| |
Poll: Women and Children first
|
View Poll Results: Agree or disagree?
|
|
Yes, Women and Children first
|
   
|
38 |
32.20% |
|
Children yes, Women no
|
  
|
53 |
44.92% |
|
look out for yourself!
|
  
|
27 |
22.88% |
Member Since: 9/12/2012
Posts: 26,389
|
@ those saying a child needs their mother, which is why it's women and children first: So losing their dads is A-OK? If that's what the worry is about, it should be parents and children first, so those who didn't get to reproduce can suffer. Having both parents is much better than one.
And anyway, if there is a life or death situation that child is involved in, they're traumatized regardless.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/22/2012
Posts: 15,844
|
I don't know. That saying was made thinking children and women = weak, while men could probably still survive even if they're not evacuated first, by other means children and women would not be able to (if anything).
Nowadays we're all about feminism so men and women, theoretically, should be treated the same. Children however have lived less so they have the right to take as many chances to survive as they can. But then, theoretically again, it shouldn't matter if they're left only with a mother or with a father.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2012
Posts: 26,389
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
Not everything is about equality, especially in the matter of reproduction, life and the survival of mankind.
Not about to lose my ****ing mind and debate men and women's rights over such a simple notion. This isn't Tumblr.
|
It is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a situation where so many people could potentially die that we'd have to restart society to where that should be an issue though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
I agree with the notion. It takes just one man to impregnate one woman within minutes whereas it can take up to nine months for one woman to give birth. Children are the future generation and should also be protected. It's the circle of life.
|
...What? So, to you, a person's relative worth comes down to whether they're able to bear children?
Quote:
Originally posted by bluth
i don't think there's a truly ethical way around evacuation. if you're not doing women/children first, the you'll be doing first-come-first-serve, youngest first (thereby potentially making tons of orphans) or some other policy which is unfair to one party
women/children first is the best way because it's the method by which most are accustomed/accept (most people probably think it's maritime law), and during evacuation you don't want to be debating this ****
|
I agree with this. I don't think "women before men" is necessarily the right policy but it would create the fewest negative aftereffects.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/7/2012
Posts: 41,067
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Hugamari
@ those saying a child needs their mother, which is why it's women and children first: So losing their dads is A-OK? If that's what the worry is about, it should be parents and children first, so those who didn't get to reproduce can suffer. Having both parents is much better than one.
And anyway, if there is a life or death situation that child is involved in, they're traumatized regardless.
|
I'd rather the child have one living parent than no living parents. Perhaps the best case scenario is nobody goes first. I just don't feel totally comfortable with potentially orphaning children. At least if they have one parent that survives, they can get comfort from them rather than being left to deal with it on their own
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Guernica
I'd rather the child have one living parent than no living parents. Perhaps the best case scenario is nobody goes first. I just don't feel totally comfortable with potentially orphaning children. At least if they have one parent that survives, they can get comfort from them rather than being left to deal with it on their own
|
I get what you're saying but it's tricky in general because nothing is ever for sure at all. With the Titanic in specific, over half of the women in 3rd class died. There's always potential that they'll be orphaned 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2014
Posts: 6,765
|
I mean people tend to say children first because they wouldn't be able to protect themselves. Women can. So children first yes, but women and men have an equal shot. I mean I watched titanic and I was a bit disturbed by them allowing the men to die as if they had no value. I understand a child needs a parent, but why does it have to be the mother? And women are physically weaker but that doesn't mean they can't survive. Also if we are under populated than obviously we need to save more women (sorry biology) because as the member above said, the more women, the more populated we become. But we aren't under populated
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
I agree with the notion. It takes just one man to impregnate one woman within minutes whereas it can take up to nine months for one woman to give birth. Children are the future generation and should also be protected. It's the circle of life.
|
Sorry, but my life has value besides breeding. Children def go first but I am not about to give up my damn seat to safety cuz I was born with a D
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
You're watching Titanic. There were not enough boats to save the 2,208 people on board. In a matter of life and death, life always outweighs death. I would happily sacrifice my life, as a man, knowing a woman could survive and later bare children.
You open a topic of discussion, are given the scientific answer, and want to argue about it. This isn't social psychology.  |
How about this. As a man I save myself and impregnate two women at the same time. Boom, I just helped create more life than a woman could if she had my seat
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2014
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
Sorry, but my life has value besides breeding. Children def go first but I am not about to give up my damn seat to safety cuz I got an extra chromosome
|
Mess you don't have an EXTRA chromosome. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
I got an extra chromosome
|
Hmmm
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
How about this. As a man I save myself and impregnate two women at the same time. Boom, I just helped create more life than a woman could if she had my seat
|
I never even thought of this. To imply that men can only impregnate one woman is ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2014
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Corsola
I never even thought of this. To imply that men can only impregnate one woman is ignorant.
|
No one said that. They said if there are 100 men, and 1 woman, the woman can only be pregnant once (for 9 months).. while if there were 100 women and 1 man, all 100 women could get pregnant making the world more populated. So if we are under populated saving more women would be ideal.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/18/2012
Posts: 14,652
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Corsola
I never even thought of this. To imply that men can only impregnate one woman is ignorant.
|
They're saying that men can impreginate more than one Woman, which is implying that men are more disposable.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KareBear
Mess you don't have an EXTRA chromosome. |
A mess. I meant to say different. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KareBear
No one said that. They said if there are 100 men, and 1 woman, the woman can only be pregnant once (for 9 months).. while if there were 100 women and 1 man, all 100 women could get pregnant making the world more populated. So if we are under populated saving more women would be ideal.
|
ddd clock me. I've been awake for 37 hours, that's my excuse. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
For the love of god. What kind of stupidity. There are billions of humans. A ship carrying like 2k or even 50k people is literally irrelevant, even if everybody on it dies for the population. I am ****ing fuming. I have no plans on ever having children so my life by default is meaningless? What if a woman is barren, should we kill her off immediately? WTF is this logic.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
For the love of god. What kind of stupidity. There are billions of humans. A ship carrying like 2k or even 50k people is literally irrelevant, even if everybody on it dies for the population. I am ****ing fuming. I have no plans on ever having children so my life by default is meaningless? What if a woman is barren, should we kill her off immediately? WTF is this logic.
|
They're just saying if we were underpopulated. However since we're bordering on overpopulation, the logic wouldn't apply.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/12/2012
Posts: 18,340
|
The results are heartbreaking 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 35,912
|
Children yes, Women no
All children are innocent. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
