Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lifeboat ethics"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(reply)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
:::: Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship.  In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 
:::: Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship.  In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::Andy, please try to focus on what I actually clarified. Here's a summary, using quotes:
 +
::::::RossC: "there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board."
 +
::::::Andy: "that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats"
 +
:::::The truth is that men were held at gunpoint, contrary to your claim that RossC is wrong. Also, you're arguing that there was more than enough space because he was pulled into a lifeboat, but it's just as likely that somebody had fallen out. Or do you think that the Titanic deployed their lifeboats with empty seats?
 +
:::::In fact, your "more than enough men gave up their slot" and the cited "men held at gunpoint" are both solutions for the Lifeboat Ethics scenario of the Titanic: Ship sinks, not enough lifeboats, a decision has to be made who goes into the boats and who is left to drown. Yet you claim that "no one is likely to be in the situation described" and that such an event has the same probability as an encounter with an UFO. I could say more about the fallacies you list in the article, but I'm 95% certain that you would dismiss any criticism, so I'll do more productive things instead. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 16:25, December 9, 2007

You know, I detest this scenario, too (I always said, "Pick the meatiest ones, in case we run out of food"), but your "fallacies" are misplaced. With the possible exception of the first one, the others are often a fact in sea disasters--boat sinks, more swimmers than boats, problems ensue, lifeboats get swamped, more people drown. In the real world, of course, there wouldn't be picking and choosing going on--it'd be a first-come, first-serve sort of operation. Using the Titanic as an example is particularly misguided--much of the death toll can be attributed to a lack of lifeboat space, and (contrary to your scenario) there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board.--RossC 20:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, you've got to do better than this. As a lawyer, you know better than to refute a hypothetical scenario with the argument "this will never happen." Remember torts class? You were given a grade over nonsense that would never happen. Deal with the argument on the merits, and quit being retarded. --JamaicanJah 20:55, 8 December 2007 (EST)
In reply to RossC, that isn't true about the Titanic, as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats, and the rescue came quicker than some probably expected. The content page also identifies other flaws in the problem.
JamaicanJah, in torts class the hypotheticals should illustrate real controversies, not pure fantasy. There is no end to the absurdities if unrealistic problems are presented. Suppose a UFO landed and demanded a parent to give up one of her children? Which would it be? The proper answer is, "that's silly."
The root of the lifeboat dilemma is a lack of faith, as the Biblical account illustrates.--Aschlafly 09:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Regarding your Titanic claim and RossC's claim not being true:
Mrs. Beane, interviewed shortly after the sinking, said she had seen members of the Titanic's crew holding men back at gunpoint from the lifeboat stations after the order was given for only women and children to board the boats. According to the interview, she said she had seen one man shot.
(Source: Found here but can also be found here.) --Jenkins 09:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship. In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--Aschlafly 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Andy, please try to focus on what I actually clarified. Here's a summary, using quotes:
RossC: "there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board."
Andy: "that isn't true about the Titanic, as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats"
The truth is that men were held at gunpoint, contrary to your claim that RossC is wrong. Also, you're arguing that there was more than enough space because he was pulled into a lifeboat, but it's just as likely that somebody had fallen out. Or do you think that the Titanic deployed their lifeboats with empty seats?
In fact, your "more than enough men gave up their slot" and the cited "men held at gunpoint" are both solutions for the Lifeboat Ethics scenario of the Titanic: Ship sinks, not enough lifeboats, a decision has to be made who goes into the boats and who is left to drown. Yet you claim that "no one is likely to be in the situation described" and that such an event has the same probability as an encounter with an UFO. I could say more about the fallacies you list in the article, but I'm 95% certain that you would dismiss any criticism, so I'll do more productive things instead. --Jenkins 11:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)