Save the women and children first, or er at least the children...

[Autumnleaf]

Evidently when the Italian cruise ship ran aground some women were amazed that men weren't giving women the first seats on the life boats. I guess the guys figured men and wimin are equal so its every adult for themselves.

MarkyMark's Thoughts on Various Issues: Costa Concordia: Initial Observations

How do you feel about that?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well I wouldn't blame a guy for doing that. I wouldn't die for traditions sake. If equality means equality then it should be equality. Of course I'm probably a hypocrite when I say this too

This only slightly makes sense morally if men are more likely to live because they can swim for longer.

 

[crazygardenlady]

I think women with children should be rescued first, as well as men with children. A single woman is on the same playing field as a single man, in my opinion. If I were on that ship, I'd be concerned with rescuing myself first and foremost unless I saw a stranded child who needed adult assistance.

I heard that a violinist is still missing, he was last seen trying to help abandoned children get into life jackets. So sad.

 

[DaisyDay]

I agree with crazygardenlady - children with their parents first. Then those less able to fend for themselves.

 

[SwissMade]

Many of the women whinning about the behavior of the men on board are the same women who reject the concept of male duty and honor and champion a version of "equality" that simply doesn't exist.

Why would a man die for that?

"Those big, burly crewmen shoving aside women as they prioritized their own escape should have been wearing t-shirts that said "this is what a feminist looks like". - Vox Day

 

[wanderingone]

Evidently when the Italian cruise ship ran aground some women were amazed that men weren't giving women the first seats on the life boats. I guess the guys figured men and wimin are equal so its every adult for themselves.

MarkyMark's Thoughts on Various Issues: Costa Concordia: Initial Observations

How do you feel about that?

evidently because Markymark says so? (Is markymark one of your many friends?)

Crazy garden lady's thoughts pretty much sum up my own opinion. Those who are hampered by disability or carting kids along go first because they are less able to protect themselves and their charges as things get worse,

My understanding is that one expects cruise ships now to have sufficient seats on life boats for all and the crew is aware of those needed special assistance prior to any emergency. I'm fairly certain that in crisis many of us find out we are cowards and shove our way to "the front of the line"

 

[CabVet]

Evidently when the Italian cruise ship ran aground some women were amazed that men weren't giving women the first seats on the life boats. I guess the guys figured men and wimin are equal so its every adult for themselves.

MarkyMark's Thoughts on Various Issues: Costa Concordia: Initial Observations

How do you feel about that?

You seem to very often come up with these chauvinist posts. So, let's make a little mathematical exercise to figure out which sex really has the power:

Today, the earth is populated by about 7 billion people. Let's imagine (just for the sake of argument) that an extraterrestrial army arrived on earth and said they would eliminate all but 5 individuals of one of the genders. So, to be perfectly clear, they would, with a click of a button, kill all but 5 men, or all but 5 women. They said the decision of which gender was ours. From a species perpetuation (purely biological) point of view, if we wanted the human species to continue inhabiting this planet, which gender would you chose to be reduced to a population of 5?

 

[Cute Tink]

Personally, I would hope that I would have the courage to send anyone less capable of caring for themselves on a lifeboat before getting in one myself. I would, most likely, send women and children before myself. I would feel awful if I knew either had died because I had gotten in a boat first.

 

[Paradoxum]

You seem to very often come up with these chauvinist posts. So, let's make a little mathematical exercise to figure out which sex really has the power:

Today, the earth is populated by about 7 billion people. Let's imagine (just for the sake of argument) that an extraterrestrial army arrived on earth and said they would eliminate all but 5 individuals of one of the genders. So, to be perfectly clear, they would, with a click of a button, kill all but 5 men, or all but 5 women. They said the decision of which gender was ours. From a species perpetuation (purely biological) point of view, if we wanted the human species to continue inhabiting this planet, which gender would you chose to be reduced to a population of 5?

I know the correct answer to this, but what does it prove?

 

[CabVet]

I know the correct answer to this, but what does it prove?

That we should indeed save women and children first

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

That we should indeed save women and children first

That consideration, while relevant in the stone age and throughout other parts of our history, is not relevant in this day in age. Our current enormous population demonstrates that there is no longer an evolutionary need of for us to value the lives of women more than men.

In fact, some people (I wouldn't but many on these boards who are panicky about population growth) would probably argue that we need to curtail population growth. The best way to curtail population growth would be to eliminate all but 5 members of the female population as per your theoretical situation.

Feminism and the Disposable Male - YouTube

There's a good video regarding this topic.

 

[OGM]

I believe in the airline evacuation method. Whatever it takes to evacuate the most amount of people in the least amount of time.

 

[Umaro]

While in truth I agree with crazy garden lady, you could make the argument that children needn't be prioritized, nor parents with children. As Americans we've set it up pretty clearly that society is not responsible for you or your children, and that no one is obligated to help anyone else. Going by that ethical framework there would be no problem with a single man or woman going first if they got there first. Your child may be less able to fend for itself than I am, but our current society defines that as "not my problem."

 

[Autumnleaf]

evidently because Markymark says so? (Is markymark one of your many friends?)

Actually, a friend of mine the the marriage area of this forum came up with this and I thought it would be more pertinent here. Truth be told, I was wondering what my atheist friends here would think of it.

 

[Jade Margery]

While in truth I agree with crazy garden lady, you could make the argument that children needn't be prioritized, nor parents with children. As Americans we've set it up pretty clearly that society is not responsible for you or your children, and that no one is obligated to help anyone else. Going by that ethical framework there would be no problem with a single man or woman going first if they got there first. Your child may be less able to fend for itself than I am, but our current society defines that as "not my problem."

Well, so do natural instincts for survival. Would you trade your life for a baby that you don't know and aren't related to? If some terrible person had a gun on both of you and said, 'you get to choose who I shoot', would you really say 'Me'?

I honestly don't know how I would answer that question.


But yeah, Gardenlady's got the right of it.

 

[Umaro]

Well, so do natural instincts for survival. Would you trade your life for a baby that you don't know and aren't related to? If some terrible person had a gun on both of you and said, 'you get to choose who I shoot', would you really say 'Me'?

I honestly don't know how I would answer that question.


But yeah, Gardenlady's got the right of it.

Honestly, I'd probably save myself. I'd feel terrible about it, but I owe nothing to this kid, and I've still got the majority of my life ahead of me. It's unfortunate, but given the choice, I'd have to say I'd protect my own livelihood.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How do you feel about that?

It looks like they believed in mequality, because equality would suggest some random method for distributing passengers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Autumnleaf]

It looks like they believed in mequality, because equality would suggest some random method for distributing passengers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

A free for all doesn't count as random?

 

[Cabal]

Nah, not bothered by it.

I'll take the point about letting disabled or people WITH children going first, but as for the gender issue with everyone else - equality was sought, they can have it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A free for all doesn't count as random?

No, because speed, strength, etc, will give one individual an edge over another.


eudaimonia,

Mark