EU Citizen Brian Reay G8OSN wrote:
Stephen Cole wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €œwomen and children first€� and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.


Interesting choice of words.

Where does that leave those who arent married?


Did cavemen get married in the Stone Age, Brian?

BTW, nature makes a nonsense of your claim. The natural world is peppered
with examples of the female being the protector or the offspring being
simply left to get of with it.

This thread is about human beings. Please learn to reading comprehension,
OM. TIA.

In other words, biology has nothing to do with it. The women and children
first concept comes from the kind of values you spend your time rubbishing.


The values that I spend time rubbishing are those that espouse depriving
children of cancer medicine in exchange for a blue passport. HTH, OM.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur