It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


What on earth has the biological fact that women bear children got to do with them being let off a sinking ship first ?

There are some crazy posts on this thread that aren't making much logical sense.

The human breeding population is in its billions.


edit on 1-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Really...

Woman give birth to our future and take care of them

without children the human race would have no future

Men are nature wise only needed for the reproductive cycle, after that we've serverd our purpose



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord

Originally posted by inanna1234
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Great to know you would push four year old children out of the way so you could give your daughter water 30 minutes earlier then everyone else... Your an amazing man... Your mother would be proud


Putting your own children before everyone else's is kinda the way it works. I called my mother she agrees. Sorry I must come from a long line of degenerates who actually value our children.

If its a matter of impatience I would of course wait 30 minutes, if supplies are dwindling i will get what I need for my family.



I have read every page so far. I have to say that I agree with you on this one. I agree with almost all of your comments and gave you a star. My family comes before anyone else, feelings for people are thrown out the window in the time of serious survival situations.

(Except for children..in some bizare circumstance that a lonely child needed assistance, I would help.)

Family first then help everyone else. The world is lacking serious morals for the most part. I would not risk it for some moron that does not appreciate life and takes everything for granted. It is rampant here in the US, everone thinks that they are entitled to certain things now. I will help the neighbors if I can, but my family comes first to me....Then we (I) take care of business.

Selfish...no way,....

Smart...
edit on 1-5-2011 by liejunkie01 because: Except sentence



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


It's lovely to think that you'd all let women and children go first. I do however, doubt that this would actually happen in a true emergency. For example, if a plane crashed, it's better for everyone to get off speedily and efficiently, rather than spending time figuring out which sex people are and whether they children or just small young looking adults. I'm afraid that when it comes to it, it's every (wo)man for themselves.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
me personally, i'm not gonna let someone with a wife and 7 kids keep his DNA alive while i drown on the boat. one of those kids is gonna get thrown over board and i'm gonna float to a longer life. this is of course, under the titanic mindset.

i myse;f don't have a wife and kids, specifically because i don't want that responsibility. putting women and kids first isn't the MANLY thing to do...it's the FATHERLY thing to do. there's nothing wrong with being selfish as long as you only have yourself to worry about. so no one's life (be it women or child) is worth more than mine, in my eyes. i think that's the guilt thrown upon us by some long standing tradition of ages ago. do you know how many effing kids there are now? too many. everyone i see at walmart has more kids in their carts than groceries. so yeah...let a few drowned. maybe then my kids will have better schools. again in the titanic mindset.



Agreed.
This site is full of sensitive people.

Only people lives i'd put before mine is my mothers.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


They do say a man who mends his neighbors roof while his is leaking is a fool.

In my world view you take care of you and yours first. Once this is done you can focus on helping others.

Being totally selfless is a luxury of those who don't have lives depending on them.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I'm not expendable.

IDK.
In a time of crisis, and a woman has kids and a husband.

My question is...
Where the HELL is the husband to give his life, why should I have to give my life for a person when the husband is obviously too irresponsible to be there.


I'm saving my self first, no matter what.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I just can't.
Unless I knew them personally, I just couldn't do it.

What if the persons a racist?
What if the woman beats her kids?


Anybody who calls me a coward for looking out for my own interest[which every human should do]
is a weirdo.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
As a single man, I'd say every person for himself or herself. In the event were to be so dire, I'd perhaps take on what ever my rations supply would hold for. In my bug-out bag, I have enough for two people for at least a week and would not mind someone else to ride the B/S out with. I'd just hope that she is cute.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


Coward.

I am a weirdo, it is widely accepted by those who know me.

A person who looks to his own interests first isn't necessarily bad assuming they are doing for for to further society.

A person who isn't furthering humanity is essentially dead weight among a species that IS a social creature.

Now maybe your best interest is the best interest of humanity. I don't really know. And maybe it takes more courage to watch some children die because you had a greater purpose you need to fulfill... I doubt that though.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond
Hello ATS,

As you probably know, there are some controversial rules around. One of the most controversial ones, and probably one of the most pervasive, is definitely the ''women and children first'' rule. What do you think about it? Do you think this rule is sensible or has become a nuisance, something no longer viable in modern society?

Cheers


I think it holds up still! BUT....I can see if this was the scenario playing out with myself....i would push my man forward and be argueing with him about it if i had too...knock him out and throw him with the kids...lol.

I feel like he could protect them more the way that they need to be, and would do ANYTHING to do so with out a hesitation( i mean i would too, but he'd be quicker)....8 months ago after i had my daughter, i knew three children were plenty, and got my tubal done...so i am of no use anyway



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond
Hello ATS,

As you probably know, there are some controversial rules around. One of the most controversial ones, and probably one of the most pervasive, is definitely the ''women and children first'' rule. What do you think about it? Do you think this rule is sensible or has become a nuisance, something no longer viable in modern society?

Cheers


I think it holds up still! BUT....I can see if this was the scenario playing out with myself....i would push my man forward and be argueing with him about it if i had too...knock him out and throw him with the kids...lol.

I feel like he could protect them more the way that they need to be, and would do ANYTHING to do so with out a hesitation( i mean i would too, but he'd be quicker)....8 months ago after i had my daughter, i knew three children were plenty, and got my tubal done...so i am of no use anyway



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


Coward.

I am a weirdo, it is widely accepted by those who know me.

A person who looks to his own interests first isn't necessarily bad assuming they are doing for for to further society.

A person who isn't furthering humanity is essentially dead weight among a species that IS a social creature.

Now maybe your best interest is the best interest of humanity. I don't really know. And maybe it takes more courage to watch some children die because you had a greater purpose you need to fulfill... I doubt that though.



Yeah, because calling someone a coward over the internet makes it set in stone.
I look at things, and break them down.

How do I know the little kid i'm possibly dying for isn't a little racist asshole?[Same goes with the family]

I don't really care what you think though. So it doesn't bother me that much.
I could understand If I caused the accident in which would put them into that position.

but I didn't, so it isn't my fault.

I would even save my mom[whose over fifty]
Over a group of children.

That's a no brainer for me.

If the event wasn't life threatening, I'll definitely help.
If it's life threatening, and I could die if I don't save my self first.

HELL NO
edit on 1-5-2011 by DuceizBack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RunLikeTheWind2011
Really...

Woman give birth to our future and take care of them

without children the human race would have no future

Men are nature wise only needed for the reproductive cycle, after that we've serverd our purpose




isn't it amazing how many people could look in a childs eyes and just let them die, no matter who's they are! because they are selfish! I would give MY LIFE to save someone elses child as long as mine were saved too!!!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Which group of idiots in here would risk there life for a retarded child?
Since a great deal of them are also helpless, would you risk your life for them?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
This ones a nobrainer however have to say it is natures call, and that will always be women and children first as well as handicapped and elderly. We have to take care of our own, it is only natural.

Edit to say I am one of the idiots who would...
edit on 1-5-2011 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


If it makes any difference I'd call you a coward to your face too...

I'm not one of those people who says different things on the internet than I say in person.

And yes I've been chased out of bars by large scary men because of this.

You id ask for it though, if you re-read your post you were begging for someone to call you a coward! I couldn't resist.

I don't think it is completely wrong to have an interest in saving your own skin, and in fact would even expect it of most people. It is human nature and a our basic survival instinct! It is completely normal and I wouldn't not be friends with someone for having that trait.

But it is cowardly.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


If it makes any difference I'd call you a coward to your face too...

I'm not one of those people who says different things on the internet than I say in person.

And yes I've been chased out of bars by large scary men because of this.

You id ask for it though, if you re-read your post you were begging for someone to call you a coward! I couldn't resist.

I don't think it is completely wrong to have an interest in saving your own skin, and in fact would even expect it of most people. It is human nature and a our basic survival instinct! It is completely normal and I wouldn't not be friends with someone for having that trait.

But it is cowardly.


You calling me a coward, yet you run from conflict that you start.

And i'm the coward?

What do you mean by 'saving my own skin"
Lol I'd save a white family or kid [that's a no brainer]
As long as it wouldn't get in the way of my self interest.

Lol I'd watch a white family,black family, or chinese family die if it mean I could save my own interest.

A coward is a person who runs from trouble when they start it.

edit on 1-5-2011 by DuceizBack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The practice arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of HMS Birkenhead in 1852, though the phrase was not coined until 1860.[1] Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic,[2] where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.[3]

WIKI


Now,that being said,how many of these women and children,not having fathers,were raised in poverty,because they had no man to take care of them? I for one would do it,just because I have kids.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Children and pets first. The rest of you political terrorists can bugger off.


edit on 1-5-2011 by hederahelix because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join