Who would you save first?

Faye_Anderson

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

If you can firmly say that you would rather save your children than your SO then you are saying you don't love your SO as much as your children. In which case you should split up.

On the other hand, if you can firmly say that you would rather save your SO than your children then you are saying you don't love your children as much as your SO. In which case you should rather have just stayed childless.

The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know". If you think I'm talking bs then tell your SO to his/her face that you would save your children first. I bet most of you don't have the guts to do that. And if you don't have the guts to tell your SO that then you probably don't trust him/her the way he or she may trust you.

BS I just read this to my husband and he laughed and said he'd EXPECT me to save our son first and that he would do that too, but maybe that's because we DO have a loving relationship that's full of trust

WhoTheHellIsBen

hot dogs + sharp cheddar + lean hamburg + Thick cut hickory bacon + Sweet Baby rays bbq sauce + TURTLE BURGERS!


home made mac n cheese with bacon bits stuffed jalapeno meatloaf wrapped in apple cider cured BACON!! It...was...epic!!!!



If these are in the car, like if we were going to a dinner party, I'd save them first. I mean c'mon, who wouldn't want a fresh start in life?

AlsDonkBoxSquat

All the ones on here getting mad and saying it isn't funny are all the usual trolls, they are probably pissed off they didn't think to post it, and if one of their friends posted it they would think it was hilarious. OP don't worry about them , they are a bunch of "you know whats"

I think you need to look up the definition of internet troll.

I answered the question, yes . . . do I think the question is hilarious? not on any planet in any dimension.

Exactly, cuz the poster isn't one of your "friends"

No, generally when I truthfully answer a post and really pondering that post makes my day pretty somber I refer to that as the opposite of hilarious.

Now, and this is just my taste, randomly posting movie quotes like "I'm an honest ho, and all my hoes is honest" or pages and pages of weird .gif's . . . that I do find hilarious. I am not pals with everyone I think is hilarious (for example, the guy in the red is definitely starting to win me over), and I do not (gasp) find all of my pals hilarious.

Now, based on wikipedia the following is the definition of an internet troll: "someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."

Based upon that definition I would find the OPer actually resembles this definition more so then anyone else on this thread due to the sheer nature of the OP.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

hot dogs + sharp cheddar + lean hamburg + Thick cut hickory bacon + Sweet Baby rays bbq sauce + TURTLE BURGERS!


home made mac n cheese with bacon bits stuffed jalapeno meatloaf wrapped in apple cider cured BACON!! It...was...epic!!!!



If these are in the car, like if we were going to a dinner party, I'd save them first. I mean c'mon, who wouldn't want a fresh start in life?

I wouldn't bother saving them, I'd just polish them off as we were going down. All that saving is going to require a lot of calories, I would hate to get tired.

odusgolp

This is only fun if your options are saving your beer or your wine from the car...

cparter

I wouldn't think about who I would save first. I would just jump into action and pray that it all works out well. Who ever I grab first is the first to be saved but is not necessarily my intended topic.

From your heart you could say who you would like to save first but in the heat of the moment there is no time to think so, logically you cannot truly ascertain whom will be the first to be freed.

cparter

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

If you can firmly say that you would rather save your children than your SO then you are saying you don't love your SO as much as your children. In which case you should split up.

On the other hand, if you can firmly say that you would rather save your SO than your children then you are saying you don't love your children as much as your SO. In which case you should rather have just stayed childless.

The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know". If you think I'm talking bs then tell your SO to his/her face that you would save your children first. I bet most of you don't have the guts to do that. And if you don't have the guts to tell your SO that then you probably don't trust him/her the way he or she may trust you.

Ha ha?

I'm hoping you're not serious

He is serious and justifiable so. You can't ask a loaded question and think it amuses everyone equally. This question has no right answer unless it is "I will find out when the time comes" or "I don't know".

WendyTerry420

Actually, it would probably be my kids saving me. Both of them are much stronger swimmers than me. Hubby, hmmm, we will probably all work together to save him, if he needs it. He swims well, but has a bad inner ear from back in his SCUBA days.

cparter

my child.

My husband and I have discussed it and we agree that we would BOTH save our son first. So, to the dude who posted that I'm an *kitten* for doing so and that I wouldn't have the guts to tell my spouse...WRONG.

We are both 100% at peace with that decision.

His choice of words may have been crass but think about it; how would you know what would happen in the heat of the moment. A second lost on trying to make a decision is another second taking away from freedom.

WIChelle

They would have to save me since I can not swim My dh and boys are all 6 ft 2 to 6 ft 4 and very strong swimmers. In all seriousness I have no idea what I would do. I would want to save all of them.

sissiluv

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

If you can firmly say that you would rather save your children than your SO then you are saying you don't love your SO as much as your children. In which case you should split up.

On the other hand, if you can firmly say that you would rather save your SO than your children then you are saying you don't love your children as much as your SO. In which case you should rather have just stayed childless.

The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know". If you think I'm talking bs then tell your SO to his/her face that you would save your children first. I bet most of you don't have the guts to do that. And if you don't have the guts to tell your SO that then you probably don't trust him/her the way he or she may trust you.

Ha ha?

I'm hoping you're not serious

He is serious and justifiable so. You can't ask a loaded question and think it amuses everyone equally. This question has no right answer unless it is "I will find out when the time comes" or "I don't know".

I think the issue is more regarding the first line and the reasons following it, for reasons that have been explained on previous pages.
I don't have children or a significant other but calling a parent an *kitten* for saying that their kid/s come first strikes me as, well. 'Rude' doesn't begin to cover it, regardless of the hypothetical aspect of the situation.
Can we only say what we'd hope we'd be able to do in such a situation? Yes but hoping you'd be able to save your children shouldn't be considered a d*ck-move.

Edited cus apparently d*ck gets censored too.

cparter

I honestly can say I have no idea...and no one really does based on the fact that most people do not think when they are put in a position such as this they just act.

At last - You sir, gets the award for common sense!

WendyTerry420

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

I respectfully disagree....and I don't consider myself an a-hole.

I think most women who have maternal instincts would go for their kids first.

Most parents would give their lives to save their kids, whether it be the mom or the dad.

WendyTerry420

I saw this same thing on another forum and found some of the answers funny...they were meant to be funny btw.

What I did find odd was alot of men said they'd save their SO first?!

I'd kill my husband if he saved the kids over me...

I'd kill my husband if he saved me and not the kids!

cparter

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

If you can firmly say that you would rather save your children than your SO then you are saying you don't love your SO as much as your children. In which case you should split up.

On the other hand, if you can firmly say that you would rather save your SO than your children then you are saying you don't love your children as much as your SO. In which case you should rather have just stayed childless.

The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know". If you think I'm talking bs then tell your SO to his/her face that you would save your children first. I bet most of you don't have the guts to do that. And if you don't have the guts to tell your SO that then you probably don't trust him/her the way he or she may trust you.

Ha ha?

I'm hoping you're not serious

He is serious and justifiable so. You can't ask a loaded question and think it amuses everyone equally. This question has no right answer unless it is "I will find out when the time comes" or "I don't know".

I think the issue is more regarding the first line and the reasons following it, for reasons that have been explained on previous pages.
I don't have children or a significant other but calling a parent an *kitten* for saying that their kid/s come first strikes me as, well. 'Rude' doesn't begin to cover it, regardless of the hypothetical aspect of the situation.
Can we only say what we'd hope we'd be able to do in such a situation? Yes but hoping you'd be able to save your children shouldn't be considered a d*ck-move.

Edited cus apparently d*ck gets censored too.

Oh, my comments were not to the way he said it but the meaning behind his response. I said in another post who came across crass but the thought of not knowing what you will do is what I was getting at.

goodomenminis

who ever is closest. who ever i can. and all of them if i could.

sissiluv

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

If you can firmly say that you would rather save your children than your SO then you are saying you don't love your SO as much as your children. In which case you should split up.

On the other hand, if you can firmly say that you would rather save your SO than your children then you are saying you don't love your children as much as your SO. In which case you should rather have just stayed childless.

The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know". If you think I'm talking bs then tell your SO to his/her face that you would save your children first. I bet most of you don't have the guts to do that. And if you don't have the guts to tell your SO that then you probably don't trust him/her the way he or she may trust you.

Ha ha?

I'm hoping you're not serious

He is serious and justifiable so. You can't ask a loaded question and think it amuses everyone equally. This question has no right answer unless it is "I will find out when the time comes" or "I don't know".

I think the issue is more regarding the first line and the reasons following it, for reasons that have been explained on previous pages.
I don't have children or a significant other but calling a parent an *kitten* for saying that their kid/s come first strikes me as, well. 'Rude' doesn't begin to cover it, regardless of the hypothetical aspect of the situation.
Can we only say what we'd hope we'd be able to do in such a situation? Yes but hoping you'd be able to save your children shouldn't be considered a d*ck-move.

Edited cus apparently d*ck gets censored too.

Oh, my comments were not to the way he said it but the meaning behind his response. I said in another post who came across crass but the thought of not knowing what you will do is what I was getting at.

Yeah I'm still on a separate page from you, and still for the reasons I explained above, though I do understand where you're coming from.
But I still also think that calling parents *kitten* (or even casting such parents in a negative light, as he is doing) for hoping that they'd be able to save their babies, should their babies be unable to save themselves, even at the expense of their significant other, is bull.

this1bigdog

Can I put my Ex into everyone else's car and hope she doesn't come up?

moustache_flavored_lube

Now is a perfect time for some dead baby jokes!! You go first :drinker:

MyPsalm63

I don't know. I have never been in that situation. I would see what I was lead to do. That would be a VERY Hard thing to deal with.