First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
A child's life
1031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / in and around you...
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
the problem is u're not viewing both sides

dontmindifido wrote:

Everyone knows that you can get a much nicer price if you are selling a child on the black market than if you are selling an adult.


rofl!!! add more fire to the pot, my friend
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
Kik, please don't double post. Also, read the edit on my last post refering to one of your earlier comments. Please and thank you.
8990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Ronald McDonald's...
Offline
Posted 4/22/07

kikurface wrote:

the problem is u're not viewing both sides


Lol, aren't you supposed to follow such a statement with 1 or 2 paragraphs of deep thought on the subject?
58645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Boston
Offline
Posted 4/22/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


This is a good point.
Physically though a child would be easier to save. Since it's most likely that the adult would be incapacitated there might not be a reasonable chance of you actually saving them depending on their mass and your strength whereas there could be a very good chance of you saving the child.
Edit: I would like to point out that the argument of "no one should hurt a child" isn't an argument of importance, it's an argument of innocence.

I think you may have missed the point of this... :p





Not really you asked who I would save and I'm a logical person. If I can't save one but can save the other I'm not going to waste my time trying to do something that is physically improbable. Beyond that I also addressed the general point of view of importance place upon a child's life. I don't believe people actually believe children are that much more important than everyone else but rather that they are for the most part innocent souls. Most people see destroying innocence as something horrible.

It should be noted though that you took one issue, harming a child, and turned it into an either or scenario which simply makes for a horrible argument.

1031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / in and around you...
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
wats the difference between calling someone stupid for their beliefs or calling someone stupid for stating their belief? nuttin, either way u called someone a moron for wat they thought
dont act all high and mighty when u contradict what u said
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/07

Hopchow
Not really you asked who I would save and I'm a logical person. If I can't save one but can save the other I'm not going to waste my time trying to do something that is physically improbable. Beyond that I also addressed the general point of view of importance place upon a child's life. I don't believe people actually believe children are that much more important than everyone else but rather that they are for the most part innocent souls. Most people see destroying innocence as something horrible.

It should be noted though that you took one issue, harming a child, and turned it into an either or scenario which simply makes for a horrible argument.


I see. Well, the either or question wasn't meant to be the central theme of this thread or the debate. However, that's my own fault. ...


I don't believe people actually believe children are that much more important than everyone else but rather that they are for the most part innocent souls. Most people see destroying innocence as something horrible.


I like that much better than what I said. I agree. I think you're right. (And yes people, this means I was wrong.)

Edit:

wats the difference between calling someone stupid for their beliefs or calling someone stupid for stating their belief? nuttin, either way u called someone a moron for wat they thought
dont act all high and mighty when u contradict what u said


I didn't call her stupid for stating her beliefs. I called her stupid for acting stupid. There are mature ways to express your beliefs that don't involve "pwned." That's childish, and coming from an adult, stupid. In my opinion. Anyway, you're not contributing anything to the topic. Please be more productive or leave this thread. I'm not ordering you, cuz it's a free thread, but I would be obliged. Also, I'm not -trying- to act all high and might. I s'pose, however, that I am coming off this way. Thus, I'm expressing myself in a childish way. Thus, I'm behaving stupid. So I admit that was a bit hypocritical.


Once again, I was wrong. I’m sorry for portraying myself so arrogantly, I’ll work better on that in the future..
5986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / lazing in England
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
It has little to do with innocence nor importance as I think it's more to do with a person's ego, conscience and possibly, primitive instincts.

An adult and a child in a burning house - if you saved the child and left the adult behind, you are likely to rationalise that since the adult could fend for himself, it's not a blot on your conscience if he failed. Whereas with a child it may be an insult to your ego, conscience and possibly pride that you didn't make an effort to save the child.

This in context of an idea that what you do with a child represents what you are.
2986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Soon to be SCAD
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
I would chose the child... let me explain my reasoning

1 Even though they are both trapped, I don't think the child would have as much of a survival chance. I do not know the exact age of the child mentioned, I am thinking an infant or toddler. I know they are both trapped, but walking is an advantage.

2 I am biased. I have many siblings and have grown up around children.
58645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Boston
Offline
Posted 4/22/07

catex wrote:

It has little to do with innocence nor importance as I think it's more to do with a person's ego, conscience and possibly, primitive instincts.

An adult and a child in a burning house - if you saved the child and left the adult behind, you are likely to rationalise that since the adult could fend for himself, it's not a blot on your conscience if he failed. Whereas with a child it may be an insult to your ego, conscience and possibly pride that you didn't make an effort to save the child.

This in context of an idea that what you do with a child represents what you are.


When I referenced innocence I wasn't referring to the either or scenario but rather to the comment that he mentioned that brought about the either or scenario.

Some how or another we came to the topic of some child killer. I said something along the lines of, “How could somebody actually go out and hurt a small child?”

This is an entirely separate issue from choosing who you would save and not really one that requires self examination beyond your personal morals.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
^Yes, I was talking about infants and toddlers.
4688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Palm Beach, Florida
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
I think they are both equally important in different areas, an adult may help economy by working a job, and the children of the world are the next generation to ensure the human race keeps on going, both adults and children can contribute to society, anyway there is no right answer since this is all opinions
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/07

I think they are both equally important in different areas, an adult may help economy by working a job, and the children of the world are the next generation to ensure the human race keeps on going, both adults and children can contribute to society, anyway there is no right answer since this is all opinions


*Nod* Valid point. Anyway, I just wanted you thoughts...

@06aqua- That's how I feel. I would want to give the child the chance to enjoy life.
3736 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Somewhere
Offline
Posted 4/22/07
Hmmm... I've always thought myself a little cold-hearted, since I always seem to view things differently than those around me... But I'd save the adult, if I had to save anyone (though I probably wouldn't be risking my life for someone I don't even know). Although, I suppose a kid would logically be easier to save if they're not freaking out or putting up a fuss. If I had the power to save either with no problems, I'd save the adult, though.

Personally, I feel kids are brats. And they're not as innocent as they're made out to be. Have you seen little girls these days? They wear tube tops and short skirts and DON'T EVEN HAVE THE BOOBS NEEDED TO WEAR THOSE SHIRTS. God, I'm a D-cup and I don't even wear binkinis as scandalous as those seven year olds. There was a story on the radio a couple weeks ago about a couple kids putting laundry detergent in their teacher's coffee. I once read an article about a two fifth grader and six grader having a threesome in a classroom with some fourth graders as look-outs for teachers, while the rest of the class was just watching. How's that for innocent?

At least the adult has proven his or herself useful, thus far. The kid could turn out to have been a waste of your efforts. And I suppose you people are right in saying that the kid hasn't experienced life or anything so far... So what have they got to lose, then? They don't have their own kids, they haven't gotten married or fallen in love, they haven't spent years getting an education and working a thankless job, or had to go through puberty... The kid's got it good. If you're so concerned about innocence, then it's better for the kid to die then instead of just letting it get corrupted later.

(A classic example of this scenario is where Sasuke tells Naruto that he never had anything in the first place, so it didn't hurt him as much to lose all his family, as it had Sasuke. I found this a very touching and correct statement. "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone," and if you never had it in the first place, you won't notice it's gone, right?)

When I read mangas, I cry a lot harder for the teenagers that get killed than the toddlers and kids. Think about it. Their parents spent what, 13-18 years raising them and caring for them and loving them? Is the death of your two year old going to hurt you more than you thirteen year old? The longer you live, the more people you'll know, and the more people will mourn your death. Will a six year old's friends be able to comprehend that their friend has died? No. Will a twenty year old's? Yes.

While children like to pluck the heart strings of the masses, the people who really matter -- the people who knew the person that died -- will be the ones who suffer. People like to think saving a child is a noble deed, and it is, but why is a child's life more important than someone who has worked hard and slaved away at making a place for themselves in the world? And if they're a bum or something, then who's to say they can't turn it around? Since when are children the only hope for the future? Since when are they the only ones with potential?

Well... That's my two-cents. Call me cold-hearted or bitchy, but I don't see why a child's life would be any more important than an adult. Besides, wouldn't it be an entirely different story if the person was elderly? Who would you leave? The eighty year old Holocaust survivor? Or the adorable three year old?

That's all. I'm done now. -puts up shields- Let the insults begin.
Posted 4/22/07
I think we could make this a whole lot more complicated if we really wanted to. Please, let us continue to intellectually stimulate ourselves in an unrealistic manner. What if we made it a manner of consensus and brought democracy into this? What if we asked the affected parties who might want to be saved more and why?

Children, despite their innocence, tend not to be selfless. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a child that would agree to die for an adult, no matter how "important" that adult may be. And if you told a child after the fact that an adult died for them to live, I think they'd take it pretty well, if they really understood that at all.

However, the beauty of this is that an important person is on the other side of the scales. Important people also tend to have big egos. And their opinion on the importance of a child would be as contrasting as yours. And how they might feel afterward might range from smug to devastated. When it comes down to it, I'm convinced you could reorder this question to be "If you were a globally important person with the power to decide, would you kill a child to survive?"

The child has ignorance that would allow it to accept living life in the ashes of a sacrifice: "they've lived a good life already". The adult would have logic to rock them to sleep at night: "If I survive, I'll have the power to save thousands of children".

Personally, I'm the kind of smug bastard that, looking at how much work it would take to save a thousand children, would probably just shrug and put the greater global good on the shoulders of the child. I'm an adult, and I think I've had a good run, end of story. But this way of thinking is probably what will keep me from becoming a globally important person
2585 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / well at the computer
Offline
Posted 4/22/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

Recently I was talking with a few of my father’s college buddies. As usually I was quick to grab at any chance for semi intellectual conversation topics. (The only problem is that most college students are only slightly less stupid than high school students. Still, I’m surrounded by morons.)

Some how or another we came to the topic of some child killer. I said something along the lines of, “How could somebody actually go out and hurt a small child?”

One of the more… “open minded” (Not masking my sarcasm) members of our little gang was quick to start shouting, “I hate that! Why do people think that children’s lives are more important? Just because their kids! Their no more important than I am. Don’t even contribute to society. Only a moron would say such a foolish thing!” (Her last piece was a clear attack against me.) Obviously offended, and eager to put her in her place, I was quick with my own childish retort. (I’m still an immature youth myself.) “Like you contribute anything to society you fat hog! You just shovel food and free load off your parents.” (The woman is morbidly obese, and a spoiled lazy moron who thinks she’s a genius because her IQ is 127.)

Anyway, she was very adamant about it. A couple of the other members of the group calmed us down and we managed to talk our way back to a calm conversation instead of a stupid argument. We decided that the ultimate question to ask was, “If an adult of important status either to the nation or world was trapped in a burning building, and a small child was also trapped in the building, who would you save?”

I was all for the child. I figured most people would be, but most of the group was ambivalent. Four didn’t answer. One answered the adult, and the two answered the child. (Including myself) So what about the rest of you? What would you pick? Do you honestly think a child’s life is more important than an adults? Why? Why not?

I think children are innocent, not yet corrupted by the world. I place more value in their lives because of these attributes. Also, being that they are so new to the world, they’ve not had the chance to experience things that an adult has. Everybody should get a first kiss, a first crush, a first love, all these other things.


Edit: I do not have anything against people who are over weight. I made that remark in my own childish fit of rage.



While you value children over adults, I tend to value adults over children. Here's why. 1. Continuation of humanity. This must be done by someone who at least has reached puberty (females 12-15, guys I think it's 13-16 in general) and is capable of raising a child (mentally, physically, financially, etc) . This normally pushes the acceptable range to at least 18 no longer a child. 2. Comprehension of the world around them. Now yes there are some children who are quite knowledgeable of the world but most for the most part it's those over of the age 18 who tend to comprehend more about the world. I'm talking environmental issues, political stances, population controls things that require a certain worldliness that is not typical in a child. 3. Abilities to perform complex tasks. I'm talking organ transplants, heart surgeries, medical research, power plant maintenance, and other such tasks. Most children do not have the requirement hand/eye coordination or mental capabilities to perform these. This has been proven time and time again. Hand/eye coordination continues to develop into the late 20's and scientists believe the mind doesn't stop growing until the early 20s.

Personally if it were me, I would rather save the person that's about to cure cancer than the kid that may or may not turn out to be great. What's the one saying? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.