Could you Leave Your Child behind to Save the Other 2?

a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't seem well thought out.
You haven't given any reasoning as to why the 3rd child can't be saved in your OP,you are just saying that he/she can't be saved. Well with that reasoning I can say , yes, the third child can be saved, and not give you any reasoning.
Do you see what I did there?

If this is a problem solving activity, I'd say carry 2 kids,have 3rd on my back, like a spider monkey. There I solved it.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What your saying affects more people than what I'm saying. My option is the one with less repercussions. I somewhat understand where you're coming from but in reality, saving two and leaving one behind is the logical option. That way they have the chance to live. You grab who you can and get out, you shouldn't have to think of "which one do I like more".

My sister died in a car accident with my parents and me when we were children. Should my mother have just killed my father, me, then herself, because it would be unfair to continue living afterwards?

And regardless of why kind of sick and depraved bottle-neck Artemise wants to squeeze us into, I would gladly strip off my pants and carry those kids like so much laundry in a duffle bag. Because I don't give up on family.

Funny cause I bet a similar "depraved bottle kneck" happens to some poor family somewhere nearly daily.

a reply to: Rainbowresidue

That was my solution, too!
Star!!

Obviously the OP is not a mother.

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't seem well thought out.
You haven't given any reasoning as to why the 3rd child can't be saved in your OP,you are just saying that he/she can't be saved. Well with that reasoning I can say , yes, the third child can be saved, and not give you any reasoning.
Do you see what I did there?

If this is a problem solving activity, I'd say carry 2 kids,have 3rd on my back, like a spider monkey. There I solved it.

THANK YOU!!!

I suspect OP just wants to know how we would cope with making such an impossible choice. In which case, stop asking us what we would do beforehand and ask what we would do after already having done it.

Me, I would stay away from goddamn volcanoes. And love my children all the more. And maybe give motivational speeches on dragging helpless children to hazardous geographical regions without some means of guaranteeing safe escape in the event of contingencies. Because honestly, what idiot brings three children who are unable to use their legs to the lip of an active volcano? smh

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What your saying affects more people than what I'm saying. My option is the one with less repercussions. I somewhat understand where you're coming from but in reality, saving two and leaving one behind is the logical option. That way they have the chance to live. You grab who you can and get out, you shouldn't have to think of "which one do I like more".

My sister died in a car accident with my parents and me when we were children. Should my mother have just killed my father, me, then herself, because it would be unfair to continue living afterwards?

And regardless of why kind of sick and depraved bottle-neck Artemise wants to squeeze us into, I would gladly strip off my pants and carry those kids like so much laundry in a duffle bag. Because I don't give up on family.

Funny cause I bet a similar "depraved bottle kneck" happens to some poor family somewhere nearly daily.

Your point?

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't seem well thought out.
You haven't given any reasoning as to why the 3rd child can't be saved in your OP,you are just saying that he/she can't be saved. Well with that reasoning I can say , yes, the third child can be saved, and not give you any reasoning.
Do you see what I did there?

If this is a problem solving activity, I'd say carry 2 kids,have 3rd on my back, like a spider monkey. There I solved it.

Yes I did. I specifically said it's a hypothetical that you can't beat. I could have spent a week trying to come up with a rock solid premiss, but that's not the point is it? The point isn't the scenario. The point is could you make the ultimate choice with the maximum on the line.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

LOL!!! Exactly!! What the hell are we doing there in the first place?

Awesome answer.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't seem well thought out.
You haven't given any reasoning as to why the 3rd child can't be saved in your OP,you are just saying that he/she can't be saved. Well with that reasoning I can say , yes, the third child can be saved, and not give you any reasoning.
Do you see what I did there?

If this is a problem solving activity, I'd say carry 2 kids,have 3rd on my back, like a spider monkey. There I solved it.

Yes I did. I specifically said it's a hypothetical that you can't beat. I could have spent a week trying to come up with a rock so mid premiss, but that's not the point is it. The point isn't the scenario. The point is could you make the ultimate choice with the maximum on the line.

Die with all three of my children in my arms. What better way to go? It certainly beats spending the rest of my life drinking and wondering what would have happened if I had tried, like you keep telling us NOT to. And I keep ignoring. Because if I leave any of those kids behind, I never deserved to be a father in the first place.

It's the Sophie's Choice dilemma. There is no right or feel good answer.

This is tediously depressing. Can't we talk about unicorns instead?

I would somehow try to save all three, even if I died in the process. Nothing is impossible.

a reply to: maria_stardust

Yes, it is. One of my favorite movies. I even mentioned it in my original response, but took it out for whatever reason.

No - I could not leave ANY of my kids to die...but then, I only had two. Two is plenty.

I wouldn't be taking my kids up to the edge of a volcano in the first place. Especially if it was acting up.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm just curious as to what point the OP is trying to make. No parent in their right mind would ever want to consider abandoning a child in such a way. This topic is too morbid and depressing. Now I need some chocolate.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't be taking my kids up to the edge of a volcano in the first place. Especially if it was acting up.

Yes, but apparently you're not allowed to exercise common sense here.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Rainbowresidue

That was my solution, too!
Star!!

Obviously the OP is not a mother.

Actually it's because I'm a father of an amazing 11 year old girl that I came up with this. I can imagine how insanely hard the decision would be. The question is, could you make that decision. You can't forget the other 2 die if you can't. So it's not an issue of self sacrifice...... All of us would give our life for our child's. It's if you would be strong enough to save 2 at the cost of one.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't seem well thought out.
You haven't given any reasoning as to why the 3rd child can't be saved in your OP,you are just saying that he/she can't be saved. Well with that reasoning I can say , yes, the third child can be saved, and not give you any reasoning.
Do you see what I did there?

If this is a problem solving activity, I'd say carry 2 kids,have 3rd on my back, like a spider monkey. There I solved it.

Yes I did. I specifically said it's a hypothetical that you can't beat. I could have spent a week trying to come up with a rock so mid premiss, but that's not the point is it. The point isn't the scenario. The point is could you make the ultimate choice with the maximum on the line.

Die with all three of my children in my arms. What better way to go? It certainly beats spending the rest of my life drinking and wondering what would have happened if I had tried, like you keep telling us NOT to. And I keep ignoring. Because if I leave any of those kids behind, I never deserved to be a father in the first place.

It's an impossible situation. Neither choice would make you a monster. I personally think you would be leaving all 3 if you stayed. Where you could only leave one. So I hope I could make myself take the other 2 and run.

originally posted by: maria_stardust

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't be taking my kids up to the edge of a volcano in the first place. Especially if it was acting up.

Yes, but apparently you're not allowed to exercise common sense here.

You absolutely are not allowed to use common sense here! :p

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: maria_stardust

Yes, it is. One of my favorite movies. I even mentioned it in my original response, but took it out for whatever reason.

No - I could not leave ANY of my kids to die...but then, I only had two. Two is plenty.

Really it's "I would kill the other 2 to stay with the one"...... Or rather then leave the one.

originally posted by: maria_stardust
It's the Sophie's Choice dilemma. There is no right or feel good answer.

This is tediously depressing. Can't we talk about unicorns instead?

Ok, you and 3 unicorns are on the edge of a volcano about to erupt.....hehe

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What your saying affects more people than what I'm saying. My option is the one with less repercussions. I somewhat understand where you're coming from but in reality, saving two and leaving one behind is the logical option. That way they have the chance to live. You grab who you can and get out, you shouldn't have to think of "which one do I like more".

My sister died in a car accident with my parents and me when we were children. Should my mother have just killed my father, me, then herself, because it would be unfair to continue living afterwards?

And regardless of why kind of sick and depraved bottle-neck Artemise wants to squeeze us into, I would gladly strip off my pants and carry those kids like so much laundry in a duffle bag. Because I don't give up on family.

Funny cause I bet a similar "depraved bottle kneck" happens to some poor family somewhere nearly daily.

Your point?

That it's not that far fetched..... Well, the volcano part is far fetched, but the choice is something I bet countless parents have been forced to make. So the question is, how would you react?