MerenthaClone Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 He's just trying to justify cultural chauvinism by saying it will save the species some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaledFistOfLoras Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Women and children first, brave men last. No room for cowards on this life boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Women and children first, brave men last. No room for cowards on this life boat. how did you get into the lifeboat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Women and children first, brave men last. No room for cowards on this life boat. Blahbbity fucking blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Women and children first, brave men last. No room for cowards on this life boat. but omg then all the brave people will die and civilization as we know it will fail because only weak people will remain!!!1!! Its science, you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Only history has shown us that it doesn't work that way. If you kill off shitloads of men, it's just as bad as if you kill off shitloads of women. While it's technically possible to "save" the species Margaret Atwood "Handmaiden" style with more women, reality != evopsych theory. I'm probably latching onto the wrong point here but Phaing's point really has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. Mate selection and polyamory are still some of the most heavily debated topics in evopsych. I get the impression that the only evopysch people on this board know is the shit published by guys like Satoshi Kanazawa. Which is basically the equivalent of learning about evolution from a creationist. Evolutionary psychology is as the name suggest the study of how our psychology evolved and there's some really interesting study going on in that subject. But for some reason everyone seems to treat them like they're all on the same level as those stupid "why women shop" article you see in tabloids. Which would be like treating all doctors like idiots because of homeopaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Re: TrueMetis It's a signal-to-noise ratio issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Re: TrueMetisIt's a signal-to-noise ratio issue. Probably there's a lot of non-peer reviewed crap that goes directly to tabloids like the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaing Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 This is still an issue?Weird...Which era of history? During, say, the 17th century, repeated pregnancies were seen as a blight, and people used to put their "extra" newborns they couldn't feed out in the forest to die as way to enforce some sort of birth controlI'm sorry, but none of the links lead me to anything directly related to your points.And, if you'd rather die in one of those situations, I'm sure nobody will force you to a lifeboat. I sure won't. But as for me, I like the old Chinese proverb that says;"If you have to choose between doing something brave and something wise, do the brave thing." And lets not take this one to extremes, too, Never said ALL men must die, just trying to explain my own priorities. Women and children first, brave men last. No room for cowards on this life boat. how did you get into the lifeboat?He volunteered to do the rowing, perhaps? I'm probably latching onto the wrong point here but Phaing's point really has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. Mate selection and polyamory are still some of the most heavily debated topics in evopsych. I get the impression that the only evopysch people on this board know is the shit published by guys like Satoshi Kanazawa. Which is basically the equivalent of learning about evolution from a creationist. Evolutionary psychology is as the name suggest the study of how our psychology evolved and there's some really interesting study going on in that subject. But for some reason everyone seems to treat them like they're all on the same level as those stupid "why women shop" article you see in tabloids. Which would be like treating all doctors like idiots because of homeopaths.I feel like I dodged a bullet there... No, I wasn't aiming at Evolutionary Psychology, and I won't have much to say if you start to get into it.... but please go ahead. Sounds as if you are well qualified to give us a little something on that. Just be sure to use small words if you want literalists like me to keep up, ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 This is still an issue?Weird...I'm sorry, but none of the links lead me to anything directly related to your points.And, if you'd rather die in one of those situations, I'm sure nobody will force you to a lifeboat. I sure won't.Are you asking me if I'd rather be saved before someone else because I am a woman? My links lead to direct examples of where women were "saved" for life and men were not: ergo the same as a lifeboat scenario where women and children are "more precious" because species!!! Probably there's a lot of non-peer reviewed crap that goes directly to tabloids like the sun. Every single Evo-psych article I have seen linked have been of the nature that it needs to explain loads of modern occurrences by way of how people acted in hunter-gatherer societies, even sometimes as far as to go into "cave men", often to explain rape or the unquenchable male sexuality that cannot be controlled while completely disregarding social structures when convenient. Obviously, this is not a complete picture, but 99.9% so far has been tiresome and often with a lot of jumping to conclusions to reach an answer in line with their hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Every single Evo-psych article I have seen linked have been of the nature that it needs to explain loads of modern occurrences by way of how people acted in hunter-gatherer societies, even sometimes as far as to go into "cave men", often to explain rape or the unquenchable male sexuality that cannot be controlled while completely disregarding social structures when convenient. Obviously, this is not a complete picture, but 99.9% so far has been tiresome and often with a lot of jumping to conclusions to reach an answer in line with their hypothesis. Right, but even if it is natural how do we go from that to saying it is moral to do so ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 What if we changed the question. Could you personally jump ahead of women and children to get on a lifeboat if the ship you were traveling on was sinking?I really don't know. If it were just me and my children I couldn't leave them alone. If it were me and my wife and my kids I don't see how I could jump in front of other families waiting to board.Make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 What if we changed the question. Could you personally jump ahead of women and children to get on a lifeboat if the ship you were traveling on was sinking? And miss out on an untended bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Hereward,Lol :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 What if we changed the question. Could you personally jump ahead of women and children to get on a lifeboat if the ship you were traveling on was sinking? I'd like to think I wouldn't, but who knows until they are in that situation. Always know where the life jackets are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Paddington,Yup. I really like Hereward's answer too. Make the best of a bad situation.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaing Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 What if we changed the question. Could you personally jump ahead of women and children to get on a lifeboat if the ship you were traveling on was sinking? Changed ?I thought that was what people were arguing in favor of.... thus my reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Phaing,Discussing a situation in the abstract and asking whether "women and children first" is a good social policy is a different question from would you jump in front of other families to beat them to the lifeboats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuellar Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Going back to the real topic... How many women and children would you need to build yourself a flotation device that would hold up an adult male? Assuming the average person has 90% of the density of ocean water, does that mean a 200 lb guy needs 2000 pounds of women and children to hold his body completely out of the water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannisaurus Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 With all other factors equal (i.e. no guy who is about to discover cure for cancer aboard) I would say children should get priority over adults. Not that I would necessarily follow that rule if I was in such a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.