/ Killed xxx women and children

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MG - on 06 Feb 2013
A phrase often used in news reports. Is killing women and children worse than killing men?
Tom V - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

Illogically, yes.
richyfenn on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

Women and children are completely defenceless against men, so it's probably on par with stabbing a man in the back or while he's sleeping, it's just not cricket.

Also as only a few men are actually needed to build population, it doesn't matter so much if a bunch of them are shuffled off. Whereas you need lots of women for populating, and the children are handy labourers.

The little things add up.
aln - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to richyfenn:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Women are completely defenceless against men,

That's quite a statement.

ice.solo - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

it can be. many militant groups target the breeding stock - its known as genocide. the balkans, parts of africa and the caucuses have well known examples. it often goes hand in hand with other crimes against humanity.

also, its a media hook. 'genocide' is a big word to throw around, and usually needs UN confirmation (another story).

its not mystery that its usually men who carry out these acts, but not always. its also murkied by being a quasi-term for non-combatants, but that too is obscured in places that use child soldiers.

and, in many cultures with conflicts, women and children are secluded. to kill them means the perpetrators have breached defences, implying the women/kids were then unprotected and therefore killed enmasse or executed.

your OP has two distinct halves to it: the reporting element is one thing, the value of lives is another.
richyfenn on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to richyfenn)
>
> That's quite a statement.

It's slightly tongue in cheek, only slightly ;-)
Robert Durran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:
> A phrase often used in news reports. Is killing women and children worse than killing men?

Or what about those annoying stickers on cars saying "baby on board"?

Al Evans on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Robert Durran: So wonder why the Islamists have it all twisted around?
New POD - on 07 Feb 2013
> [...]
>
> Or what about those annoying stickers on cars saying "baby on board"?

Ah well, when the little bleeders are screaming blue murder, and have been for 2 hours, it's nice to know the other drivers will forgive your inconsiderate driving which is caused by a complete lack of sleep for the last 6 mnonths.
Scarab9 - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to ice.solo:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> it can be. many militant groups target the breeding stock - its known as genocide. the balkans, parts of africa and the caucuses have well known examples. it often goes hand in hand with other crimes against humanity.
>
> also, its a media hook. 'genocide' is a big word to throw around, and usually needs UN confirmation (another story).
>
> its not mystery that its usually men who carry out these acts, but not always. its also murkied by being a quasi-term for non-combatants, but that too is obscured in places that use child soldiers.
>
> and, in many cultures with conflicts, women and children are secluded. to kill them means the perpetrators have breached defences, implying the women/kids were then unprotected and therefore killed enmasse or executed.
>
> your OP has two distinct halves to it: the reporting element is one thing, the value of lives is another.



well that's a thread killer! You're not supposed to give the perfect answer like that, what are people going to bicker about now :-)
MJ - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Or what about those annoying stickers on cars saying "baby on board"?

The original intention of those signs, was to inform rescue services that there might be a baby in the vehicle and due to its size, might be difficult to see.
Now they seem to be an advert for the drivers virility.
Robert Durran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> The original intention of those signs, was to inform rescue services that there might be a baby in the vehicle and due to its size, might be difficult to see.

That's interesting. I have always assumed that they were trying to tell me that a baby's life was somehow more valuable than an adult's (my own, for example). This seems ridiculous and I always get a vague urge to ram them off the road to make the point.
The New NickB - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to MJ)
> [...]
>
> That's interesting. I have always assumed that they were trying to tell me that a baby's life was somehow more valuable than an adult's (my own, for example). This seems ridiculous and I always get a vague urge to ram them off the road to make the point.

Babies are small Robert, may not be quite as easy to spot as an adult, it isn't really about value.

If I see the sign, I just give them a wide berth, driver probably isn't paying as much attention to the road as I would like.
ice.solo - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Scarab9:

aww, i dunno. im sure theres something we can misconstrue the details of then take out of context and inflame with lack of perspective....

(but yeah, mentioning genocide is great way to not get invites to dinner parties)
Robert Durran - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Babies are small Robert, may not be quite as easy to spot as an adult, it isn't really about value.

I know they are small, but that doesn't make the vehicles they are in any harder to spot.

> If I see the sign, I just give them a wide berth, driver probably isn't paying as much attention to the road as I would like.

Now that does make more sense. I might bring out a range of stickers: "pissed driver on board", "texting driver on board", "knackered winter climber on board" etc. I'll make a fortune.

mattrm - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Or what about those annoying stickers on cars saying "baby on board"?
>
> The original intention of those signs, was to inform rescue services that there might be a baby in the vehicle and due to its size, might be difficult to see.
> Now they seem to be an advert for the drivers virility.

Except that isn't the case:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.asp

The guy who makes them didn't make them for that reason.
ClimberEd - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Or what about those annoying stickers on cars saying "baby on board"?
>
> The original intention of those signs, was to inform rescue services that there might be a baby in the vehicle and due to its size, might be difficult to see.

Urban myth - that's not true.

hokkyokusei - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to mattrm:
> (In reply to MJ)
> [...]
>
> Except that isn't the case:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.asp
>
> The guy who makes them didn't make them for that reason.

It doesn't really explain how the signs came about though does it? It specifically states that the inspiration came from similar signs in Europe - so where did the idea for those signs come from?
Robert Durran - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to mattrm:
>
> Except that isn't the case:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.asp
>
> The guy who makes them didn't make them for that reason.

So the intention was to remind us we are sharing the roads with children; the implication, as I assumed and objected to, being that children's lives should be valued more than those of adults.

I think I'll get one made: "Person old enough to be aware of their own mortality on board"

ice.solo - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to ClimberEd:
> (In reply to MJ)
> [...]
>
> Urban myth - that's not true.

urban myth often embraced by responder teams.

one of my groups more memorable jobs after the japanese tsunami was assisting recovery of cars bought up from where they been washed over docks into 45m of water - some them 5 or 6 weeks after the event.

i know its an anomoly and i know its not relevant to 99% of any of this, but when people are unaccounted for the 'annoyingness' is acceptable.
we also done tunnel rescues and plane boring old location of vehicles, and any identifying factor helps.

does preference go cars with 'baby on board' signs in the window?
in many situational-triage procedures, yes.
Gudrun - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> it can be. many militant groups target the breeding stock - its known as genocide. the balkans,......and the caucuses have well known examples. it often goes hand in hand with other crimes against humanity.

Strange,very strange.
will you explain this section of your reply please?
Now you will either give the right answer or the wrong answer,so which is it to be?
The New NickB - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> I know they are small, but that doesn't make the vehicles they are in any harder to spot.
>
What has the size of the vehicle got to do with anything?
Robert Durran - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> What has the size of the vehicle got to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing at all (no idea why you think I think it does) unless we're talking about tiny babies driving their own tiny cars. This is all gettiung a bit surreal.

thomasadixon - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

I figure they're mostly there so that people can declare to the world they have a baby, cause they're happy/proud so they want to brag. Maybe a few are telling you there's a vulnerable passenger so you should be extra careful.

In answer to the thread - Yes. They're (generally) more vulnerable and so its worse to kill them.
ice.solo - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Ah, my bad:

> it can be. many militant groups target the breeding stock - its known as genocide. the balkans, parts of africa and the caucuses have NOT SO well known examples. it often goes hand in hand with other crimes against humanity INCLUDING THE LESS FREQUENT CRIME OF PATRICIDE - THE INTENTIONAL KILLING OF THE MALE STOCK.
>
Just So Cat - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to thomasadixon:

I personally don't have a 'baby on board' sticker because my husband hates them and I gather other people do too. However, I really must stress that babies in cars are bad for driving! They can scream loudly for hours when you're stuck in traffic. They can keep you up all night every night and they clamour constantly for things that they've dropped. And they often seem to lead to more babies so you could be both pregnant (very bad for brain) and driving whilst tired and distracted. I'm not sure most people really feel having a baby is much to brag about. But definitely worth warning others about because it can lead to all sorts of unintentional omissions. Ps. If you see someone with said sticker making weird gestures it may be that they are being forced to sing e.g. 'The Wheels on the Bus' with appropriate actions in order to stop the screaming so please don't take offence.
Gudrun - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

Like war?
Also which period are you refering to?
The New NickB - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> Absolutely nothing at all (no idea why you think I think it does) unless we're talking about tiny babies driving their own tiny cars. This is all gettiung a bit surreal.

It is getting surreal, your making it that way. I find it difficult to comprehend that you are struggling with the idea that a baby (tiny weeny thing) may be more difficult to spot in say the back of a dark car, compared to say an unconscious driver. Remember the girl that the French police managed to fail to spot for 6 hours + in a sealed murder scene.
The New NickB - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

Any pedants please replace "your" with "you're" in my last post.
ice.solo - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
> (In reply to ice.solo)
>
> Like war?

Sometimes within the declaration of war - but many times not.

> Also which period are you refering to?

Take your pick of the last 400 years.





ads.ukclimbing.com
Gudrun - on 09 Feb 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

That is an interesting choice of locations you use as examples of genocide,very interesting,considering the many many famous cases which you choose to omit.The omission of many countries and leaders which are *actually* guilty of commiting genocide due to the fact that they haven't signed up, or to be more accurate, are beyond international laws is very instructive of an era of imperial domination.
Gudrun - on 09 Feb 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Indicative not'Instructive', duh!
marmot hunter - on 09 Feb 2013
In reply to Just So Cat:
> (In reply to thomasadixon)
>
> I personally don't have a 'baby on board' sticker because my husband hates them and I gather other people do too. However, I really must stress that babies in cars are bad for driving! They can scream loudly for hours when you're stuck in traffic. They can keep you up all night every night and they clamour constantly for things that they've dropped. And they often seem to lead to more babies so you could be both pregnant (very bad for brain) and driving whilst tired and distracted. I'm not sure most people really feel having a baby is much to brag about. But definitely worth warning others about because it can lead to all sorts of unintentional omissions. Ps. If you see someone with said sticker making weird gestures it may be that they are being forced to sing e.g. 'The Wheels on the Bus' with appropriate actions in order to stop the screaming so please don't take offence.

I always assumed these stickers meant 'Warning Sh1t Driver on Board'.
I really hope you aren't suggesting careless and dangerous driving are OK if you have a baby on board. Driving Without Due Care and Attention is actually an offence, a baby is no excuse.
Surely you ought to be more careful when driving with a baby as I'm tired of hearing people tell me how valuable their baby is etc.
Yep, I haven't got kids, yep I drive with the due care and attention to the road and road users. Yep I'm a grown up.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.