Poll: Guys: would you give up your seat on the last lifeboat to women and children?

[sunburst]

ANYONE who says yes i would is a liar.

When it comes down to it your saying you'd drown for a stranger, who would do that.

Your survival always takes precidence over someone elses unless your either mentally ill or just plain suicidal doesnt matter how small annd cute the mother and child is.

I consider myself a (mostly) good person but to essentially kill myself for people of whom i have no idea of their character is a concept i find baffling.

Humanity can surprise you sometimes. You would think personal survival comes first but people sacrifice themselves for strangers every day. Gotta believe some people saying they would actually wouldn't. But some of the people saying hell no just might surprise themselves.

I doubt I'd have a seat to give up. I'd probably be off building a raft with this awesome guy. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.278909-Poll-Guys-would-you-give-up-your-seat-on-the-last-lifeboat-to-women-and-children#10875910]

 

[Aesir23]

I'm a girl so I'd probably end up being one of the people getting a seat but I'd gladly give up my seat for a child, pregnant woman or to a father/mother who can't accompany his/her family due to there being no seats left on the lifeboat. Call me a fool but I'm not going to condemn someone to death when they clearly have so much to live for.

I have to admit, I'm disgusted by some of the things being posted. It must be the new "in" thing to be so cynical and callous. I can somewhat understand those that wouldn't even if I don't agree, self preservation instincts in such a situation are a force to be reckoned with. Yet also saying that those who would give up their seat are lying, mentally ill, or suicidal? How jaded do you have to be to think that there's not one speck of nobility or humanity left within the human race?

It's a good thing that regulations these days require that there be enough lifeboats for everyone on board

 

[robodukky]

Sure, I'll give up my seat. It just means I'll have to stand up on the lifeboat right?

 

[babinro]

Easier said than done..however they have more to live for than I do...it would be the right thing to do to give up my spot for women and children

 

[emeraldrafael]

In modern day? Sure, why not.

If its back in those times? yeah, I would. Its whats expected of you and what you're taught. Of course you do. Besides that, children are far more valuable to the future then I would be as an adult, and women, well, they actually carry that hope, so they're more important as well.

You need both sexes to make a kid so they're aren't more important.

To me women are, because I have yet to meet the natural born man that can carry a child. And also considering the controversy of a test tube baby, the man is far removed from the equation of improtance. The man only has to put his stuff in the woman and leave, the women needs to be there always.

 

[nomzy]

If it's a mother and child, then yes. But god dammit, that child better accomplish great things.

 

[Mallefunction]

I'm a woman, but I think only the kids should ever take priority in this kind of situation. I personally don't even like children all that much, but I would feel guilty if I knew that a child essentially died so I could have my seat.

 

[Corven]

Page 6 of a topic so I doubt anyone will read this but...

The question is pointless since all ships must carry enough lifeboats and rafts to accommodate a ship at full capacity for crew and passengers.

I did this mainly because I don't like hypothetical threads very much.

 

[Rafael Dera]

For children, sure.
Not for women, that would be sexist. Doing that would make me a bad and politically incorrect person. Let's get with the times people; emancipation!

 

[Mallefunction]

And I've yet to see a woman who can conceive on her own.

And also considering the controversy of a test tube baby, the man is far removed from the equation of improtance.

BS. To make a baby you'll always need a male, so they're pretty important.

The idea is that one man can potentially father hundreds of children while many women (not always a hundred because some might have twisn, etc) are needed to mother that hundred children. That's why women were considered more valuable.

 

[MrSalamandra]

To me women are, because I have yet to meet the natural born man that can carry a child. And also considering the controversy of a test tube baby, the man is far removed from the equation of improtance. The man only has to put his stuff in the woman and leave, the women needs to be there always.

Is the human race at risk of going extinct due to lack of women, or that women don't have enough times in their lives to have an appropriate amount of children? This isn't a valid argument even if women were having children all the time without sperm being involved, which they aren't.

 

[Ganthrinor]

That really depends. How Hot/Cold is the water? Is it water or acid or are we in space? How far from land? Will this person contribute to society more than I will? Does the lifeboat NEED another woman and/or child? How many innocents did I have to kill to obtain said seat? Does not having a seat guarantee death?

I guess what I'm saying is that no, no I would not give my seat that I earned through might or sleight, to some random person simply because they are young or have boobs. There has to be more to it than simply age or sex, that's not good enough anymore. Does that make me selfish? Probably. I can live with that.

 

[Bobbity]

Fuck, I'm tempted to say that I wouldn't for a woman, now that they've got the equality they were always going on about, but I think that I would, and probably for a child.

That said, I can also see a situation in which I'm utterly terrified, and where I just sit shamefacedly at the back of the boat, too scared to give up my seat.

 

[Aethren]

I practice equality, the women can swim if they make it to the boat too late. Children can sit on the adult's laps, not all American children are whales.

 

[ohHaiGuiz]

children first because they have the whole life ahead of them women after because they make children and mans last in theory but in practice is everyone for themselves

 

[MrSalamandra]

The idea is that one man can potentially father hundreds of children while many women (not always a hundred because some might have twisn, etc) are needed to mother that hundred children. That's why women were considered more valuable.

But still, it's just a complete non-factor. The human population is hardly alarmingly low and women have ~30 years of fertility, very little of which they generally spend pregnant.

 

[MrSalamandra]

children first because they have the whole life ahead of them women after because they make children and mans last in theory but in practice is everyone for themselves

Men make children too.

I'm 21. A 10 year old is 11 years younger than me and so has on average 11 years longer to live. Do I get the same preferential treatment from a 32 year old?