Choice of women and children!

[Starchaser107]

there is no evidence that clarifying the conditions Forces a responce.

total bullocks huh , since we have digressed to insulting , i should perhaps say that your life must be quite devoid of charm, and interest if you cannot see the value of the message in fiction.

I suppose the messages in mythology were also bullocks because they were unfactual and obviously impossible.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Starchaser107
there is no evidence that clarifying the conditions Forces a responce.

No but we get attacked for assuming certain conditions.

total bullocks huh , since we have digressed to insulting , i should perhaps say that your life must be quite devoid of charm, and interest if you cannot see the value of the message in fiction.

I haven't even started to insult anybody yet.
My Life is very good thanks, I just don't life in imaginary scenarios and in a fictional world, fun to visit but nothing to get excited about.

I suppose the messages in mythology were also bullocks because they were unfactual and obviously impossible.

A message is a message, problem is that many people CANNOT separate the message from the myth or the messenger, may it be mythology or everyday life.

[joedoe]

If you look at it from a purely Darwinian POV, then you should always save the child, if it is your child, to ensure that your genes are perpetuated. If the child is not yours, then they are competitors to your own offspring so you should let it die.

Personally I am with GDA on this. I feel that the death of a child is one of the sorriest things that can ever happen and should be prevented if at all possible.

[Starchaser107]

good sarcasm and healthy retorts are always appreciated.
TJM it was good debating with you. I said what I said because you were dismissing my point and I believe it had some amount of validity. If you were married and I were in a position like that somehow, I would save your wife as opposed to an unknown child. However if it were my child I would save the child as opposed to some unknown adult.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Starchaser107
If you were married and I were in a position like that somehow, I would save your wife as opposed to an unknown child. However if it were my child I would save the child as opposed to some unknown adult.

I AM married and got a little one, and both me and my Wife would save someone elses kid.

Kids to us are the future and the potential that they carry is immense,
maybe different upbringins and cultural background.
Kids will always come before other family members.

Me and the Wife, we already had a good life, we passed our genes on no more real need for us anymore.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by GreyMystik
no, i don't have any kids and i'm not married.

i have however taken care of kids that i lived with. i know that's not the same as having my own, but wanted to illustrate that i like children and have nothing against them.

i guess it's harder with complete strangers, but the way i see it is this. maybe it's a warped and twisted view, but so be it.

the adult is (for the sake of argument) a productive member of society. a woman, who can more than likely populate with more kids.
the child is, a POTENTIALLY productive member of society. the child could also turn into saddam hussein. we don't KNOW yet... but , more than likely, the woman is not saddam hussein.
again, we don't know because they are strangers, but that's the general gist of how i feel about it.

when faced with the (likely) "known" (the woman) and the potential (child), i would probably save the woman.

any loss of life is sad, but that's my (warped?) logic i guess.

But what if that child was destined to find a cure for cancer? Or maybe become the world leader that finally brings peace to the world?

[Starchaser107]

"Me and the Wife, we already had a good life, we passed our genes on no more real need for us anymore."

ok , well if i knew you in person and i was aware that these were your and her wishes I would save the child out of respect for your desire.

[GreyMystik]

yes, that is the flip side of the "maybe he's the next Charlie Manson" argument.

my point is, if forced to side on chance or something i know, i'll usually side with something i know.

there are exceptions, and i think some of them have been discussed...

it's not that i don't value the life of children because i do... i guess i just don't see them as the pinnacle of purity that others seem to as opposed to "clay that hasn't been molded yet".

it's more of an 'easy come, easy go' type thing.

yes, they havent' had a chance etc etc. they also aren't as big of a loss (IMO) because of that. there will be others.

i'm having a hard time putting this all into words because it SOUNDS like i'm a callous unfeeling a$$ which i'm really not at all... just hard to explain why i feel the way i do i guess.