Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

how does women and children first

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:27:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Social value, I guess. Men are expected to keep them safe and to deal with a crisis themselves. It does make a certain amount of sense.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:49:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:27:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Social value, I guess. Men are expected to keep them safe and to deal with a crisis themselves. It does make a certain amount of sense.

It makes sense if the people dealing with the disaster decide to make sure that the value of their life is less than the value of their wives and childrens. But if the 'rescuing authority' decides that they'd rescue the women and children first, and men after them, they are arbitrarily allocating different values to the said lives.

A family is an entire unit. Contains a man.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:59:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:49:21 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:27:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Social value, I guess. Men are expected to keep them safe and to deal with a crisis themselves. It does make a certain amount of sense.

It makes sense if the people dealing with the disaster decide to make sure that the value of their life is less than the value of their wives and childrens. But if the 'rescuing authority' decides that they'd rescue the women and children first, and men after them, they are arbitrarily allocating different values to the said lives.

A family is an entire unit. Contains a man.

So you are saying that people should still do it, just not governmentally?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:44:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:57:16 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Who has that policy? It's a myth.

http://www.ne.su.se...

That's interesting, true. However, I am presently concerned with a very specific incident where the policy is being implemented by the state government. I am not sure if it has international exposure yet, but there have been this crazy cloud burst in India (Uttrakhand, specifically). Led to complete dissemination of the place. People died, and are stranded, and now there are reports of people dying due to hunger, because of the inaccessibilty of the place.

The choppers are rescuing women and children first.

I don't understand the 'morality' behind the decision.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:47:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:59:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:49:21 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:27:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Social value, I guess. Men are expected to keep them safe and to deal with a crisis themselves. It does make a certain amount of sense.

It makes sense if the people dealing with the disaster decide to make sure that the value of their life is less than the value of their wives and childrens. But if the 'rescuing authority' decides that they'd rescue the women and children first, and men after them, they are arbitrarily allocating different values to the said lives.

A family is an entire unit. Contains a man.

So you are saying that people should still do it, just not governmentally?

I am saying there is no 'should'. If the people voluntarily believe that they should rescue women and children before the men, more power to them. But how does this make sense as a policy decision?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:49:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:44:57 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:57:16 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Who has that policy? It's a myth.

http://www.ne.su.se...

That's interesting, true. However, I am presently concerned with a very specific incident where the policy is being implemented by the state government. I am not sure if it has international exposure yet, but there have been this crazy cloud burst in India (Uttrakhand, specifically). Led to complete dissemination of the place. People died, and are stranded, and now there are reports of people dying due to hunger, because of the inaccessibilty of the place.

The choppers are rescuing women and children first.

I don't understand the 'morality' behind the decision.

Children are smaller, so you can save more people in a helicopter if you put children in. And it makes sense to keep them with the primary caregiver, maybe.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:55:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:49:46 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:44:57 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:57:16 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Who has that policy? It's a myth.

http://www.ne.su.se...

That's interesting, true. However, I am presently concerned with a very specific incident where the policy is being implemented by the state government. I am not sure if it has international exposure yet, but there have been this crazy cloud burst in India (Uttrakhand, specifically). Led to complete dissemination of the place. People died, and are stranded, and now there are reports of people dying due to hunger, because of the inaccessibilty of the place.

The choppers are rescuing women and children first.

I don't understand the 'morality' behind the decision.

Children are smaller, so you can save more people in a helicopter if you put children in. And it makes sense to keep them with the primary caregiver, maybe.

I don't know, shutting off their source of income seems cruel. Personally, I'd say the policy of saving on a 'family-by-family' basis makes sense because at least you are saving people, in real sense. Killing off a part of family is just a cruel way to rescue people.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 10:25:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

It is not a policy, but social custom and tradition. Find one regulatory document in the US that actually states that women and children are to be given priority in a disaster, and I will change my mind on this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 10:29:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 10:25:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

It is not a policy, but social custom and tradition. Find one regulatory document in the US that actually states that women and children are to be given priority in a disaster, and I will change my mind on this.

However, I am presently concerned with a very specific incident where the policy is being implemented by the state government. I am not sure if it has international exposure yet, but there have been this crazy cloud burst in India (Uttrakhand, specifically). Led to complete dissemination of the place. People died, and are stranded, and now there are reports of people dying due to hunger, because of the inaccessibilty of the place.

The choppers are rescuing women and children first.

I don't understand the 'morality' behind the decision.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:50:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Men are more likely to survive?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 2:33:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it has most to do with "saving the human race". Women can produce children, and children are the future generation.

Would people not generally agree that children should be saved over adults? If so, the next likely step is mothers, the producers and caregivers of children. Then men.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 10:29:58 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 10:25:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

It is not a policy, but social custom and tradition. Find one regulatory document in the US that actually states that women and children are to be given priority in a disaster, and I will change my mind on this.

However, I am presently concerned with a very specific incident where the policy is being implemented by the state government. I am not sure if it has international exposure yet, but there have been this crazy cloud burst in India (Uttrakhand, specifically). Led to complete dissemination of the place. People died, and are stranded, and now there are reports of people dying due to hunger, because of the inaccessibilty of the place.

The choppers are rescuing women and children first.

I don't understand the 'morality' behind the decision.

Obviously this isn't exactly valid without more SOURCED information. As a hypothetical:

You rescue the women and children first, because ostensibly men due to physical conditioning can better cope with conditions before being rescued, and may also potentially aid response forces.

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

One man can impregnate many women, but a woman can only have 1 or so children at a time, so they take the priority. Children are the obvious choice because their survival secures the next generation.

Besides that, historically it's been the man's duty to risk his life protecting his family whenever disaster strikes.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?
yang.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:23:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 2:33:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I think it has most to do with "saving the human race". Women can produce children, and children are the future generation.

Would people not generally agree that children should be saved over adults? If so, the next likely step is mothers, the producers and caregivers of children. Then men.

Which would be more likely to survive, a society with 5000 women and 50 men, or one with 5000 men and 50 women.

Answer, not the sausage-fest. The guy's right.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, one justification is that women and children are generally physically weaker than men, so it serves their interest more than it does for men to be given priority over the other in some situations.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:17:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

Maybe it implies U.S but she could be talking about it in abstract.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:21:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

lolwut? Other countries have policies too, you know. OR MAYBE WE DON'T!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:25:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

There can be non-governmental policies, too.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:28:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

There can be non-governmental policies, too.

Non-governmental entities do not have rescue operations like the ones described by the OP.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:30:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:21:47 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

lolwut? Other countries have policies too, you know. OR MAYBE WE DON'T!

lol, this is a US website, where the OP does not specify country. Can I talk about Indian government state policies? Of course not. However, I can talk about US government state policies, and to my knowledge the US government has never encoded a "women and children first" policy in its rescue operations.

I'm flattered that you all think I can talk about global policies like some sort of omniscient...policy guy. But really, I can't. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:31:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:17:14 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

Maybe it implies U.S but she could be talking about it in abstract.

I cannot speak for other cultures, so I narrowed my own response to what I could speak about.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:49:21 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:27:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Social value, I guess. Men are expected to keep them safe and to deal with a crisis themselves. It does make a certain amount of sense.

It makes sense if the people dealing with the disaster decide to make sure that the value of their life is less than the value of their wives and childrens. But if the 'rescuing authority' decides that they'd rescue the women and children first, and men after them, they are arbitrarily allocating different values to the said lives.

A family is an entire unit. Contains a man.

No, not arbitrary. It's easy to argue that a child is worth more than a full-grown adult, and women (back in the days when the used this policy) did the vast majority of the parenting. It was about family; a man usually served as an income provider and thus wasn't strictly necessary. Plus, there was the social conditioning that men needed to take care of women because they were helpless.

I don't know if this is actually enforced anywhere today, but I wouldn't assume so.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:29:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:21:47 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:50:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:13:05 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:30:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Otherwise, my statement stands...I'd like to see substantiation of your point before assuming the US government actually adheres to such a stance.

Why is the discussion only valid if the US government does it? Where in the thread did she imply that?

The word "policy".

lolwut? Other countries have policies too, you know. OR MAYBE WE DON'T!

LOL exactly. She brought up a specific Indian example so I'm not sure what providing sources on US policy has to do with anything.
yang.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:31:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:44:57 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:57:16 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:04:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
Policy make sense during a disaster?

Who has that policy? It's a myth.

http://www.ne.su.se...

That's interesting, true. However, I am presently concerned with a very specific incident where the policy is being implemented by the state government. I am not sure if it has international exposure yet, but there have been this crazy cloud burst in India (Uttrakhand, specifically). Led to complete dissemination of the place. People died, and are stranded, and now there are reports of people dying due to hunger, because of the inaccessibilty of the place.

The choppers are rescuing women and children first.

I don't understand the 'morality' behind the decision.

Oh, well, India would probably have a more primitive social structure. No offense.

It does make sense, though, if the family is organized that way.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:31:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I cannot speak for other cultures, so I narrowed my own response to what I could speak about.

Non-Americans on DDO have been able to discuss abstract ideas that are specific to the US, why can't you discuss the actually idea? It's not that hard. How does a women and children first policy make sense? It either does or it doesn't; it has nothing to do with the US specifically and there is no need to make it so.
yang.