Women and children first - Page 4

Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by .Doe.



With regards to only this, I have to say: What if those people who are ill, weak, etc don't have enough money to travel in a taxi or an auto? That's a possibility. Btw, when it comes to ill, handicapped, pregnant ladies, ladies with toddlers, senior citizens, it's not only the men who are expected to give up their seat but women as well. Infact, most pregnant ladies or ladies with toddlers expect women to give up their seat instead of asking the men to give up. I have seen it, it happens in the place where I stay...
 
Good observation !
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by souro


 To you young males ought to give up their seats to women who've babies with them, to elders and to those who are ill. Most people in the society will agree as it's accepted as common courtesy. All I'm asking is why this order? Why can't those who are not fit enough to travel in a crowded train or bus, take some other means of transport? Why should a young man have to sacrifice just because he is physically more fit? Essentially we're penalising someone for being better.
 
Of what use is a person's  physical fitness when that person considers giving up seats in crowded buses to women with babies, elderly and the ill as penalizing and sacrificing? There should be serious doubts about the "fitness" of this person!

This may not make much sense in this scenario since it's only a matter of giving up of a seat and we're talking about local travel where a person will have to stand and travel for an hour at the most. But it becomes more serious when the same attitude is carried forward even when it comes to saving people's lives. It means we're assigning values to life of individuals. And by placing young men at the bottom of the list we're saying, 'You're the least deserving of all to live'.

 A person who grudges giving up one's seat for  women with babies, an elderly person and the ill, if forced to be in a position to place others lives above his own can only be expected to view it as "being considered the least deserving of all to live". But guess what ! Sometimes even they can get eureka moments!!! Sometimes Truth dawns while life seems to ebb away.😆
 
I've already said that according to me, first come first serve ought to work fine in most scenarios except for one, when the very existence of human race is under threat.

 
Let us examine the Titanic scenario-  wrt knowledge and first come first basis vis a vis accessibility is concerned ----- The elderly captain and chief engineer and his crew members (all presumably less affluent than the wealthy passengers aboard the Titanic) were the best positioned to grab the boats and escape the ship which was to sink in about an hour's time. They did not appear to think giving up that opportunity-  as being penalized for their position or responsibility. Going by the policy of first come first serve they should have escaped with the boats long before any of the able bodied young man on the ship could even  get a whiff of the approaching danger.

Eg. 2-    wrt to physical strength, information, skill----- the armed force is much better equipped to save themselves should some invader attack us . They would be one of the first select groups to know exact situation in case of an invasion. Cant they simply escape to safer places? Why should they sacrifice their lives for the weaker civilians! Here you would say that they are paid to do so. But is money more valuable than their own lives? Is it only for money that they sacrifice their lives.!

Still want to advocate first come first ?

 

Eg 3- An aeroplane develops a technical snag. Should the pilot having access to a parachute, by virtue of being the first person to have access/training  to it jump out to save his life leaving all the rest in the lurch!

 

As for the  situation of "the very existence of human race coming under threat"- why would a person who grudges giving up personal comforts for someone else during normal time , be willing to give up ones life for humanity? What significance would  humanity have for  him/her? In a society that would encourage keeping ones own personal interest always uppermost would a thought be likely to be spared for humanity when individual human beings don't mean much? 😕

 

You're only taking one extremely specific situation into consideration, that of being:

1) Abducted

2) Made to walk for long distance

3) Travelling over rough terrain

4) And hostage is kept tied and blindfolded all the time, even while moving around

However, most hostage situations don't match the above description. If a plane/ bus is hijacked, the hostages won't have to even walk, most of them are not even tied up or blindfolded. In any kind of hold up, the hostages will live inside the building. If someone is kidnapped, they are moved around in a car. But irrespective of the situation, the order of priority remains the same for the negotiators and young men come last in that list.

 
I can only assume that most negotiators have their own families consisting of women, children and the old and are well aware of the problems that can arise .They may be of the opinion as you yourself have expressed earlier that a young man is better equipped  to deal with his captors and  not because they feel that a young man deserves to be the last to live.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by .Doe.



With regards to only this, I have to say: What if those people who are ill, weak, etc don't have enough money to travel in a taxi or an auto? That's a possibility. Btw, when it comes to ill, handicapped, pregnant ladies, ladies with toddlers, senior citizens, it's not only the men who are expected to give up their seat but women as well. Infact, most pregnant ladies or ladies with toddlers expect women to give up their seat instead of asking the men to give up. I have seen it, it happens in the place where I stay...

I was asking a question, I'm not saying that they have to necessarily take an alternate means of transport. There can be several possibilities, one of them is alternate transport, albeit if they can afford it. If they can't afford it, there are other options, travel while standing in the crowded train or bus, change your travelling time to avoid rush hour, work somewhere near to your home, etc.

And what you said is equally true for the other side as well. All young men may not have the means to travel by an alternate transport system.

Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by souro



I was asking a question, I'm not saying that they have to necessarily take an alternate means of transport. There can be several possibilities, one of them is alternate transport, albeit if they can afford it. If they can't afford it, there are other options, travel while standing in the crowded train or bus, change your travelling time to avoid rush hour, work somewhere near to your home, etc.

And what you said is equally true for the other side as well. All young men may not have the means to travel by an alternate transport system.


@Bold: What if that is not possible as well?

What I said about ill, weak, etc stands true for young men as well. But I don't think I mentioned that they need to take alternate means of transport just because they are physically well equipped, did I? It's just the question of courtesy in this case, which is not expected only from men but from women as well :)
Edited by .Doe. - 12 years ago
Posted: 12 years ago
Let us examine the Titanic scenario-  wrt knowledge and first come first basis vis a vis accessibility is concerned ----- The elderly captain and chief engineer and his crew members (all presumably less affluent than the wealthy passengers aboard the Titanic) were the best positioned to grab the boats and escape the ship which was to sink in about an hour's time. They did not appear to think giving up that opportunity-  as being penalized for their position or responsibility. Going by the policy of first come first serve they should have escaped with the boats long before any of the able bodied young man on the ship could even  get a whiff of the approaching danger.

As far as I know, it is the duty of the Captain and his crew to make sure that all the passengers are safe. Their turn comes last in this matter. 
Edited by .Doe. - 12 years ago
Posted: 12 years ago
souro => angie => souro
Originally posted by angie.4u


 
Of what use is a person's  physical fitness when that person considers giving up seats in crowded buses to women with babies, elderly and the ill as penalizing and sacrificing? There should be serious doubts about the "fitness" of this person!

 A person who grudges giving up one's seat for women with babies, an elderly person and the ill, if forced to be in a position to place others lives above his own can only be expected to view it as "being considered the least deserving of all to live". But guess what ! Sometimes even they can get eureka moments!!! Sometimes Truth dawns while life seems to ebb away.😆

The above two paragraphs are examples of appeal to ridicule fallacy. If you throw that out, you'll see that the person is indeed sacrificing. If someone is doing it willingly, it's his prerogative but if someone is being forced to suffer then it's called penalising. And if someone is determining who should live and who shouldn't then yes they are assigning values to others lives.
 
Originally posted by angie.4u


 
Let us examine the Titanic scenario-  wrt knowledge and first come first basis vis a vis accessibility is concerned ----- The elderly captain and chief engineer and his crew members (all presumably less affluent than the wealthy passengers aboard the Titanic) were the best positioned to grab the boats and escape the ship which was to sink in about an hour's time. They did not appear to think giving up that opportunity-  as being penalized for their position or responsibility. Going by the policy of first come first serve they should have escaped with the boats long before any of the able bodied young man on the ship could even  get a whiff of the approaching danger.

Eg. 2-    wrt to physical strength, information, skill----- the armed force is much better equipped to save themselves should some invader attack us . They would be one of the first select groups to know exact situation in case of an invasion. Cant they simply escape to safer places? Why should they sacrifice their lives for the weaker civilians! Here you would say that they are paid to do so. But is money more valuable than their own lives? Is it only for money that they sacrifice their lives.!

Still want to advocate first come first ?

 

Eg 3- An aeroplane develops a technical snag. Should the pilot having access to a parachute, by virtue of being the first person to have access/training  to it jump out to save his life leaving all the rest in the lurch!

 

As for the  situation of "the very existence of human race coming under threat"- why would a person who grudges giving up personal comforts for someone else during normal time , be willing to give up ones life for humanity? What significance would  humanity have for  him/her? In a society that would encourage keeping ones own personal interest always uppermost would a thought be likely to be spared for humanity when individual human beings don't mean much? 😕

One basic difference. The captain, the pilot and the soldier willingly took the responsibility of the safe keeping of others and are being paid for that. But the passengers on Titanic didn't willingly take the responsibility of sending the other passengers home and dry while they themselves will drown. Whether they wanted it or not, that decision was dumped on them.

As for the question that you have for the scenario when the very existence of human race is under threat, I never said that people would necessarily feel that they should place the interest of human race before themselves. Infact, I said that chances are they won't give up their chance to survive. What I wrote was that if such a crisis arises then skewed gender ratio with very few females, will not be helpful in continuing the human race. And I felt that such a skew in the gender ratio is more likely to happen if we follow first come first serve order. Since, I felt that first come first serve won't give us the ideal result in the particular scenario where human race's existence is under threat, I said that for such a crisis first come first serve may not be the best possible solution.

Originally posted by angie.4u


 
I can only assume that most negotiators have their own families consisting of women, children and the old and are well aware of the problems that can arise .They may be of the opinion as you yourself have expressed earlier that a young man is better equipped  to deal with his captors and  not because they feel that a young man deserves to be the last to live.

Their having women, children and elders in their family doesn't give them the right to formulate an order according to what they feel is right.

For the second part, let me ask you something. Do you believe every human life is equally valuable (atleast excluding extremes)? Irrespective of class, creed, colour, gender, age, etc.?
If you answered 'No' then no further argument is possible on this matter.
If you answered 'Yes' then my next question is, out of the following two orders, which one sounds more reasonable to you?
1. I will try to negotiate and make the captor let go of as many hostages as possible irrespective of who the hostage is
2. I will try to negotiate for the release of women, children, sick and elderly and if possible after that, I'll see what I can do about young men


P.S - Facing issues regarding quoting and formatting on IF, so the arrangement of the above post might look a bit wonky.
Edited by souro - 12 years ago
Posted: 12 years ago
If the woman is anything like Rose, leave her on the Titanic. If there is a Jack Dawson on board, save him before anyone else!

I don't know about anyone else, but I have my priorities straight.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by souro


For the second part, let me ask you something. Do you believe every human life is equally valuable (atleast excluding extremes)? Irrespective of class, creed, colour, gender, age, etc.?
Depends on what you mean by equally valuable.
 

-       As  contribution to statistics- yes.

-       If its impact that one life has on other lives - NO.

If you answered 'No' then no further argument is possible on this matter.
If you answered 'Yes' then my next question is, out of the following two orders, which one sounds more reasonable to you?
1. I will try to negotiate and make the captor let go of as many hostages as possible irrespective of who the hostage is
2. I will try to negotiate for the release of women, children, sick and elderly and if possible after that, I'll see what I can do about young men
 

The idea of every negotiator at least in our country appears to be to get the maximum hostages released, even if it happens to be in exchange for the release of some hardened criminals or terrorists! Its just that some may have to wait a bit longer. As far as I know they get released in batches and not at one go.. A few at a time, followed by  some more bargaining/appealing and the next batch freed and so on.

Whatever be the order, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, sooner or later – death is certain.

I rest my case with the following lines by Rumi-

"Pain only exists in resistance.
Joy exists only in acceptance.
Painful situations which you heartily accept become joyful.
Joyful situations which you do not accept become painful.
There is no such thing as a bad experience.
...Bad experiences are simply the creations of your resistance to what is."



Related Topics

doc-text Topics pencil Author stackexchange Replies eye Views clock Last Post Reply
Why Men are better than Women

pencil PardesiBabu   stackexchange 88   eye 8038

PardesiBabu 88 8038 4 months ago firewings_diya

Topic Info

15 Participants 37 Replies 3873Views

Topic started by souro

Last replied by _Angie_

loader
loader
up-open TOP