:
OP: Children first, then me, then whoever else can get to a lifeboat.
In that kind of situation, I don't see the point in leaving the strongest behind (be they male or female) if their chances of survival, regardless of physical strength, is basically zero. There's no real harm in letting the weakest survive either (old or mentally/physically handicapped), it's not as if a few weak people surviving a ship wreck is going to damage the human race.
I guess that decision is up to the people actually in the situation.
I think that in a situation in which this principle would turn up you wouldn't have time to argue about it. Effort should be put into preserving as many lives as possible, not prioritizing certain people over others.
So basically the whole point is moot.
So basically the whole point is moot.
I believe in the notion of "whomsoever I can push in front of the oncoming combine harvester goes first."
Maybe when children were respectful and less irritating and entitled, I'd probably hold their lives over those of anyone else...jeez, that sounded bad, but it's true. Sorry guys.
Maybe when children were respectful and less irritating and entitled, I'd probably hold their lives over those of anyone else...jeez, that sounded bad, but it's true. Sorry guys.
Well, when the Earth is taken over and the aliens want to harvest 1000000 humans for experimants, I will, of course, let the women and children go first.
Anyways, if I was in such a situation, for real, if I didnt have a family, I might let women and children go first. If I have a wife and kid though, than fuck the rest of you, Im staying with my family.
Anyways, if I was in such a situation, for real, if I didnt have a family, I might let women and children go first. If I have a wife and kid though, than fuck the rest of you, Im staying with my family.
Those who posses most valuable skills first. Then other adults, then kids, after them disabled and elderly. The way I see it is that someone like doctor/nurse is more likely to improve survival chances of others than a kid/disabled/old person. You can argue that "kids are the future of the species and have a potential," but they can do less for group's survival than someone who can, for example, hunt, children can be easily "made" once the situation is safe, and let's face it: what are the odds that any of those saved kids end up as someone meaningful to the society? Elderly and disabled also do not contribute much and are not as helpful as other adults - they can't help themselves and others, and elderly are not as able to reproduce (or at least produce healthy children) as other adults.
If I would be in a group of survivors I'd rather have someone who can help others than someone that requires constant care, can't do much to help, and can hinder chances of the group.
If I would be in a group of survivors I'd rather have someone who can help others than someone that requires constant care, can't do much to help, and can hinder chances of the group.
People I care about get preference, whether they be man, woman, child, or indeterminate.
People I don't care about can go get screwed.
People I don't care about can go get screwed.
I think it has more to do with the prolonging of the species than weakest first (which would be the opposite really). But that's just the way I always saw it. Women and children (children in particular) are the future so they should be allowed to live... I think its a mix of that and chivalry.lacktheknack said:
Me, however, I disagree. First Come, first served should be how its done. Anything else is just unfair. The way I see it is 'me first' and I think everyone should see things that way too. Of course, people who see things that way often take it to the extreme and think of it as 'me only'.