Do you agree? Women and children first?

[Idealistic]

If you think about it, do you really agree with the whole save women and children first?

Sure, I agree, but only if it's MY woman and MY children. But if it's strangers.... screw that, I'm saving myself first.

If you actually look at the bigger picture, what are the odds the woman or child you sacrificed your life for will actually have a positive impact on the world? I mean, if you believe you will do good for the world, then by all means save yourself. If you are just a bum who unfortunately ended up in a situation like that, maybe it's best for you to sacrifice yourself. lol. But for me, I have big plans in life.

But don't get me wrong, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my friends and family though if it ever came down to it.

So what if women can reproduce? As a man, I can reproduce with many many other women. There isn't a scarcity of man. Not by a long shot. With one man, you can have 100 babies in 9 months. With one woman, you can only have 1 baby every 9 months. lol.

I guess you can call me selfish for wanting to save myself instead of total strangers. I'm sure many people think like this too though.

[Abdula]

Yeah you are selfish and illogical too. Yes I agree women and children first, you don't even have to justify it, its just chivalry.

So if you were a bum then you would think you should die but someone who has big plans should live. So you think bums are bums because they want to be or because they don't have "big plans" and you think just because you have "big plans' that that guarantees success or means that your life is any more valuable than someone else's.

I would imagine that if there were a bunch of people who think like you at the end, you guys would all run away and save yourselves and let the women and children die then we'll see how you reproduce. Thats assuming your family isn't there, if they are and you save them alone, then good luck with the inbreeding.

So what if women can reproduce? As a man, I can reproduce with many many other women. There isn't a scarcity of man. Not by a long shot. With one man, you can have 100 babies in 9 months. With one woman, you can only have 1 baby every 9 months. lol.

This is just stupid and there is a reason they don't say women first or women and girls first. Its women and children. Just to say, if it came down to me, I would ensure that people like you don't survive.

[Idealistic]

asdf

Well I sort of meant the whole bum thing as a joke, but I didn't really imply it as a joke I guess.

Ok, you save women and children first. What if the children are all girls and then there are no men? We'll see how much they reproduce then too. Have fun having scissor sex for the rest of their lifes.

Inbreeding? They'll eventually turn out normal... Look at how we all turned out and we all started from Adam and Eve. If you believe in that story that is. Hah.

Who's to say guys like me wouldn't be able to run right over you? We might be the one to push you out the way and you'll fall into the ocean or something and die.

[David75]

Who's to say guys like me wouldn't be able to run right over you? We might be the one to push you out the way and you'll fall into the ocean or something and die.

Bum reaction isn't it?

I guess that those who think they are special because they would have some big plans with their lives, worth saving them could be considered bums in the situation you describe.

Anyways, it's all pure speculation, cause no one know how they will react when facing such difficult moments. I was near that once (whole village circled by forest in flames) but hopefully no one was hurt and there wasn't such choice to make.

I would guess that 90% (at least) people would just run just for themselves.
It would turn 100% if there's fire nearing them, just because fire is just awfully painful and people prefer dying on the spot (or running over anything/anyone) than staying in the flames...

[Idealistic]

Bum reaction isn't it?

Umm.... I'd just rather save myself over a bunch of strangers. Doesn't automatically make me a bad person though I will tell you that.

[Animeniax]

I would save the women and children first, because I have faith and confidence in my ability to save myself once everyone else is ok. I'd even stick around to save other guys who needed help. In giving of myself to save these others, karma and the cosmos would do their parts to make sure I got out ok too.

Though I always say, us nice guys finish last.

[Junior]

Inbreeding? They'll eventually turn out normal... Look at how we all turned out and we all started from Adam and Eve. If you believe in that story that is. Hah.

I believe God created more people after Adam and Eve?


But anyway, I agree. Well, if I was a guy, I'd agree anyway. It's mostly because children have their whole lives ahead of them still...

Actually, Abdula's post just sums the whole damn thing up.

But why is women btw? Is it because they're natural nurturers(sp?) and can take care of children? or is it because they can reproduce? OR...maybe...it's because they're a bit physically weaker than men?

[Genma]

If we're judging this on how much impact said individuals would make in the aftermath, I'd still save the women and children first. That's probably only because I don't have a lot of self-worth and honestly, I haven't and probably will never make a huge difference or impact in society.

And even if the people I'm saving don't either, I'd still go out of my way to save them. Especially children, because if I wasn't willing to trade my nineteen years to ensure that some six year old lives on, I'd feel guilty the rest of my life.

I think the only exception is if some really fat chick needed me to save her. I'm not talking chubby... I'm talking enormous and shit. I'd be like, "Screw that, I'm outta here!"

[The Heretic Azazel]

I would never let a bitch go before me. That's just what we need, more women sitting on their fat asses doing nothing.

[Abdula]

I always wanted to know how women felt about that. Yeah for all those reasons among others most importantly the fact that men feel superior and thusly think its their responsibility to take care of and protect the women. I think that is the most important reason and most people in those situations would usually rely on instinct rather than logic and most men's instinct would be to protect the women and children.

I believe God created more people after Adam and Eve?

I was going to mention that and I was also going to mention the fact that at the time Adam and Eve were created they weren't the only "people" on the earth but then I remembered its Idealistic so I didn't bother.

[Junior]

I always wanted to know how women felt about that. Yeah for all those reasons among others most importantly the fact that men feel superior and thusly think its their responsibility to take care of and protect the women. I think that is the most important reason and most people in those situations would usually rely on instinct rather than logic and most men's instinct would be to protect the women and children.

I was going to mention that and I was also going to mention the fact that at the time Adam and Eve were created they weren't the only "people" on the earth but then I remembered its Idealistic so I didn't bother.

Hey, that makes sense. Because normally, when you're in a crisis or situation, you tend to rely on your instincts. You're really clever. ^^;
I think this is just another reason why women love men. XD;

XD If Adam and Eve were the only ones, I think we'd all look a bit off since it'd be inbreeding. Serious inbreeding.

That's a poor rationale. If anything, we need less men in the world, because the ability to repopulate is bottlenecked by the number of women available. Haven't you ever seen the movie, Dr. Strangelove?

Dr. Strangelove? What's it about?

[Assertn]

So what if women can reproduce? As a man, I can reproduce with many many other women. There isn't a scarcity of man. Not by a long shot. With one man, you can have 100 babies in 9 months. With one woman, you can only have 1 baby every 9 months. lol.

That's a poor rationale. If anything, we need less men in the world, because the ability to repopulate is bottlenecked by the number of women available. Haven't you ever seen the movie, Dr. Strangelove?

[Assassin]

ya, its women and children first cuz of chivalry and such, which comes from the natural instinct of men to be the protectors and such...perhaps not as applicable now, but its hardwired into out genes, so its tough to ignore.

However, my one quibble with the women and children first issue, is the feminist movement. logically speaking, the benefit of a child surviving outweigh the benefits of and average man surviving. However, with the sexual equality movement and the hordes of pmsing 40 something women whining about how they deserve to be treated as equals, and how they dont need a man take care of them, im all for removing the 'women' part from 'women and children first'.

....atleast where the feminists are concerned.

[Junior]

ya, its women and children first cuz of chivalry and such, which comes from the natural instinct of men to be the protectors and such...perhaps not as applicable now, but its hardwired into out genes, so its tough to ignore.

However, my one quibble with the women and children first issue, is the feminist movement. logically speaking, the benefit of a child surviving outweigh the benefits of and average man surviving. However, with the sexual equality movement and the hordes of pmsing 40 something women whining about how they deserve to be treated as equals, and how they dont need a man take care of them, im all for removing the 'women' part from 'women and children first'.

....atleast where the feminists are concerned.

I actually thought about the feminist thing. XD

Can someone explain...chivalry to me? I googled it but wikipedia was a bit confusing.

[Abdula]

Wow Assassin I don't know whether to laugh or to get upset, nice one.

[XanBcoo]

Feminists tend to blur the line between "equality" and "special treatment" anyway.

Personally I'd try to protect anyone I care about, but as for people I don't know at all, I really can't say how I'd react. I like to think I'd be helpful and selfless, but the self-preservation instinct has to kick in some time.

XD If Adam and Eve were the only ones, I think we'd all look a bit off since it'd be inbreeding. Serious inbreeding.

I remember this article that el_boss posted a long while ago that claimed humans were natural polygamists, and I guess to some degree that would imply a fair amount of "in breeding".

[Shadow Skill]

I thought Chivalry started around the 11th century due to the Templar Knights. :/

Saving women and children first is not logical in the slightest. As any person knows, the instinct to save oneself is the most powerful force in the world. :P

BY saving women and children first, we basically override that instinct within ourselves. Self preservation has and always will be a part of man and woman before that illogical statement of save women and children first. Scientifically it holds no truth to it. Genetically, 0 proof that such a thing even happens where we as humans will want to stand idly by for 5 minutes while women and children are saved. Self preservation kicks in. Judging by today's world as well, women (judging from all the women who want to spend less time with their own children, Which is quite high), they obviously do not feel the need to want to jump in a fire to save their own flesh and blood, since well... they stand their crying for "Help." Who saves that child? A man, that's who. So it's not so much a genetic error, more like, the situtation of today's world. Doing so, proves you're a man and a hero.

However, 1000 years ago, a man would have been knighted and given a kingdom to rule over had he killed women and children and everyone would have praised said man and thrown a banquet in his name. It's all society and what is accepted.

Personally, I say if you're fast enough and strong enough to carry an extra person or 2, First one to the exit wins! <3

Why dawdle around and stand their idly by while a 90 y.o grandmother takes 5 minutes to move? :P

[XanBcoo]

women (judging from all the women who want to spend less time with their own children, Which is quite high), they obviously do not feel the need to want to jump in a fire to save their own flesh and blood, since well... they stand their crying for "Help." Who saves that child? A man, that's who.

Keep in mind, that only applies to women who don't spend any time with their children at all. Any woman who's even a slightly less negligible mother than, say, Brittany Spears, thinks of the safety of their children before anything at all. I'd go so far as to say they act completely irrationally for the sake of their child's safety. I've witnessed this in real life, as I'm sure a lot of you have.

Edit: But I guess you do have a point about women often being "worriers" rather than men, who are "actors". I won't deny that.

[Shadow Skill]

Ya, women nowadays do not act like our mothers did, 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

I agree that yes there are women out there who put the safety of children first. <3

[darkshadow]

no, you can't protect anyone if you are dead/injured.