• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Who would you save" comes true

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Triumph said:
I agree if say, the kid was 6 months old or so. I mean, you've hardly invested anything yet! Now if you'd already paid for college and all of that, I'd say save the kid.
Click to expand...



I do not know if you have kids but I hope you do not. What a callous and cold remark to refer to a child a monetary investment. If a child is 6 months or 20 years, when you lose one it hurts painfully so and equally.
 
Last edited:
Crappy situation all around. Hus & wife will have survivor guilt, blame themselves for their son's death, sublimate it to the other spouse, and either suicide or divorce will follow.

"Instead of going down and risking my life as well as my wife and son's, I chose to take Vanessa back and sat on the shore praying. It was all I could do."

There was probably a cricket match on or something and the line was busy.
 
Nik said:
You fail at physics and need to watch Mythbusters. Large objects sinking take things down with it, even if they're already at the surface above it and not even touching it.
Click to expand...

No you fail at physics. This is a car not the freaking Titanic. Large objects only take things down while they're sinking, not once they've reached the bottom. The article says he reached the the scene of the accident a bit under 2 minutes after it happened and the car was just over 3 feet under the water. His wife escaped, and so she must have opened the door or window which means the car would have been filled with water. There's no way it was sinking when he got there. It was at the bottom.
 
v1001 said:
Should have saved the son. Always save your children. I mean any parent should give their life for their kid if it unfortunately came to that.
Click to expand...

I most likely would do that too. Strangely enough, I remember vaguely one of these 'self improvement' type courses I had to take 10+ years ago that somehow emphasized that the answer to this should always be your spouse. With the other option being your child, parents, siblings, etc. I couldn't remember their detailed reasoning for this, just that it's always the spouse.

Anyway, this is horrible. But as impossible as it sounds like, I really hope they can move on with their lives peacefully.
 
shortylickens said:
Thats nice but pointless. Its a logical fallacy. There are no guarantees on ANYTHING in life. But you still have to make decisions. Sometimes on short notice.
Click to expand...

it's not a fallacy when something has already happened.

You currently have a kid. That is your future right there, no guarantees you can ever have another one again, but also no guarantees that kid will survive into his own reproductive age.

But as an animal that bears the number of children we do, and still makes sense for humans in every way - parents should do everything they can to save the kid. If everyone was popping out 15 kids, things are different.

But instantaneous decisions don't always play out the way you would want them too if given the chance to pause and think.
 
cronos said:
I most likely would do that too. Strangely enough, I remember vaguely one of these 'self improvement' type courses I had to take 10+ years ago that somehow emphasized that the answer to this should always be your spouse. With the other option being your child, parents, siblings, etc. I couldn't remember their detailed reasoning for this, just that it's always the spouse.

Anyway, this is horrible. But as impossible as it sounds like, I really hope they can move on with their lives peacefully.
Click to expand...

lol
welcome to the culture of christian marriage bleeding into everyday life.
Save the spouse is probably a good idea if it's parents and siblings involved, but if your own kids are involved, your kids are more important than anything in your life. No kids? = spouse is the future of your family. Kids? = future of your family.
It's why we should always have parity. Two wives, at least two male kids. :biggrin:
 
I'm a wimp, I were in this scenario, the wife would be saving me... that's why I don't want children, they will be the death of me. 😛
 
destrekor said:
lol
welcome to the culture of christian marriage bleeding into everyday life.
Save the spouse is probably a good idea if it's parents and siblings involved, but if your own kids are involved, your kids are more important than anything in your life. No kids? = spouse is the future of your family. Kids? = future of your family.
It's why we should always have parity. Two wives, at least two male kids. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

It's ironic that you complain about Christian culture bleeding into everyday life, yet you apparently believe the antiquated notion that male children are more important than female children (at least for the purpose of continuing your family). They may not continue your name, but how important is that really? None of us have unique names.
 
v1001 said:
Should have saved the son. Always save your children. I mean any parent should give their life for their kid if it unfortunately came to that.
Click to expand...

No he used his resources where they had the most chances of success. If you read the article, police and fire officers also were unable to rescue the boy from inside the vehicle.
 
Number1 said:
No he used his resources where they had the most chances of success. If you read the article, police and fire officers also were unable to rescue the boy from inside the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of people say they would give their life for their kid, but so far no one in this thread has actually done it. None of us know what we'd do in his situation. He tried to save the kid, but was unable.
 
mugs said:
Yeah, a lot of people say they would give their life for their kid, but so far no one in this thread has actually done it. None of us know what we'd do in his situation. He tried to save the kid, but was unable.
Click to expand...

He tried and that's all we can expect.

As a mater of fact if his wife was driving on wonder's if she attempted to free the kid while the car was sinking.
 
mugs said:
Yeah, a lot of people say they would give their life for their kid, but so far no one in this thread has actually done it. None of us know what we'd do in his situation. He tried to save the kid, but was unable.
Click to expand...


A lot of people would give their life for a Klondike bar. Just sayin... :sneaky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top