Poll: Guys: would you give up your seat on the last lifeboat to women and children?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
I've never quite understood the idea of sacrificing an adult to let a child live. A child has no dependents relying on them to survive. They are yet to be old enough to contribute in any way to society, instead they just use resources. They haven't spend years striving for their aspirations and dreams that will now go unfulfilled if they don't live. To be perfectly honest they aren't developed in any meaningful way at all, why is it that people feel so badly for them?
I'm saying this as a woman with fairly well developed maternal instincts, I know full well that (after a short struggle with my desire for self-preservation) I'd end up sacrificing myself for a child - but I don't understand the logic behind it at all.
I'm saying this as a woman with fairly well developed maternal instincts, I know full well that (after a short struggle with my desire for self-preservation) I'd end up sacrificing myself for a child - but I don't understand the logic behind it at all.
I'm holding onto my seat when I get there, no question, but I'd kill a guy or two with a broken whiskey bottle to make up for it.
Leaving both of them on a boat would be the noble thing to do,but on the other hand dying pretty much sucks so I am at a crossroads.
Ah yes, but nobody was taking down the names of those men on board the titanic and nothing is more sincere than actions. Especially when they cost you your own life. They simply did what they believed was right, even if they themselves wanted to live. I can understand the motivations of people saying they'ed honestly leave children to die, I like living too, I only hope that if placed directly in the situations in question these guys would find it harder to act selfishly. I'll tell you this, if I were around there's no way I'd stay on a sinking boat while some douche waves bye to some kids and expects to ride off into the sunset, I'm dragging him out of that life boat. Though I'd rather be building a raft out of furniture than baby sitting jerks.stinkychops said:
I wondered about this too, and I think it's also because of the state of things from the olden times. Enduring pregnancy and childbirth was, until recently, a fairly difficult job. There was a high rate of spontaneous abortions, infections, diseases, troubles and complications during childbirth, unclean equipment, underdeveloped medicine and so on. So, if you get it done, and both you and the baby survive, I guess you'd value that child more than anything because another pregnancy or childbirth might kill you and/or the new baby. Incidentally, the only time where an adult is more valuable than the child is at childbirth; because a mother's life is the one that, at that point, holds more possibility of surviving long enough to try to get pregnant again, while children were extremely vulnerable up until they were 5 years old (or more in some cases).brownstudies said:
Obviously, today, it's not like that anymore, but I really don't think anyone would push the child away and grab the seat in a lifeboat for themselves. And even if someone would, they would probably feel miserable and guilty for the rest of their lives. It's something in humans that makes us goes berserk if we see a child (or even animal young) in danger.
I think if you're talking about YOUR child rather than A child then regardless of the time period or risks involved in pregnancy, you're going to sacrifice yourself.. I mean, parents value their children more than anything period, not just because they had a hard time getting them into the world. It's the idea of people giving up seats for stranger's children that I don't understand. As you say, children were pretty sickly in the past until they were older, so it's not even like you could guarantee that the child would live after you'd sacrificed yourself anyway.Beliyal said:
Perhaps society as a whole valued children more highly because of the reasons you mentioned? If it was rarer for a child to survive past a certain age, there might have been a heavy importance on protecting the ones that did make it.
I suppose it's like you say though, logic just doesn't come into it. We seem programmed to protect children at all costs, and that's that.
Uh... no. I don't see how having different genetalia than me entitles you to special treatment, and the world's full of kids, losing one won't do any harm.
If this makes me a selfish bastard, then so be it. Try to see things from my perspective though, that water's probably really cold and that would just not sit well with me.
If this makes me a selfish bastard, then so be it. Try to see things from my perspective though, that water's probably really cold and that would just not sit well with me.
i would for a young child (younger then me) but not for adult women. i think it should be age and focused on not splitting families. sex should not even come into it. i might give it up for an adult woman if there young child was on it and my family wasn't but if my sister was on it and some woman women with no family on the boat asked for my spot i would not give it.
Technically, in those waters, one could grab onto a piece of debris, and hold onto another lifeboat. Mythbusters already proved that a sinking ship won't drag you down, and I'm a Boy Scout, and I'm pretty sure that means I know how to swim, so yeah, I'd go for it.
Or, there are always two other options:
Option E: Jump across the boat and whatever debris I can find, wearing read and white robes, avoiding people who want to kill me, and getting off the sinking ship undetected.
Option G: Orange portal under me, Blue portal on the nearest landmass. Now I'm thinking with portals!
Or, there are always two other options:
Option E: Jump across the boat and whatever debris I can find, wearing read and white robes, avoiding people who want to kill me, and getting off the sinking ship undetected.
Option G: Orange portal under me, Blue portal on the nearest landmass. Now I'm thinking with portals!
Children might deserve it. As adults though, women are just as viable in society as I am, so they're screwed. Plus, living is pretty fucking rad.
it's a pretty difficult question. i mean if the only thing separating you from surviving a very difficult death (drowning in freezing water is a pretty awful death) is your ethics in not allowing yourself to take a seat a man is willing to give up i think it'd be very easy to put aside your pride and take it. life and death scenario's mess with your mind's ability to properly reason things out.Beliyal said:
personally, i'd like to think if i was on a lifeboat with a mother and her child doesn't have a seat then yeah i'd get up and give it to him but i don't really know. believing in something is easy, believing in something when the consequence of that belief is death is very difficult.
I have lifeguard certification and I am a more than capable swimmer and I am well-padded so cold water doesn't bother me that much so yeah I would. Besides I could probably just keep up with the lifeboat while swimming, so if they get rescued, I am sure I could convince someone to hoist me out of the water too.
Yep, I meant this. It probably played a role, the fact that society as a whole knew that getting pregnancy and childbirth "done" without complications and children surviving past the age of 5 was "worthier" than some male passenger, or elderly people, or even women.brownstudies said:
EDIT:
Yes, definitely, if someone gives the seat and I'm looking at that though choice, I'd take it, especially if the other option is certain death. But if I could be of help on the place of disaster and someone else could have a better use of the seat, then I'd rather give to that someone (injured person, pregnant woman, children). The point is, me being a woman doesn't exclude me from helping others and shouldn't necessarily secure me a seat, so I wouldn't really want someone giving up the seat if I'm perfectly capable of surviving on my own, while there are other people that might need the seat more (even if some of them are men. An injured man would need the seat much more than me, if I'm perfectly fine).raaaar said:
