Women and children first!!!

py2006

If you were on a sinking ship and somebody yelled 'Women and Children first', would you step aside for women and children or would you take care of yourself first?

Would you be the person yelling 'women and children' first yourself?

I personally would feel guilty if I was one of the first on a lifeboat and/or if there wasn't enough room for everybody!

It would be interesting to hear what the feminists think of the statement! haha

partyatmygaff

Children first. Everyone else after that.

py2006

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Children first. Everyone else after that.

Sounds about right!

bronte

Are you serious?
Jack Dawson should be first.
To hell with the rest of them.

FloatingVoter

Children over the side first. Then the women and men can break out the lifeboats.

Mint Sauce

Is there space for my Atari Jaguar there?

py2006

irish-stew wrote: »

Is there space for my Atari Jaguar there?

Shut up would ya, just...shut up, shut up, shut up and SHUT UP!!!

Shutttttttttttttttt UPPPPP !!!










Shut up!

Magic Beans

Follow me I'm right behind you.

Mint Sauce

py2006 wrote: »

Shut up would ya, just...shut up, shut up, shut up and SHUT UP!!!

Shutttttttttttttttt UPPPPP !!!










Shut up!

Is that a No then?

py2006

irish-stew wrote: »

Is that a No then?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

BluesBerry

Its only right that children should be gotten to safety first after that its survival of the fittest

pragmatic1

Kids first definitely. After that survival of the fittest.

Wolfe Tone

I gave that bitch a lifeboat, bitches love lifeboats

theneed2rock

bronte wrote: »

Are you serious?
Jack Dawson should be first.
To hell with the rest of them.

followed by rose

My name is URL

Unless they were my own children I don't see why they should be first.

pragmatic1

BluesBerry wrote: »

Its only right that children should be gotten to safety first after that its survival of the fittest

Hive mind.

smcgiff

My name is URL wrote: »

Unless they were my own children I don't see why they should be first.

socio *cough* path

FloatingVoter

theneed2rock wrote: »

followed by rose

Rose, I'll be right behind you ....keeping you warm

Archeron

Score one point for the man with the inflatable girlfriend.

**Timbuk2**

This reminds me, when you are on a plane and they are giving the safety demonstration, they advise parents to attend to their own oxygen masks before putting on the children's - why is this? I would have assumed it would be the opposite.

F1ngers

My wife and son first, then me.
After that, I don't care.

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

This reminds me, when you are on a plane and they are giving the safety demonstration, they advise parents to attend to their own oxygen masks before putting on the children's - why is this? I would have assumed it would be the opposite.

What if you went unconscious before you could attend to the child? You would both probably die.

smcgiff

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

This reminds me, when you are on a plane and they are giving the safety demonstration, they advise parents to attend to their own oxygen masks before putting on the children's - why is this? I would have assumed it would be the opposite.

Because an unconcious parent cannot put the oxygen mask over a child's head. Plus, it's quicker to do it to yourself rather than someone else.

BluesBerry

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

This reminds me, when you are on a plane and they are giving the safety demonstration, they advise parents to attend to their own oxygen masks before putting on the children's - why is this? I would have assumed it would be the opposite.

Because the staff dont want to look after your bratty kids if you die first

Larianne

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

This reminds me, when you are on a plane and they are giving the safety demonstration, they advise parents to attend to their own oxygen masks before putting on the children's - why is this? I would have assumed it would be the opposite.

Because if the drop in pressure gets too much they'll be able to function whereas a child isn't gonna put a mask on the parent.

smcgiff

F1ngers wrote: »

My wife and son first, then me.
After that, I don't care.

Most people would think like that, and if unchecked very few people would get saved in the melee.

I imagine even the likes of Irish ferries have a protocol for the stewards to follow, by force possibly.

I wonder what's the official line for the likes of Irish ferries if their ship starts to sink. Is it still women and children first?

Wolfe Tone

smcgiff wrote: »

Most people would think like that, and if unchecked very few people would get saved in the melee.

I imagine even the likes of Irish ferries have a protocol for the stewards to follow, by force possibly.

I wonder what's the official line for the likes of Irish ferries if their ship starts to sink. Is it still women and children first?

I say there is room for everyone on the life boats!

dark crystal

I thought it was always women and children first, as in the event of a ship sinking, the men would have a greater chance of survival, given their strength and speed.

Also, the women would be the main child carers of the family, so if the women did not follow the children off the ship, the children would be left orphaned.

Or maybe it's just a tradition left over from the days of chivalry.

Still, I think if it happened today, it would be every man for himself!

Although, personally speaking, I would never take the place of a child. I would make sure they were saved before me. My conscience wouldn't allow otherwise.

smcgiff

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I say there is room for everyone on the life boats!

True, but I imagine there would have to be a protocol if there were not enough life boats, such as if certain lifeboats became damaged or could not be used for whatever reason.

pragmatic1

dark crystal wrote: »

I thought it was always women and children first, as in the event of a ship sinking, the men would have a greater chance of survival, given their strength and speed.

Also, the women would be the main child carers of the family, so if the women did not follow the children off the ship, the children would be left orphaned.

Or maybe it's just a tradition left over from the days of chivalry.

Still, I think if it happened today, it would be every man for himself!

Although, personally speaking, I would never take the place of a child. I would make sure they were saved before me. My conscience wouldn't allow otherwise.

I think its due to the fact that women are more valuable than men reproductively. One man can have dozens of offspring, so if half of us die it isnt going to really impact the species. Women are more important for the continuation of the species.

flahavaj

F*ck this children first lark. The adults should save themselves, they can always make new ones once they're safe. Something to look forward to too.:pac:

F1ngers

smcgiff wrote: »

I wonder what's the official line for the likes of Irish ferries if their ship starts to sink. Is it still women and children first?

There has never been a maritime law of "women and children first".

Who is to say a womans' or a childs life is more important than a mans?
If everyone lines up in an orderly fashion, everyone should be saved.

py2006

F1ngers wrote: »

There has never been a maritime law of "women and children first".

Who is to say a womans' or a childs life is more important than a mans?
If everyone lines up in an orderly fashion, everyone should be saved.

In fairness, they aint going to happen if the ship is sinking fast!

Logical Fallacy

BluesBerry wrote: »

Its only right that children should be gotten to safety first after that its survival of the fittest

Why?

Surely survival of the fittest means the bigger stronger people get the spots because they can take them.

I think you mean survival of the social doctrine.

doomed

Reminds me of old joke

Presidents Carter, Nixon and Kennedy were on a ship which was sinking

Carter: Women and children First
Nixon: F**k the women and children
Kennedy: Have we time?

7sr2z3fely84g5

This women and children first notion is gone,everyone would just fight and push for the safety place.

J K

I'll fire a couple of warning shots in the air. And then brandish my revolver for all to see. Nobody, no man, woman or child goes next or near a lifeboat. First person to object gets a bullet between the eyes. Damn deserters. Nobodies leaving this ship.

doomed

Look after the wealthy first - that's what we generally do in a crisis.

EverEvolving

What if there was only enough room for the children but no adults - what then? Who would mind them and how would you chose which children to yank off so some adults could accompany them?

smcgiff

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I think its due to the fact that women are more valuable than men reproductively. One man can have dozens of offspring, so if half of us die it isnt going to really impact the species. Women are more important for the continuation of the species.

Considering there are nearly 7 thousand million people on the planet already the opposite could be argued!

senorwipesalot

EverEvolving wrote: »

What if there was only enough room for the children but no adults - what then? Who would mind them and how would you chose which children to yank off so some adults could accompany them?

Yeah.What the fcuk do children know about navigating lifeboats.

minidazzler

TBH, I don't know these hypothetical women and children, so I'll do what I can to help, but I am not dying for anyone that I don't love.

Caireann

EverEvolving wrote: »

What if there was only enough room for the children but no adults - what then? Who would mind them and how would you chose which children to yank off so some adults could accompany them?

If you take ''children'' as anyone of the age 18 and under then surely the older ones would be capable of looking after the younger ones.

Ivan_itch

If women are always looking for equality then they will have no problem fighting it out with the men after the children are safe.

Yakult

Children, then men and then women.

sollar

I would try not to trample on too many heads as i clambered onto the lifeboat.

Kaneda_

I would just forget about the woman,serious.They are weak creatures who do very little to help society.

mawk

senorwipesalot wrote: »

Yeah.What the fcuk do children know about navigating lifeboats.

Well since they don't have engines or sails.. As much as anyone else?

pragmatic1

smcgiff wrote: »

Considering there are nearly 7 thousand million people on the planet already the opposite could be argued!

I suppose if the human mind was logical.

WindSock

The women go with the kids because men are all paedos and can't be trusted of course...

Pretty_Pistol

Kaneda_ wrote: »

I would just forget about the woman,serious.They are weak creatures who do very little to help society.

Yeah, they only have the ability to grow humans inside them.

plein de force

children first

then it's survival of the fittest.