DiscoGary wrote:
the mistake he made is that he didn't want to cause a panic by telling everyone the score. History shows that a panic could have hardly killed more people than the path they chose. The people should have been told so they could have had a chance to help themselves.
Withholding information is never a good plan.
Using my brain wrote:
Maybe Mouse wrote:it may well have been that the folks in the lifeboats were terrified of the thought of getting too close to the folks in the water for fear of being swamped. Once you get within reach how do you manage to bring aboard a half dozen (which you can fit) while keeping another hundred at bay?
A few people almost frozen and drowning are not going to swamp a large lifeboat.
In fact they would need considerable help to get in.
It would have been impossible for a couple a persons to have swamped these boats.
There was a lifeboat in the midst of the swimmers. It filled with people and the rest calmly held onto the outside. There was no disorder and those holding onto the outside stayed there until they died.
zephito wrote:
HRH wrote:In complete contrast as to what happened when HMS Birkenhead sank in 1852.
Of course, they were BRITISH troops which accounted for their superior moral fibre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Birkenhead_(1845)
ZING!!!
You're mostly right but not completely right. You emphasize BRITISH. I would emphasize TROOPS. A military vessel will obviously have a more disciplined crew than a private vessel, at least in those days, so yours is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Also, the Birkenhead sank very close to land, only about 2 miles offshore, so there was a reasonable chance for survival if you were a decent swimmer, which was apparent to those on board. The Arctic sank 65 miles from shore in a heavy fog; you had (almost) no chance if you didn't get into a boat and everyone on board knew it, so the panic was likely greater.
Still, your basic point is true. The British crew behaved much more chivalrously than the American crew. In this case, Britain 1, USA 0.
As a side note, DiscoGary's raft theory was tried on the Arctic. Everyone on board the raft eventually died except for one person, who later claimed he was "10 minutes from death.". It's a sample size of one, but it does seem to show that Guggenheim's armoire and some torn-up deck planking wasn't going to save Jack Dawson and his ilk. Maybe that's why Andrews didn't bother with a raft.
Only a Brit would carry such an insecurity chip on his shoulder that he would make a comparison between British and Americans in such tragedies.
Using my brain wrote:
Maybe Mouse wrote:it may well have been that the folks in the lifeboats were terrified of the thought of getting too close to the folks in the water for fear of being swamped. Once you get within reach how do you manage to bring aboard a half dozen (which you can fit) while keeping another hundred at bay?
A few people almost frozen and drowning are not going to swamp a large lifeboat.
In fact they would need considerable help to get in.
There were a THOUSAND people in the water, completely desperate people. Visibility was poor so it would not be so easy to carefully maneuver to a position to pick up one or two while avoiding everyone else in the water.
Yes, they would probably need help to get in. But if you think that the folks in the life boats had the information and understanding necessary to act to pick up extra passengers without believing that they would be putting their own lives at risk then you are very clearly NOT using your brain.
Andrews told the Captain there was an hour left. Then Andrews ran around the ship waking people and telling them to get topside. If there is a blame you want to assess, look to the Captain who controls information. The same Captain for White Star Line that ran into a british military ship a year before but was still allowed to Captain a ship.
Easy for you to critique from your armchair. Quite easy.
U A Pear wrote:
How can anyone be a liar?
Simple - this is based on your posts throughout these boards.
You lie.
Constantly.
It has nothing to do with you wanting to identify as black. It has everything to do with your constant lying.
You should be proud, DG. Just like politico couldn't find Trump lying on any issues, they just said he was lying all the time. To "prove" their point they made a list of exaggerations, ironic claims and totally insignificant but honest mistakes that Trump had made.
Seoulpurpose wrote:
rojo wrote:Post of the year. Can you imagine if a boat went down now?
Rojo you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for even responding to this ignorant piece of garbage, but you've shown yourself to be no better than this j@ck@ss. Condoning someone who would cheapen a very real and very necessary debate today puts you at their level, it makes you a bigot, period. Their argument mocks something that affects some people in a very real way, and it is no different from white people mocking racism. You should be very proud.
Trannies should be mocked. A sexual fetish is not a gender. If you are a man and think you are a woman you are looney tunes.
we all know the conservative white guys would pull their gun and shoot women and anyone not white enough to make sure they got a spot on the life boat then say they were standing their ground
Do white, straight, male, Christians really feel marginalized or somehow cheated? I'm white, straight, male, and Christian and have no issues with the way I'm treated or viewed by society. Hell, I'm even middle class working stiff which is supposed to be the kiss of death.
DiscoGary wrote:
We all know straight white male American Christians would be last, but who would be first?
How is Perpetual Victimhood as a political philosophy workin' out for ya?
Mr Obvious wrote:
Do white, straight, male, Christians really feel marginalized or somehow cheated? I'm white, straight, male, and Christian and have no issues with the way I'm treated or viewed by society. Hell, I'm even middle class working stiff which is supposed to be the kiss of death.
Hey dude, you're a victim! Come on, get with the program. You're probably too traumatized by your victim-hood to even be able to have the proper victim perspective.
Seoulpurpose wrote:
rojo wrote:Post of the year. Can you imagine if a boat went down now?
Rojo you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for even responding to this ignorant piece of garbage, but you've shown yourself to be no better than this j@ck@ss. Condoning someone who would cheapen a very real and very necessary debate today puts you at their level, it makes you a bigot, period. Their argument mocks something that affects some people in a very real way, and it is no different from white people mocking racism. You should be very proud.
The question isn't whether this issue affects people in a very real way, but whether we should enable mental illness (and it is clearly mental illness). NYC just published a list a 31 "genders" and the supposedly appropriate pronouns to use for them. That should be a joke.
Mr Obvious wrote:
Do white, straight, male, Christians really feel marginalized or somehow cheated? I'm white, straight, male, and Christian and have no issues with the way I'm treated or viewed by society. Hell, I'm even middle class working stiff which is supposed to be the kiss of death.
It's not like the government is targeting Christians in order to force them to violate their beliefs, right? From today's news:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/25/house-democrats-launch-bill-ban-religious-exemptions-abortions-gender-transition-services/The Supreme Court just got done hearing a case in which a Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor (who take care of indigent elderly people) had to fight the government in court to not have to provide abortifacient drugs under their insurance plan. It's not like the government hadn't allowed exceptions for their political friends before, either, this was a choice to target these sisters.
The list is literally too long to cite here. Everything from that guy who got fired from firefox for at one point giving to the California defense of one man one woman marriage to people getting their heads chopped off, etc. for professing faith in Christ. So yes, Christians are specifically targeted.
student of training techniques wrote:
Mr Obvious wrote:Do white, straight, male, Christians really feel marginalized or somehow cheated? I'm white, straight, male, and Christian and have no issues with the way I'm treated or viewed by society. Hell, I'm even middle class working stiff which is supposed to be the kiss of death.
It's not like the government is targeting Christians in order to force them to violate their beliefs, right? From today's news:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/25/house-democrats-launch-bill-ban-religious-exemptions-abortions-gender-transition-services/The Supreme Court just got done hearing a case in which a Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor (who take care of indigent elderly people) had to fight the government in court to not have to provide abortifacient drugs under their insurance plan. It's not like the government hadn't allowed exceptions for their political friends before, either, this was a choice to target these sisters.
The list is literally too long to cite here. Everything from that guy who got fired from firefox for at one point giving to the California defense of one man one woman marriage to people getting their heads chopped off, etc. for professing faith in Christ. So yes, Christians are specifically targeted.
Got it. Yup, you are DEFINITELY a victim.
Poor you! It must be really hard to get through in this world where everyone is out to get you. No seriously, poor, poor pitiful you.
Just for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd2_LKoTYKwHope you feel better soon.
Just wondering... wrote:
How was the engineer who designed the boat supposed to know how long it would stay afloat? Did the know the severity of the damage? That the ship would break into two? How long it would take to break into two?
How would knowing how long the ship would stay afloat affect people's abilities to gather floatable material from the ship? Would knowing that you have 2 hours and 40 minutes--not 3 hours and 20 minutes or 1 hour and 30 minutes--have an impact on the ability to gather material to make makeshift boats?
Are only engineers able to distinguish floatable materials from non-floatable materials?
How was the engineer supposed to organize 1000 men? Is this a known ability of a naval architect/ship designer?
Were there sufficient tools on board for 1,000 men to "rip the boat apart" to make makeshift boats?
DiscoGary wrote:The real tragedy was that the engineer who designed the ship was on board and knew how long it would take to sink and that there weren't enough life boats for everyone. He knew there was a LOT of material on that boat that would float and would have been able to keep people out of the water until rescue boats came. He could have organized a 1,000 men to rip the boat apart with the instructions to get everything that would float and hold up one person into the water. In two hours there would have been thousands of makeshift lifeboats all over the water.
If there is a Hell, when I get there I'm going to find this piece of shiite and ask him what the fack he was thinking.
Well said.
The people on this site just keep getting stupider and stupider.
Maybe Mouse wrote:
Using my brain wrote:A few people almost frozen and drowning are not going to swamp a large lifeboat.
In fact they would need considerable help to get in.
There were a THOUSAND people in the water, completely desperate people. Visibility was poor so it would not be so easy to carefully maneuver to a position to pick up one or two while avoiding everyone else in the water.
Yes, they would probably need help to get in. But if you think that the folks in the life boats had the information and understanding necessary to act to pick up extra passengers without believing that they would be putting their own lives at risk then you are very clearly NOT using your brain.
Maybe the people in the lifeboats didn't want to get their hands wet, maybe they thought rowing back was too much work, maybe they were afraid there might be a transgender person in the water.
You are just speculating.
The facts are that there was a lifeboat among those in the water and there was no swamping.
Why does it matter, in time we all die, you save one soul so it dies tomorrow. It was their time. It's how they had to go.
There once was a ship so Gigantic,
The name of it was the Titantic.
Then it sank into the Atlantic.
Swim Floaties wrote:
we all know the conservative white guys would pull their gun and shoot women and anyone not white enough to make sure they got a spot on the life boat then say they were standing their ground
Guilty! I am heading for TexMex border now after natural selection of Titanic done.
Orange man fan wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:We all know straight white male American Christians would be last, but who would be first?
How is Perpetual Victimhood as a political philosophy workin' out for ya?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We already know who would be last. I got it. There's no debate there. Never was.
Who would be FIRST!?
Gays? Nah. That's so "last month's victim".
Transgenders? Yup. This month it would have to be transgenders. But should it have a race modifier attached? I think so.
Blacks first? Nah. That's so "last century's victim".
Mexican illegal immigrants to the US? Yup. That's the current racial victim of the day.
Gotta throw religion in there too and I know we will all agree that Muslims stand alone as today's current politically correct religious victims.
So the first people on the boat will be Muslim transgendered illegal immigrants from Mexico. Does anyone have a problem with that? If so, all your school district's Federal funding will be pulled. Now get to the back of the line.