Shouldn't the most important person in one's life be his/her own self? Who's the single person that you have to deal with 100% of the time from birth till death? None other than yourself. When you go your story is over. Reality ends.
We're all going to die eventually anyway. I don't see how "giving up your chance to live so others can" isn't noble and therefore admirable.
'women and children first' is not the same as giving up your life for others
chivalry at this time was part of a much larger overarching patriotic society that treated women extremely poorly. I don't understand why putting women on a boat makes up for treating them as intellectual and physical inferiors.
i think it safe to say that the way women were treated in the early 20th century was objectively bad. to view this 'chivalry' as an isolated event in gender relations is incorrect, just as it's wrong to view the 50's as a simpler, better time.
Well, to be fair, this is all pretty far removed from reality. I can't imagine being the person that says "sorry your daddy has to die kids, but I have a ton of shit on my TIVO and, frankly, that has to count for something too."
But sometimes it feels good to say "fuck societal convention" even if you could never bring yourself to do so.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
'women and children first' is not the same as giving up your life for others
chivalry at this time was part of a much larger overarching patriotic society that treated women extremely poorly. I don't understand why putting women on a boat makes up for treating them as intellectual and physical inferiors.
I wasn't saying the way women were treated in western society 100 years ago was acceptable by modern standards.
Just that these people did have the choice to let others die in their places (as the geniuses who decided they couldn't wait for a smoke until after they were done hiding in other people's flammable clothing proved) and I think it's admirable for the people who did make that choice and gave up their chance to live so others could.
But I've been reading too much Victor Hugo lately and it's probably rubbing off on me
EDIT: Or, rather, self-sacrificial (and therefore, in my mind, admirable) results can still come out of a flawed system.
Yeah I also think part of the thinking was, "Women and Children are physically weaker, where as Men are hardy and have a better chance of surviving a sinking ship. Let's put the women and children in the boats to even the playing field a bit".
Don't you think it's a bit foolish to expect people in a different society in the past to live the way we do in our society in the present?
Hello moral relativism.
Don't you think it’s a bit foolish to pretend that we can’t pass judgement on what people have done in the past? Especially given I was discussing the way we still apply these ideals to the way we see them and these situations now? And how that’s wrong.
Who's the single person that you have to deal with 100% of the time from birth till death?
Right, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life as an infanticidal monster.
Also, does the "FUck the babies, I'm looking out for number 1!" mantra apply if you're 75? 90?
Well, you see. I'm not condoning being self-centered in all aspects of life. And before making such a decision of course factors will come into play. If I were an 80 years old man, I probably would die for someone else, as I have already lived most of my expected lifespan anyways. But right now I'm 26 and in good health. I'm not even (potentially) halfway done. So yes, I would put my life before the life of ANY random person.
If close relatives enter the equation then of course this my also affect my perception.
I would lay down my life for a few of the people in my family, but no one else. I would do whatever possible to save others up to the point of sacrificing my own life.
So would I save myself over another man's child? Yes. Because if I die, then not only am I, you know, DEAD, my family has just lost their primary pillar of support. Not gonna let that happen.
Were I an old man, then sure, I would give up my life for someone else who hasn't yet lived.
Chivalry is an outmoded ideal when applied along gender lines. Can't have that and equality at the same time.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
So would I save myself over another man's child? Yes. Because if I die, then not only am I, you know, DEAD, my family has just lost their primary pillar of support. Not gonna let that happen.
I don't think anybody was saying we should go back to the chivalric model - just that that ideal did exist, pervasively, at this particular point in the past. That's why these people behaved the way they did and that's why they were lauded for doing so at the time. Upholding societal ideals, especially being martyred for them, is a good way to get respect in any society.
Duffel on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
So would I save myself over another man's child? Yes. Because if I die, then not only am I, you know, DEAD, my family has just lost their primary pillar of support. Not gonna let that happen.
That's what life insurance is for.
Also, don't marry lazy people. :P
I make about 3x as much as my fiance. And as the product of a broken single parent family, I would not inflict that on my children unless forced to do so.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
I don't think anybody was saying we should go back to the chivalric model - just that that ideal did exist, pervasively, at this particular point in the past. That's why these people behaved the way they did and that's why they were lauded for doing so at the time. Upholding societal ideals, especially being martyred for them, is a good way to get respect in any society.
Yeah I also think part of the thinking was, "Women and Children are physically weaker, where as Men are hardy and have a better chance of surviving a sinking ship. Let's put the women and children in the boats to even the playing field a bit".
Men also tend to be larger, so you can save fewer of them.
Yeah I also think part of the thinking was, "Women and Children are physically weaker, where as Men are hardy and have a better chance of surviving a sinking ship. Let's put the women and children in the boats to even the playing field a bit".
Men also tend to be larger, so you can save fewer of them.
True. Multiple children could occupy the space one full-grown man would normally occupy.
saint2e on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Yeah I also think part of the thinking was, "Women and Children are physically weaker, where as Men are hardy and have a better chance of surviving a sinking ship. Let's put the women and children in the boats to even the playing field a bit".
Men also tend to be larger, so you can save fewer of them.
True. Multiple children could occupy the space one full-grown man would normally occupy.
Better clear all the glasses and conch shells off the boat beforehand though.
In fairness to George, that kid up at the front was like a monkey humping a football with that door. George knocked him out of the way, got the door open, and probably saved lives in the process.
Honestly speaking id find any way off i can, i dont value my life as less than a woman or a child. The only caveat to this is that i would give my seat up for me ma, dad or brothers, though that opens up a whole can of worms as there would be arguments etc, but the principle stands.
I understand that biologically people feel a propensity to protect "other" children, but i seem to lack that capacity, i would have no issue in taking a childs place on a boat, or anyone else' for that matter.
Women and children first is most certainly not a product of the misognistic beliefs of the time, it is a remnant belief from all primitive tribes and hunter gatherers. In a crisis, decisions must be made quickly, and a communal understanding of who was most important was key. In a disaster in a primitive society you save people in this order.
Young women between 16 and 25
Girls between 10 and 16
Men/Boys between 10 and 18
Older women
Older men
Young children between 0 and 10
The elderly
Its quite simply based on utility and survival. Young women are the most useful, since they can breed a lot and gather food. Girls will soon be young women and so on.
Very young children are actually least important to save, since they don't do anything useful nor do they represent a significant loss of resources. The only reason its 'Women and Children' first is to make the most important people (young women) leave quickly with their children.
Nowadays the same expression would logically go "Educated and fertile married couples first!"
edit - I suppose they don't have to be married! Perhaps "Educated and fertile people who don't mind having sex with each other to produce children first!"
Women and children first is most certainly not a product of the misognistic beliefs of the time, it is a remnant belief from all primitive tribes and hunter gatherers. In a crisis, decisions must be made quickly, and a communal understanding of who was most important was key. In a disaster in a primitive society you save people in this order.
Young women between 16 and 25
Girls between 10 and 16
Men/Boys between 10 and 18
Older women
Older men
Young children between 0 and 10
The elderly
Its quite simply based on utility and survival. Young women are the most useful, since they can breed a lot and gather food. Girls will soon be young women and so on.
Very young children are actually least important to save, since they don't do anything useful nor do they represent a significant loss of resources. The only reason its 'Women and Children' first is to make the most important people (young women) leave quickly with their children.
Nowadays the same expression would logically go "Educated and fertile married couples first!"
I can pass for an 18yrd old boy i think, perhaps even a 14 year old girl if im canny
But regardless our society is overpopulated, i may have a chance if they say "educated first" but regardless if theres a way off, including and not limited to "murdering" im taking it
Women and children first is most certainly not a product of the misognistic beliefs of the time, it is a remnant belief from all primitive tribes and hunter gatherers. In a crisis, decisions must be made quickly, and a communal understanding of who was most important was key. In a disaster in a primitive society you save people in this order.
Young women between 16 and 25
Girls between 10 and 16
Men/Boys between 10 and 18
Older women
Older men
Young children between 0 and 10
The elderly
Its quite simply based on utility and survival. Young women are the most useful, since they can breed a lot and gather food. Girls will soon be young women and so on.
Very young children are actually least important to save, since they don't do anything useful nor do they represent a significant loss of resources. The only reason its 'Women and Children' first is to make the most important people (young women) leave quickly with their children.
Nowadays the same expression would logically go "Educated and fertile married couples first!"
edit - I suppose they don't have to be married! Perhaps "Educated and fertile people who don't mind having sex with each other to produce children first!"
Sweet I get to go first by your criteria!
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Women and children first is most certainly not a product of the misognistic beliefs of the time, it is a remnant belief from all primitive tribes and hunter gatherers. In a crisis, decisions must be made quickly, and a communal understanding of who was most important was key. In a disaster in a primitive society you save people in this order.
Young women between 16 and 25
Girls between 10 and 16
Men/Boys between 10 and 18
Older women
Older men
Young children between 0 and 10
The elderly
Its quite simply based on utility and survival. Young women are the most useful, since they can breed a lot and gather food. Girls will soon be young women and so on.
Very young children are actually least important to save, since they don't do anything useful nor do they represent a significant loss of resources. The only reason its 'Women and Children' first is to make the most important people (young women) leave quickly with their children.
Nowadays the same expression would logically go "Educated and fertile married couples first!"
edit - I suppose they don't have to be married! Perhaps "Educated and fertile people who don't mind having sex with each other to produce children first!"
Societies which have to care about this don't have large ships, or anything similar. It's quite simply a issue which won't come up for them.
In Religious Education class in school i was given a moral conundrum similar, pregnant woman, ill man, priest, little girl, baby boy, single mother with child at home and me on an island, helicopter comes, island tide is coming in too quick, only enough room to take 1, who goes. I know it sounds spurious but you could apply this to any scenario, house on fire, roof, only enough time to get one etc.
Anyway the answer is still me
Im not sure why anyone else would feel bad about preserving their own life, unless they believe they will be so euphoric for those brief seconds after you sacrifice yourself that it will justify it. Death is death....is death, theres no right thing theres death, and why would anyone want to die?
Kind of a weird paradox there. If you're the only one that's willing to sacrifice yourself to save someone else while the other people all try to save themselves, and you know nothing else about what kind of difference the other people will make in the world if they survive, aren't you therefore the most worthy person for yourself to save as far as you can tell?
Posts
Shhhh...get out, get out while you still can.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
'women and children first' is not the same as giving up your life for others
chivalry at this time was part of a much larger overarching patriotic society that treated women extremely poorly. I don't understand why putting women on a boat makes up for treating them as intellectual and physical inferiors.
i think it safe to say that the way women were treated in the early 20th century was objectively bad. to view this 'chivalry' as an isolated event in gender relations is incorrect, just as it's wrong to view the 50's as a simpler, better time.
But sometimes it feels good to say "fuck societal convention" even if you could never bring yourself to do so.
Also, does the "FUck the babies, I'm looking out for number 1!" mantra apply if you're 75? 90?
I wasn't saying the way women were treated in western society 100 years ago was acceptable by modern standards.
Just that these people did have the choice to let others die in their places (as the geniuses who decided they couldn't wait for a smoke until after they were done hiding in other people's flammable clothing proved) and I think it's admirable for the people who did make that choice and gave up their chance to live so others could.
But I've been reading too much Victor Hugo lately and it's probably rubbing off on me
EDIT: Or, rather, self-sacrificial (and therefore, in my mind, admirable) results can still come out of a flawed system.
Hello moral relativism.
Don't you think it’s a bit foolish to pretend that we can’t pass judgement on what people have done in the past? Especially given I was discussing the way we still apply these ideals to the way we see them and these situations now? And how that’s wrong.
Well, you see. I'm not condoning being self-centered in all aspects of life. And before making such a decision of course factors will come into play. If I were an 80 years old man, I probably would die for someone else, as I have already lived most of my expected lifespan anyways. But right now I'm 26 and in good health. I'm not even (potentially) halfway done. So yes, I would put my life before the life of ANY random person.
If close relatives enter the equation then of course this my also affect my perception.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
I just feel like whenever people lament the death of chivalry they are actively ignoring that it came from a horrible social system
i mean yeah something good came of it but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of misery that mistreating women brought.
So would I save myself over another man's child? Yes. Because if I die, then not only am I, you know, DEAD, my family has just lost their primary pillar of support. Not gonna let that happen.
Were I an old man, then sure, I would give up my life for someone else who hasn't yet lived.
Chivalry is an outmoded ideal when applied along gender lines. Can't have that and equality at the same time.
Also, don't marry lazy people. :P
*sigh* Those were the good ol' days.
I make about 3x as much as my fiance. And as the product of a broken single parent family, I would not inflict that on my children unless forced to do so.
Obviously.
This.
Men also tend to be larger, so you can save fewer of them.
True. Multiple children could occupy the space one full-grown man would normally occupy.
Better clear all the glasses and conch shells off the boat beforehand though.
In fairness to George, that kid up at the front was like a monkey humping a football with that door. George knocked him out of the way, got the door open, and probably saved lives in the process.
I understand that biologically people feel a propensity to protect "other" children, but i seem to lack that capacity, i would have no issue in taking a childs place on a boat, or anyone else' for that matter.
Young women between 16 and 25
Girls between 10 and 16
Men/Boys between 10 and 18
Older women
Older men
Young children between 0 and 10
The elderly
Its quite simply based on utility and survival. Young women are the most useful, since they can breed a lot and gather food. Girls will soon be young women and so on.
Very young children are actually least important to save, since they don't do anything useful nor do they represent a significant loss of resources. The only reason its 'Women and Children' first is to make the most important people (young women) leave quickly with their children.
Nowadays the same expression would logically go "Educated and fertile married couples first!"
edit - I suppose they don't have to be married! Perhaps "Educated and fertile people who don't mind having sex with each other to produce children first!"
You wouldn't feel like a nice guy if you died in the child's place.
I can pass for an 18yrd old boy i think, perhaps even a 14 year old girl if im canny
But regardless our society is overpopulated, i may have a chance if they say "educated first" but regardless if theres a way off, including and not limited to "murdering" im taking it
Sweet I get to go first by your criteria!
Societies which have to care about this don't have large ships, or anything similar. It's quite simply a issue which won't come up for them.
Anyway the answer is still me
Im not sure why anyone else would feel bad about preserving their own life, unless they believe they will be so euphoric for those brief seconds after you sacrifice yourself that it will justify it. Death is death....is death, theres no right thing theres death, and why would anyone want to die?