"Titanic principle"

[Raven22]

Drama? What drama? On good advice from a very trustworthy,and reliable friend,who has impeccable manners, and gives honest and truthful,sound advice to myself,and everyone i have been in contact with since joining the site,agree. On the advice, it would be best to let sleeping dog's lie, i intend to do just that.

It is impossible to win an argument on here when certain people enjoy protected status.
Nice people on here are tolerated but nice people who argue get attacked.
The expression given to me about any insults,slurs or mud slinging should be ignored and put under the heading of "water off a duck's back". And to hold my head up high and smile nicely.

 

[TheRealCallie]

^^ lol, no, no drama at all

 

[Raven22]

 

[Sci-Fi]

NO ONE has protected status on here, NO ONE.

Also, one of your comments were brought to our attention but we just let it slide. So you can sit there and make all the claims you want because you are, wait for it, you are going to love this, wrong.

 

[kamya]

What is all the "sweetie" honeysuckle about? And no, they can get their own **** boat.

And about that article. I have someone like that calling me right now. I haven't answered his last 18 calls. Those people do nothing but take advantage and bring you down with them. They can get their own **** boat.

 

[Raven22]

 

[blackdot]

My life went down with the sinking ship many years ago.

 

[VanillaCreme]

Demand? I didn't use the word demand? You used that word not me. I "asked" if he would like to apologise and i would do likewise. It does seem as though you have decided i am in the wrong and Rodent is in the right. I didn't misquote anyone. He attacked me and you are backing him. That is preferential treatment.

Okay, when you "ask" that's essentially a demand. Just because you put a nicer word in quotes doesn't make the underlying meaning of it any less. You didn't quote him correctly so where it was read as though he was saying it. So when I read it, I thought you said it. There's a way to quote on most forums so where people understand that you are quoting someone. He didn't attack you, and I'm not backing him. Playing the victim where there was no crime doesn't work out well.

 

[lonelydoc]

Well we all subconsciously know this ship is going down, so it's everybody out for themselves out there.

I know for a fact that the elderly are trying to live forever. And if we cared about the young, why do we load them up with unpayable debts?

Answer that.

 

[Raven22]

 

[vixie]

I don't see why a woman's or a child's life should be seen as inherently more valuable than a man's... or why it should even be seen as relevant on the subject of manners.

Being a kind, good, empathetic person isn't gendered. There's no rational reason that it should be expected to be only given by members of one gender and received by another.

The concept of chivalry is archaic now because, for the most part, we as a society have matured beyond that kind of sexism. This is sexism that goes toward women and men, bear in mind. 'Chivalry' in the context of how men are supposed to treat women comes from the general concept of chivalry in the middle ages... what was seen as a knight's code of conduct. It sounds benign on the surface, but we need to look at in the context of women for all practical purposes being property in those times, and a knight's duties being the dangerous, bloody, and irrational devotion to their country.

Today, men can be polite to women and women can be polite to men. No one is obligated to from an arbitrary code of conduct- when it's done it's done just for the purpose of being nice. Politeness from the chivalric code is artificial and deeply rooted in sexism. So, personally I'd say let's leave the middle ages in the middle ages. A society where we are kind and considerate to each other equally, genuinely, and regardless of gender, social position, etc seems like a far nicer society to live in to me.

 

[Raven22]

If someone is not prepared to,or can not understand,or be willing to sacrifice themselves to save even a child's life,then we really do live in a very sick society.
That is a "Look out for number one"attitude,and b***s to everybody else!

 

[vixie]

Would you sacrifice yourself for another no matter what? What if you had a child of your own that you'd be leaving behind? If you had someone else that loved or depended on you that would have their world torn apart? What if you simply value your own life and wouldn't want to cut short what little time on earth you have to start with? What if you had to choose between saving someone you know well and love dearly or a saving a stranger?

There are a lot of what-ifs here, questions that none of us can truly presume to know the right answer to until we're really faced with this (improbable) hypothetical situation.

Who is really in a position to tell someone whether their life is more or less worth protecting than another's? I surely wouldn't appoint myself to that role. I wouldn't-- couldn't assign value (or lack of it) to the lives of strangers, especially on the basis of things like age or sex. Honestly I find it morally abhorrent to do so. You'll be inevitably telling one group that they're inherently valuable and another that they're disposable.. based on the amount of luck they've had in being born a certain sex or in a certain year or whatever other criteria that may be used here.

I mean, let's really examine the logic behind this. If children and then adult women are automatically going to be the most valued, who do we then value within those groups? What about male children? They'll grow up to be male adults, apparently less worthy than female adults. In a Titanic-esque situation with this mindset, should we then decide that little girls should be saved and little boys left to die? If not, why? What makes a male child's life worth saving but a male adult's not, and at what age does this change occur?

Hell, we can even look at the idea that not being eager to sacrifice your own life in the chance of another surviving in its stead makes for a sick and selfish society. By that logic, everyone healthy enough to do so should sacrifice their lives so that the organs can be used to possibly save another, lest we be sick and selfish for not doing so.

Of course it's admirable for someone to make every effort they can to help someone else, and by no means am I saying that it should only be "every man for himself" in times of crises. But personally, I'm not going to demand someone to instantly be willing to sacrifice everything based on arbitrary standards of whose life is more important, nor shame them for following their instinct of self-preservation.

 

[ladyforsaken]

fox wrote some really valid points, in my opinion. I gotta say I do agree with him as that's exactly how I feel too. Thus my question posted here in my previous post in this thread.... which was ignored.

Anyway, I certainly think that basic courtesy, good manners and respect is well deserved by any individual, regardless of gender. I don't see why or how women are above anyone else just for being women. Neither are children more important just because they are children. I would give them priority over things only because they might be incapable of fending for themselves but if I am locked up in a room with a man and a child and we're starving the hell out with just one piece of bread left, I think everyone should have an equal share of it. It all depends on what the circumstances are.

I don't see why a woman's or a child's life should be seen as inherently more valuable than a man's... or why it should even be seen as relevant on the subject of manners.

Being a kind, good, empathetic person isn't gendered. There's no rational reason that it should be expected to be only given by members of one gender and received by another.

So, personally I'd say let's leave the middle ages in the middle ages. A society where we are kind and considerate to each other equally, genuinely, and regardless of gender, social position, etc seems like a far nicer society to live in to me.

Of course it's admirable for someone to make every effort they can to help someone else, and by no means am I saying that it should only be "every man for himself" in times of crises. But personally, I'm not going to demand someone to instantly be willing to sacrifice everything based on arbitrary standards of whose life is more important, nor shame them for following their instinct of self-preservation.

+1

 

[SofiasMami]

I'll be candid here and say as a parent of a young child, I would push people out of my way to save my own kid's life. I don't necessarily believe strangers would do the same for my kid, although I would like to think so. If I were on a sinking ship, I have no problem with the concept of letting the kids off into the lifeboats first (while also doing everything I could to save my own hide too of course). I'm a better swimmer and have far more experience with making split-second decisions in emergencies than my 8 year old.

Of course I'm just making theoretical observations here. Real life can be messed up and people do mind-bendingly horrid things they never thought they would when faced with the brink of death, I learned that after reading Elie Wiesel's book "Night".

-Teresa

 

[Locke]

George Costanza knows the value of his life:

[video=youtube]

 

[Cavey]

I agree that a woman's life should be seen as no more important than a man's. Women have been fighting for equality for centuries and you can't pick and choose when to apply that equality or we're really not equal - the needle would just have spun in the other direction. Human beings should be judged on their acts and deeds, not on whether they were born with a Y chromosome.

Having said that, if I were on a sinking ship, I would definitely put myself at risk in order to save a child. Children cannot look after themselves; they do not have the abilities or the experience of an adult. They need someone to look out for them. I would never be able to look at myself in the mirror knowing that a child may have perished due to my selfishness or inaction.

 

[PenDragon]

Everyone is equal but priority changes with circumstances. I agree what Cavey says. Living whole life with that kind of guilt something I can't do. I'm willing to sacirifice myself for well being of others, that is what I have been taught and that is what I believe and follow.

 

[Raven22]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rain-tried-save-woman-fell-bridge-tracks.html

 

[PenDragon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rain-tried-save-woman-fell-bridge-tracks.html

Hero, martyr and few other names, some may call It foolish to put one's life in danger to save other but that is what makes us human, to put others' need and first even animals have that instinct. To willing to give what is ours so that others can have better chance.

Thanks for post, Raven.