Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I remember posting this a long time ago, but what the hell, we have a whole new generation here to waste their time debating experience and enjoy this now!

http://www.talisman.org/quizzes/robin-hood-morality.shtml

(Don’t worry, it’s just one question)

''You too, believe that morality is another word for commonsense and suitability, and not something which is universally valid or a religious truth. Your feeling for security is strong, and you would rate reliability (mm-hmm, sure) as one of your virtues.''

Men: Your estimate of women as the inferior sex suggests that you are a little uncertain of them. (all Lies)

Yay. I guess...?

"You have a confused, immature sense of values. You are erratic and stubborn, and inclined to get angry or sulk when you don't get your own way, but at least you are not a moral hypocrite.

Women: Perhaps you would rather be a man than a woman?"

So apparently my morals suck and I'm a spoiled brat. Good to know. Also I want a sex change apparently? Also good to know.

You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior. You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion.

Men: You are sexually uninhibited, more romantic than you may appear, and more dependent on the approval of others than you care to admit.

So I am clearly more moral (and humble) than all of you degenerates.

Ah, yeha, I almost posted this last month when wer were reading A Doll's House for AP English. Our revamped version was funnier, though. It was about Romeo and Juliet getting separated by a sudden river, and Sinbad was the only one able to get across, so Juliet had to sell drugs in order to gain safe passage. Romeo was like, "You sell drugs!? My rep cannot survive this! You gotta fuck off!" then she complained to a guy named Bob, (The good old Romeo, Juliet, Sinbad, and BOB morality test!) who beat the shit out of Romeo and then left. People heard Juliet laughing at the beat-up Romeo. So everyone was pretty douchey, honestly.

I always loved how "There is no right answer", but clearly there are wrong answers, and the guy judges you without knowing why you made those decisions.

I especially like when you respond with anything that seems conflicting: Huh, it's really difficult to judge what's going on here, but it's probably because you're a pathetic human being and you want to fuck your parents, and everything you like is probably vaguely related to your penis, because I know psychology.

Anyway, since I know how to get the best one, here it is. Not my actual answer, but, y'know, I can sound like I agree with the guy who wrote these:

We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.

Men: Do we detect a sense of chivalry and idealism under the sophistication?

EndMaster of CYStia banned Little Malk and Steve Hood and mocked them on the forums and then unpublished all their stories for the lulz. Maid Mizal begged EndMaster for their unbanning, pleading her love for Steve’s writing. EndMaster agreed to unban them only if Maid Mizal spent the night joining him in the mocking of them both. To this she agreed.

The next morning EndMaster unbanned the degenerates. Steve at once demanded that Mizal tell him how she persuaded EndMaster to urban them. Mizal confessed the truth, and was unsurprised when Steve verbally abused her, called her a slut, and said that he never wanted to talk to her again.

At this Little Malk white knighted her, inviting her to leave CYStia with him and promising lifelong devotion. She accepted and they rode away together to CoG.

Now in terms of realistic everyday standards of behavior, put Steve, Mizal, Little Malk, and EndMaster in the order in which you consider they showed the most morality and honesty. There is no "right" answer, and you'll be given the psychologist's estimate of you for each of the 24 arrangements.

EndMaster
Steve
Mizal
Malk

EndMaster was just doing his job of keeping the degenerates in line.

Steve was disciplining a whore and being a degenerate.

Mizal was being a backstabbing degenerate whore.

And Malk was being a completely cowardly opportunistic degenerate weasel.

Men: We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.

Women: If you really believe this is the right order, you baffle us completely.

EndMaster, The Grandmaster of the Dead: "Ohh wait. He did that survey? Forget it. He's gonna kill us."

In order from worst to worst: Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve. :)

Sad Steve :'(

(Can Steve even be sad?)

I'm sure he can be, but Steve sure as hell won't be sad if some random kid on the internet pretends to hate him. Even if I didn't just pretend, Steve loves when people hate him.
And he's a snake, not a snek! Learn to spell!

Oh, yeah... You can tell what people searched for to find those pictures. That's actually kind of a creepy superpower, actually.

I can, but with some workarounds you could figure that as well. Besides, it doesn't help me much if I can't see what the picture actually is. If someone searches for dicks but gets a pic of a banana, I won't know that.

Which is exactly why it's frightening! What if I find something site-appropriate during one of my bi-weekly porn runs that I want to share with you guys, but it ends up that there's still search stank on it!? Now I have to double-check every image I've ever put here!

Right click > View Image Info > Associated Text

This IS a neat superpower.

I don't have those buttons! Damn you and your stalkery, non-chrome web browser!

Right click  -->  Inspect

This has nothing to do with a spelling mistake. It is simply Internet-Jargon. I personally prefer Danger noodle...

I presume your attempt to talk badly of me is like a small child pulling on the ponytail of a girl he likes, in which case your attraction to me is completely understandable.

Yes, it's exactly like that. Feel better now, Steve? :)

Not really. I mean, someone with such dashing good looks as me would be wasted on you.

Wasted? Hey hey now, I only like you, not love you. I have no intentions to be your boyfriend. :P

I feel like there's a joke here, but I don't get it. I'll presuem you were being an idiot, my normal assumption for people that almost always holds true.

Yes, I'm an idiot. You're right.

Oh cool, I'm right again. Terrific.

Steve wasn't doing anything wrong. He's only a collection of salty reflexes, and therefore cannot be blamed for his actions.

Endmaster is not as blameless as Steve. He did unban both of them, after all.

If Malk rode anything, especially to a place as far away as CoG, he might accidentally splay and dislocate his legs due to their lack of sideways mobility. The entirety of Canada would end up paying for his medical bills due to their universal health care and the fact that capybaras cannot sign contracts, pay bills, have jobs, or contribute to human society.

Mizal agreed to go to CoG in the first place, and therefore is the worst.

In this case am I already fucking Mizal? Because I'm definitely already verbally abusing her, so that's not changing.

You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior. You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion.

Men: You are sexually uninhibited, more romantic than you may appear, and more dependent on the approval of others than you care to admit.

I chose Maid Marion, Little John, The Sheriff, and then Robin Hood. 

We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.

Women: You will expect high standards from the men to whom you give your love.

Hey, not bad!

Ah, great quiz! I love personality quizzes and the like. My first option was Little John, Maid Marion, Robin Hood, and The Sheriff. Now that I think about the situation a bit more, I would probably switch LJ with MM and switch RH with TS. However, I have one problem with it; if the quiz itself says that there is no right answer, then why do some of the interpretations chastise the quiz-taker for picking that option? In fact, a lot of the interpretations seem to be too subjective to be an accurate estimate of what the person is like. Especially statements such as the srmj option;

Women: If you really believe this is the right order, you baffle us completely.

It’s almost like they forgot that they put that disclaimer.

You too, believe that morality is another word for commonsense and suitability, and not something which is universally valid or a religious truth. Your feeling for security is strong, and you would rate reliability as one of your virtues.
Men: Your estimate of women as the inferior sex suggests that you are a little uncertain of them.

Little John, Sheriff, Marion, Robin hood

What's funny is the author says there's no wrong answer, but the lower you rank Marion the worst the description of you is, so it's obviously biased.

Explaination:

To start, remember the question asks to judge both on morality and honesty.

Little John does nothing immoral and he doesn't lie. He's really the only option for the first ranking.

The Sheriff abuses his power. However that's really all he does. Marion's infidelity rests on her, and the Sheriff does go through with his promise.

Marion cheats on Robin, but that could be forgiven as it seems she clearly did it to get him released (I'm assuming he would have been locked up forever otherwise). However, after Marion releases them and Robin beats her, she takes up John's offer to run away together. This is strange, as you would think a woman who slept with a stranger to free the person she loved would be a bit more willing to fight for the relationship. It calls into question her motive, and whether it was Robin who she wanted to save all along. This makes her the most dishonest person in the group.

Robin is last becuase he beats Marion. That's basically it. His anger is understandable, but she did ultimately save his ass.

Yes, Marion should've fought harder to stay in the relationship where her husband (boyfriend?) abused her. Real good morals there.

Not saying that at all lol. I'm saying if she jumps at the first guy who defends her then it calls into question her original motives. Most people who actually love someone can't immediately rebound if that person mistreat them.

You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior. You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion.

Men: You are sexually uninhibited, more romantic than you may appear, and more dependent on the approval of others than you care to admit.

Well then, it seems I'm not a massive asshole, unlike many of you. Terrific!

Huh. Same thing as me xD

But I chose based on likeability...

Here’s another one, but we’ll just cut out the middle man and rewrite it for CYStia purposes since it’s more fun that way.

The Bridge Test

So Mizal was a peasant from some shitty backwater village in CYStia. She wanted more out of life so one day when Baron Banisher was out visiting the peons to raise his approval rating again, she did everything she could to get his attention which naturally meant dressing in the sluttiest thing she could find.

It worked and they were married the next day. She said goodbye to all the dirt farmers living like pigs and hello to the cushy life of being a Baroness.

All was well until she found out that the Baron was a controlling dickhead. He wouldn’t let her go anywhere and it just sucked a lot.

Anyway, a week passed and it was time for the Baron to go visit his territory in the outer regions of CYStia and pretend he actually gave a shit about the people there. Before he left though, he told Mizal. “Don’t leave this castle while I’m gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!”

No sooner had he left, Mizal was already planning on leaving the castle because she was sick of his bullshit. Besides, she was missing an old lover of hers back in her old village and decided that was exactly what she needed right now.

“JJJ isn’t going to get home before dawn. I’ll be back by then.” Mizal thought and left.

After spending several hours with Steve, Mizal made her way back to the castle only to find a mad man wearing a giant rodent fur, ranting and raving on the only bridge back to the castle.

“Do not attempt to cross the bridge, Baroness or I will kill you lololololol!” Malk raved and waving a knife at her.

Fearing for her life, Mizal returned to her lover for help.

“Yeah…I mean you’re okay in the sack and all, but you fucking left the village and me to go marry that Baron asshole. I’m not helping you. Get out, I got a lady boy coming over.” Steve remarked and pushed Mizal out the door.

Mizal then remembered there was a boatman that took people across the river, she sought him out, explained her situation and asked him to take her across.

“I didn’t ask you for your life story. I’m just trying to make a living, so it’ll be five gold coins.” EndMaster said.
“But I don’t have any money!” Mizal exclaimed.
“You’re goddamn royalty and you can’t spare five fucking gold coins? I’m scratching and surviving out here and I got a daughter to feed at home! No money, no ride!”

Her fear growing, Mizal ran crying to the home of her best friend back in the village, and after explaining the situation, she begged for enough money to pay the boatman fee.

“I told you NOT to marry the Baron in the first place! You knew what you were getting into when you became a willing plaything for the oppressive patriarchy. You sacrificed your dignity for the comfort of being part of the 1%. I have no sympathy for you and I’m not certainly not giving you money.” Axiom said shaking her head.

With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, Mizal returned to the bridge in desperation. She thought maybe she’d be able to run past Malk, but the madman was too quick and gruesomely cut her up into several pieces laughing the whole time.

Now rank the people who were responsible for the Baroness’ death from most (1) to least (6).

This is how I ranked it:

Madman Malk - 1
Baroness Mizal - 2
Best “Friend” Axiom - 3
Steve “The Stallion” - 4
Baron Banisher  - 5
BoatMaster End - 6

Yeah, your ranking seems pretty much right, 'cept I'd swap the Baron with the Boatmaster.

Boatman is third.
Stallion fourth.
Not friend fifth.
Baron is last.

First two are already right.

1) Mizal

2) Axiom

3) Steve

4) Malk

5) End

So... the crazed man who murdered her was almost the least responsible?

I mean, he was already crazy and everyone knew that. It's everyone else's faults for letting her try to run past him.

Baron Banisher: (Insert Patriarchy) And he probably hired Malk to kill her anyway, since she used to be a peasant and probably realised he could marry a rich slut anyway.

Boatmaster was a capitalist pig.

Axiom was very destructive in her criticism and offered no advice or path of improvement.

Steve existed.

Mizal was only following her heart.

Malk was only a product of mistreatment from the society around him, and totally wouldn't have killed Mizal if therapy or Evanescence had been invented.

Malk was a mental defective that should been killed at birth by his parents instead of letting him become a drain on society. Or failing that, they should have at least kept him chained in the basement a lot better so he couldn't get out and stab people.

Mizal was being a duplicitous dumb whore that not only was betraying her husband, but she also thought her status was going to save her from punishment by believing everyone was going to just help her. Then on top of everything else, she stupidly ran towards a madman who openly said he was going to kill her. She might as well have ran into a blazing fire and it would have been just as retarded.

Axiom was Mizal's best friend and utterly failed to provide any sort of support when the chips were down. Friends, best friends especially are supposed to do that and all Axiom did was slut shame Mizal and be a scolding asshole. Also she knew Mizal's personality the most meaning she had to have known that Mizal would be impulsive enough to try to run past Malk if she got desperate.

Steve should have helped as well, though you could say that he just doesn’t place as much importance on the relationship because he's an unprincipled cad. Still, it’s at least somewhat in his interest to help if only for pragmatic reasons that he won’t get to have sex with her anymore if she gets killed.

JJJ was being an abusive tyrant and his methods for keeping Mizal in line probably didn't help the situation of her feelings of alienation. However his greater sin is obviously not paying his soldiers well enough to patrol the bridges properly so that knife welding mad men aren't going around stabbing people in the first place.

Finally EndMaster was just doing his job and being an upstanding citizen of the nation. He has no obligation to help Mizal since he doesn't even know her. He's also brave for standing up to Mizal, who could have easily threatened him with her royal status. Hell, he doesn't even try to blackmail Mizal in any way in exchange for taking her across. 

Truly a paragon that everyone should aspire to.

Interesting, I've never seen the Bridge one. The other test I remember we talked about in sociology class in high school, but it was Tarzan and Jane and a couple of random nobodies. Jane needed to get across the river to rescue Tarzan, one rando simply refused to help and the other would lend her his boat if she slept with him.

I mean obviously the answer would've been to just steal the boat but whatever, you never get to pick logical courses of actions for people in these kinds of things. (Huh. Suddenly I'm reminded of CYOAs...)

The CYS versions are far more interesting, though I'm not sure at which point I left Ax for Steve.

Mine would basically match yours, except I'm a little fuzzy on the Boatmaster vs the Baron. Possibly I'd have them switch places.

But yeah uh I'd have to question what kind of knots a person would have to tie the entire concept of logic in to not rate the guy wielding the axe as #1 here.

Madman Malk - 1
Baroness Mizal - 2
Steve “The Stallion” - 3
Best “Friend” Axiom - 4
Baron Banisher - 5
BoatMaster End - 6

Mizal - She got herself in this whole situation from the start. While I admire how she was able to get herself out of poverty, she still fucked up in the end. I don't know why she didn't just offer a reward to the boatmaster if he safely got her across. I mean, I know he didn't like the royalty, but I doubt he would have turned down the prospect of a huge payout.

Banisher - Had he treated her better, she would have never left the castle in the first place. Then again , it isn't like she loved him to begin with.

Steve - Had she not loved him, she wouldn't have had a reason to return to the village.

Axiom - I don't think she did anything that makes her responsible, but she did knowingly send her "friend" to her death.

End - This guy is just trying to make a living.

Malk - Why is he lowest? Because if I poison your food, then tell you that I poisoned your food, and you still eat it...your death was a suicide, not a murder.

Not really how things work there with Malk. If I say give me your wallet or I blow your brains out and you resist and get shot, that's not suicide.

I suppose, but he did warn her.

As did the mugger.

Indeed.

EDIT: What point were you trying to make? I feel like I'm missing something.

Doesn't matter if Malk warned Mizal or not, the fact is he still killed her and is most responsible for her death.

Thank you. This.

I'm probably more forgiving of Malk because I thought Mizal was scum.

>More forgiving of literally the only person who would have caused her death in this scenario.

>The only person not actually blamed for it.

Interpretation

You are fairly broadminded romantic and reasonably contented. You value kindness greatly and try to live by your ideals. You do not conceal from yourself, or from others, your strong need for security, which may be either emotional or material.

Men: Perhaps you tend to idealize women and credit them with virtues they don't possess.

Interpretation

We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.

Men: Do we detect a sense of chivalry and idealism under the sophistication?

I guess this isn't too bad of a result. I really don't like people though. I chose MJRS because marion was all for helping people and saved john and robin, john was the only one to thank her, robin disagreed violently, and the sheriff started it all.

Interpretation

You are fairly broadminded romantic and reasonably contented. You value kindness greatly and try to live by your ideals. You do not conceal from yourself, or from others, your strong need for security, which may be either emotional or material.

Men: Perhaps you tend to idealize women and credit them with virtues they don't possess.

 

Surprise, Surprise.

You are the slightly romantic realist. You respect truth, and are broadminded and flexible. Whether you are a man or a woman you are probably a happy person. You like people and they can readily make friends with you. You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you.

Yay... >-> john, marion, sheriff, robin

You are the slightly romantic realist. You respect truth, and are broadminded and flexible. Whether you are a man or a woman you are probably a happy person. You like people and they can readily make friends with you. You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you.


Was a little unsure whether to rate Robin Hood or the Sheriff as the worst, but the Sheriff was just being realistically scummy, and it was weird Robin Hood flipped out at Marion and not the guy who locked him up and then put his gf in that situation in the first place. He'd probably be the kind to pout and take it as evidence she didn't love him if she'd refused, too. Robin Hood is such a twat.

You are fairly broadminded romantic and reasonably contented. You value kindness greatly and try to live by your ideals. You do not conceal from yourself, or from others, your strong need for security, which may be either emotional or material.

Women: Your experiences of men have not all been happy, perhaps because you hope for a little too much?

Huh. Not what I was expecting.

You are conventional, unimaginative, and something of a prude. It would be surprising if your love life was a roaring success.

Men: You have an old-world authoritarian attitude. One thing is sure: you have some sorry illusions about women.

- 

My logic is that Little John did nothing wrong (outside of whatever put him in prison). He took the Maid out of a bad situation and I commend him for that. The Sheriff shouldn't have offered to let them go in the first place, however, he kept his word and let them go. You'd expect someone like that to screw you over, but he's somewhat of an honest man. Robin Hood was justified in his rage towards the Maid. However, that doesn't mean that he should have abused her (I'm assuming it was physical). Finally, the Maid ranks lowest because she demonstrated something I greatly detest in people - lack of loyalty. Sure, she did it because she wanted to help Robin Hood get out, but cheating is still cheating. She shouldn't have given in to the Sheriff in the first place. Especially since she couldn't have known that he would keep his end of the deal.

EDIT: Also, I am not a prude.

The abuser is better than the adulterer. Not even taking into account why she slept with the Sheriff, you are fucked up.

I believe it does not state that she did sleep with the sheriff.

Yeah it does.

Ugh now I'm going to have to read it again. I don't remember that.

What the fuck did you think happened in that story?

The Sheriff agreed to release them only if Maid Marion spent the night with him.

That doesn't necessarily suggest that she slept with him. They could have played board games or something...

Yep, could have just played Nintendo all night long.

Yes, because Robin just hates his wife playing board games with another man and would abuse her over it..

She was bewildered that he was angry with her. She doesn't say what they did, and he just made an assumption. 

I can't tell if you're being facetious or retarded.

Neither.

If it's not the former, it's the latter, you're just not aware of it.

Perhaps you're right. I was just trying to give my opinion on the story.

Seriously it doesn’t actually say the sheriff fucked Marion, everyone just comes to that conclusion because Robin flips out.

And if Robin is the wife beating jealous asshole that he's established to be, he would have hit her just for playing video games with another man.

Thank you. That was my thought exactly.

Once again, unless you're debating "Spend the night with him" to not mean sex, in which case you're being retarded, or facetious. Knowing you, the latter because it bugs me.

It said that she told him how she helped him get released. In response, he calls her a slut and whatnot, which indicates that she did have sex with him. I doubt she stopped at saying that she just "Spent the night." Even if she did, Robin Hood would have pressed to know what exactly that meant, thus leading to his rage. I think it's heavily implied that she had sex with the Sheriff.

Robin would have called her a slut just for talking to the Sheriff, that's just how he rolled.

This takes place in a medieval folk tale. There's only one thing that two adults who don't love each other do at night in that case. And just to be clear, it sure as hell isn't going to be professions of love from a balcony.

She spent the night with the Sheriff.

Doesn’t say she slept with him, doesn’t say she fucked him, doesn’t say she gave him a rusty trombone. Just says spent the night.

He could have been just talking with her like some people do with hookers for some strange reason.

Did they fuck? Probably, but just going by the exact words written it’s not an absolute certainty.

Doesn’t really make any difference since Robin was still being an abusive woman beating asshole either way.

Yes, that's pretty much the case. Also, I did take into account why she did what she did (not in my post, but I was thinking about it), but that doesn't change much. Loyalty is still loyalty in all aspects, and committing adultery - especially when you don't know if you'll reap said benefits of such adultery - is a bad thing. Robin Hood is understandably upset about it. I also see it as a cause and effect kind of deal. If she hadn't slept with the Sheriff in the first place (because there is no indication that she couldn't have just refused his offer) than Robin Hood wouldn't have turned abusive.

EDIT: Just looked at my own post, I think you missed this part: "Sure, she did it because she wanted to help Robin Hood get out, but cheating is still cheating."

You've really not made anymore of a case for yourself. I'm going to be optimistic for once and assume you haven't had a girlfriend and won't get one, or maybe if you get one she's like a pedophile who deserves you.

I have had a couple, but how is that even relevant to this?

Because your morality system is fucked beyond repair, dude, and in a way that any girl (or dude, whatever floats your boat) who ends up in a relationship with someone who thinks abuse is better than adultery is an unfortunate soul.

You're missing the point.

I don't think adultery is worse than abuse, but I am saying that, in this particular case, the abuse was an effect of the adultery. Thus, had the adultery never happened, the situation wouldn't have escalated like this.

See, that's not how things work, so I say you're the one who doesn't really understand what I'm saying here, or normal human emotions. The fact that the adultery led to the abuse is literally meaningless here.

So you're saying she deserved it then.

No, but I am saying that she caused it. It was a direct result of her actions. Also, I'm pretty sure I already said that I don't condone physical abuse.

As to what Steve said, how is it meaningless? If something happened as a result of something you did, how does it not factor in?

If you're going to argue who caused it you literally have an endless regression. Robin caused it for getting caught. The Sheriff caused it for catching him. King John caused it for treating the poor so badly and leading to this. Hell, even if you didn't take that into account, so what? A wife letting the dinner go cold also causes the abuse she'll face.

Well, no. By saying she caused it and that her actions were worse than Robin's within this context but not in general, you're saying she deserved it and thus Robin is less to blame.

If you yelled at someone who was holding a gun and they shot you because of it, you wouldn't say you yelling was worse simply because it's what caused them to shoot you.

The logic is the same. You only think it's okay that he hit her because of how you rank the infidelity.

Actually, Steve, it isn't an endless regression because we're only talking about these four people in this particular situation.

No, you're just putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that she caused it to happen, but never did I say or imply that she deserved it. I've already stated that Robin Hood should never have physically abused her in the first place (had I been in his situation, I would have just left her behind). And you're right, I wouldn't say that you yelling was worse than the person pulling the trigger, but I would have said you should have remained calm and kept quiet, and maybe you would have made it out alive.

It's like when someone was discussing a mass shooting that took place at the college, instead of standing there, someone should have/could have rushed the gunman. That person would have likely died (and a few more), but numerically, it is the best decision to make. Not saying that doing nothing was bad, but it caused more people to get hurt.

And it has less to do with infidelity than it does with loyalty. Infidelity is another form of betrayal. If she was really loyal to him, she would have waited for his return (if he would have returned, I don't remember how the story goes).

There was never going to be a return lol. Pretty sure with his crimes he would have been hung, hence Marion's desperation to free him.

So what you're actually saying is if she really loved him she should have let him die.

Yeah, so then it's Robin's fault for getting caught in the first place or the Sheriff's fault for catching them if you want to limit it.

Dude, you're just blaming the victim. Should the abused wife have just made her husband his dinner on time? You said the Maid was further down on your list because of the adultery, but the adultery is worse. Hence an abused wife who doesn't make the dinner not only doesn't feed her hard working husband when he wants it but causes abuse.

Since as Killa said he would've been hung, you're basically saying if you're really loyal to someone, let them die rather than fucking someone. Which if it's your opinion I think you're retarded, but it isn't particularly evil, but I'm not arguing that. Sure, think the Maid should've done something else, whatever. It's the ranking the maid worse than the abuser that's the evil thing.

I don't see how you think you can compare not making dinner with stepping on a commitment you made to someone (unless that commitment included a hot meal every time you get home from work).

Blaming the victim? Would I be wrong in saying that a woman shouldn't have worn revealing clothes in a bad part of town where she was walking by herself late at night thus resulting in her getting sexually assaulted? It's similar logic here. The actions of the assaulter are neither being condoned or justified, but pointing out how it could have easily been prevented isn't blaming the victim, its stating an obvious truth. If a husband beats his wife just because there isn't any dinner ready, he's an asshole. Simple as that.

Actually, I was going to say to look for some alternative to free the one you love. Instead of giving up your integrity and spitting on a commitment of loyalty. Breaking that commitment, even to save the one you made the commitment with, carries the risk of losing that person. You cause more pain. Pain to yourself, the one you wanted to save, and anyone else that is affected by the outcome of your actions. From what the story tells us, she didn't even look for an alternate way to free him - she took the quickest and easiest. Then she had to deal with the result of her actions. Also, the story kind of implies that she wouldn't have told Robin Hood had he not asked. That doesn't help her at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if that factored into his outrage.

Yes, you can. You've said abuse is worse than adultery, yet your explanation why why the Maid's further down on the list is because she caused it. Hence, the wife who didn't make a hot meal is worse because she caused the abuse. What's the difference in the cause they cause making them worse?

Yet if a husband beats his wife because she slept with someone else to get him out of jail, he's not as bad as the woman, as you said. You've failed to show how causing the abuse makes the action/ person doing the action worse with the adultery, yet not the wife who didn't cook the dinner.

Yeah, well there was no alternative, as the story makes clear. I really don't think if you're dating anyone other than an absolute dumbass you're causing less pain by letting your husband get executed or imprisoned for life. The story never says she didn't look for an alternative, and it doesn't seem there was one. You also say that she wouldn't have told Robin, when you're talking out of your ass because the story quite obviously never implies this. Otherwise, she would've just lied.

No, you can't. And I said abuse is, in no situation, a good thing. Betraying someone? Violating would should be a loyal bond? That's something that I thing is inexcusable. The wife wasn't bound by any commitment to have a hot meal ready, and not making it doesn't violate that bond. It's as simple as that and you blatantly mischaracterizing every other thing I'm saying is petty and dishonest of you. It's a trend that I notice you have.

If I'm following what you're saying correctly, you're telling me that you think that I think (not making dinner = adultery) because it caused the woman in both cases to be abused. Is that right?

I didn't remember it correctly, it says that Robin immediately demanded to know how and she told him. And you must be talking out of your ass because the story never makes clear that there isn't any other alternative. It goes:

1. Robin Hood and Little John are captured.
2. Marion begs Sheriff for release.
3. Sheriff makes offer.
4. Marion takes offer.

No where does it imply she looks for an alternative based on the sequence of the events. If she did, I think it would have been worth putting in the story so it would have been clear that she is doing this as a last-ditch effort instead of immediately going to the Sheriff and sleeping with him.

You're missing the point completely. You've said abuse is worse than adultery, but in this case Marion is worse than Hood because the adultery leads to abuse and it's her fault. Hence, the wife's actions leads to the abuse and its her fault, and she is worse than the abuser. Not making the meal doesn't have to be a negative thing for that to make sense. 

No, I'd say you probably don't think that. I'm saying that the logic you're using to blame Marian says that the wife who doesn't make the dinner is worse, and hence it's fucked up 

They're captured and put in a maximum-security dungeon, which is to emphasize that there is no escape.

I'd say that Marion is worse because she wasn't faithful, yes. That to me, not being loyal, is one of the greatest offenses.

I don't think that if your actions leads to abuse that the person who committed what led to the abuse is worse. It depends entirely on the situation. If the wife didn't make dinner - for whatever reason - that doesn't mean that it's her fault that her husband comes home and beats her, nor is she worse than the husband.

You seem to be taking the logic I used in this case and applying it to cases that it wouldn't make any sense. Whether or not the person who did whatever action is worse than the person who abuses in return for said action depends on the situation. It's case-by-case, not a blanket way of looking at things. In this particular case, she betrayed someone who - as far as I know - has remained loyal and faithful to her. Robin Hood's response to what she did was bad, but I rank him higher than her because he never betrayed her the way she did him.

Considering what kind of story this is, I expected some sort of Deus Ex Machina, or maybe she'd get the peasants to revolt and break him out since peasant revolts did happen around that time period. I don't know what else she could have done, what strings she could have pulled, but the story never says that she even tried another option.

See, that's a load of bollocks, because you already said you don't think adultery is worse that abuse. You're flip-flopping on your point now.

Well yeah, it's as much her fault that she gets beaten as it is Marion's that she gets beaten. Both of their actions caused it. If you're saying this, the fact that Marion's actions caused the abuse don't mean shit either, so you shouldn't have brought it up.

Yeah, but you already said that abuse was worse than adultery, so you're once again going back on what you said.

You're talking gibberish now, because this story is about morality, not Deux Ex Machina. For their to be any other path would be completely against what the story's trying to do.

... Ha... Bollocks...

Wrong. I never changed my stance on whether I think abuse is worse than adultery. As an act itself - separate from morality, I think abuse is worse. Adultery, because it implies heavily on dishonesty, lack of loyalty, etc, is morally worse than abuse in most cases. Is this not a test about morality? Adultery is morally worse than abuse for the reasons I stated, thus I ranked her last. Outside the question of morals, abuse is worse. I don't tend to look at things from a moral perspective, in this case I am, and because of that, I ranked her last.

No it's not. Really. In one case, you betray someone that has always been loyal to you, in another, you forgot to make dinner. Mistakes happen, or maybe something came up. You're applying that one line of logic to a scenario where it obviously wouldn't make sense and then assume that that's how I'd view the situation despite me saying that it's case-by-case.

Abuse is worse than adultery, and I don't get where you're being confused.

It's still a story.

Abuse is worse than adultery... but not morally. First, it's fucked up you think adultery is worse than abuse, but outside of morals, nothing is wrong! You're talking complete and utter gibberish! Without morality, how is anything wrong?

Yeah, and in both cases they lead to the abuse. Unless you're going to argue that Marion deserved the abuse, it doesn't matter. The fact that you consider the adultery worse is irrelevant!

Yeah, it's a story. So what? You were talking about the kind of story, which is where you were being an idiot. This is the equivalent of you saying "That's a fast car!", before I tell you it's a slow car, and you say "It's still a car!" So what?

Well, mathematically, abuse is worse. But adultery has better, more functional algorithms.

Because the law, Steve. Law is separate from morality.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to think that I think that any action that leads to a negative outcome is the fault of the person committing said act. That's simply not true. Also, adultery is worse only if we're talking about morality, hence my ranking.

I just want a good story.

See, now you're just lying, because no one has mentioned law except you. You've flip-flopped on your positions and have tried to excuse them with this drivel. I said your morality system was fucked, and you responded saying you don't think adultery is worse than abuse. So either you're a retard who doesn't understand how discussions work to the point you should be fed through a tube, or you're just going back on position.

No, I don't think you hold that position. I think you were picking and choosing with your beliefs and bull shitting without logic, which really hasn't been disproven.

All in all here, you've been arguing for a faulty, nonsense point since you first said you don't think abuse is worse than adultery. You're agreeing with what I first said that you argued with about you having a fucked up morality, so really, you've just been arguing when you know you're wrong the whole time.

I'm lying by saying that the law is separate from morality? How? I haven't flip-flopped once aside from whatever goes on inside your head, Steve. You're imagining things and relying on ad hominems to cover up your bullshit way of thinking.

If you don't think I hold that position, why do you keep bringing it up? You're beating a dead horse to the point that its nothing more than a pile of red mush. There is nothing more to add to it and we keep speaking in circles.

I said abuse isn't worse from a moral standpoint. This whole time I've been saying that abuse is worse because I've been viewing it from a legal standpoint.

"You're agreeing with what I first said that you argued with about you having a fucked up morality, so really, you've just been arguing when you know you're wrong the whole time."

What?

No, you're lying that at any point you meant the law. We've been talking about morality this whole time. No one has mentioned law, and whether something's illegal has nothing to do with whether it's worse from a moral stand point. So quite frankly you're lying about having meant the law or you're unbelievably stupid.

Because that's where the logic you use leads. It's like if Malk said he thinks adultery is fine because you should have sex with whatever you want whenever you want for whatever reason, but I then asked if he thought pedophillia was OK and he said no. He's utterly disregarded the logic he used for the first point and is picking and choosing, or in other words, being a retard.

Yes, in a conversation about morality and in response to what I said about morality, you started talking about the law for some random reason without mentioning it. Yeah, no thinking being would do that.

At the start of this I said you had fucked up morality, and you argued with that using the arguments you used up until now, which now you claim to be from a legal standpoint. As you yourself say law and morality have nothing to do with each other, what was the point in bringing them up in what I said about your morality? Unless of course you're lying and didn't mean law, but argued yourself into a corner.

And how would you know what I meant whether it be morality or the law? You don't know how I think and you can't have known what I meant until I tell you.

No it doesn't, Steve. You keep taking someone's position and immediately bring it to an extreme version of it just so you can make it seem absurd despite being told that that's not the stance being held. If Malk says that you should fuck whomever you want whenever you want for whatever reason, then he says that he doesn't approve of pedophilia, I see no contradiction. From what he said, he likely means that any consenting adult should be able to have sex with whom they want. But if you decide to bring it to an extreme, "So does that mean that rape is okay in your book?!" the only one that looks foolish is you. That, and dishonest.

What was the point? Because I wanted to.

Well the alternative is you're completely retarded. Imagine if I made a thread about the best car to drive in the Grand Prix, and I say vans would be the worst vehicle to race the Grand Prix in. Then Sent says vans would be the best. I then tell Sent a van would be a bad vehicle to race the Grand Prix in, and we argue for a while, only for Sent to say he meant vans would be the best vehicle to live in. Do you see how retarded you'd have to be to have responded to someone saying something about morality by saying something, meaning in your head in legal terms, without mentioning it, in a thread about morality? So you're either a filthy liar or an absolute retard. It could be either, I suppose.

I don't give a shit if you say you don't se a contradiction, because there is one. There is a direct contradiction in what he said. He could clarify his point, but to simply say pedophillia's still bad without changing his original statement in contradictory.

Oh good, you admit you were spewing gibberish then. Terrific.

That example doesn't correlate to this situation in the slightest. We're not talking about cars, we're talking about morality.

There is no contradiction, Steve. You're letting your ego blind you from the truth. By saying that he wouldn't condone pedophilia, he's basically saying that his statement applies with exception to [insert condtion here]. That is him refining it. You are instead choosing to hand on to that one thing as if your life depended on it. Why are you doing that to yourself, Steve?

I wasn't speaking gibberish. I've been consistent this entire time. You've been the one moving the goalposts at every opportunity, then mentally masturbating to a faulty point that I wasn't even making.

Apparently not, as you were talking about law. Also, it does correlate, since we were all talking about something, and then you said you were actually talking about something else. But, I'l glad you admit you were also talking about morality.

Yes, there is. It's not him refining it, it's him making exceptions. If I say I like all fruit and then say I don't like apples, contradiction. I'm not refining my original point. You're just making excuses for your own contradiction.

We were talking about morality in a thread about morality after you responded to my thread about morality. Only at the end do you say you were actually talking about something unrelated. You're speaking gibberish.

It does correlate, a lot, actually. The point isn't about cars, the point is that if you're arguing for one thing all while the other person is arguing another, on entirely different grounds, then it's god-tier stupid and/or moving the goal posts when you suddenly reveal you were arguing about something else. You can both be arguing about laws, or you can both be arguing about morality, but when you try to compare the two without one party knowing it until you tell them, no argument is actually happening, you're bashing apples against oranges.

The law was made in order to enforce common morals in a way that most people agree upon, and gives potential offenders all a fair system of punishment/rehab.

So, actually harming a person isn't worse than something that hurts fee-fees and isn't actually a crime anymore? I mean, I would say that adultery can be used also as a means of abuse, but that wasn't what was going on here. Granted, given how quickly she rebounded for someone she didn't even know half as well, I wouldn't say it was sheerly out of loyalty to Robin that she did that, but she did save his ass.

A good story is bullshit in this case.

"Two trains are going down a track. If Train X approaches the intersection A from 80 miles away at a speed of 65 miles per hour, and Train Y approaches from 30 miles away at 22 miles per hour, when would the trains meet, if at all?"

Sure, it'd be a better story if pirates could have hijacked one of the trains and stopped it all together, but that doesn't answer the fucking question.

That's the point. Physically hurting someone is always worse than simply hurting someone's feelings (though again, there are exceptions). However, I personally view disloyalty - what she demonstrated - as horrid. Also, it isn't like when someone goes through something like that they don't try to immediately look for something to distract them. In this case, Little John.

I'm just going to throw this out there, despite having put only some thought into it

One might argue that adultery is a form of abuse in and of itself, as you are destroying a social pact of loyalty in much the same way the physical abuser is destroying a social pact of safety.

Personally, I'd say physical abuse is the worse of the two, but the argument can be made either way.

True, but in cases like these, adultery can be done explicitly for a person, where physical/emotional abuse against the partner can't really be done for that person's sake unless you're a drill sergeant, or a borderline psychopath like V or So Chan. Even then, it's not really loving. But since adultery, as you said, is a matter of social contracts, it can only really be abusive or cruel if your partner isn't okay with it and you know it.  Marion should have asked Robin if he was willing to have her do that first, but Sheriff probably put her on the spot and they never brought up something like that before.

And that is why Marion ranks lowest. She's scum. I don't know what about this is so hard to understand.

This was never established in the relationship. She wasn't doing it to abuse him. She assumed it would be okay if she saved his life/name by sleeping with the sheriff. That's loyal intent but with negative results. One can also go in assuming she knew Robin wouldn't be okay with it and she fucked the sherriff to piss him off, but it turns out Robin is actually way into that and loves Marion for it. That's abusive intent with positive results. Since intent was never explicitly mentioned, and she could just as easily have been after Little John the whole time, it can't be argued so well.

Assuming she wanted to save Robin, no matter how attached she really was, then yes, Robin is looking a gift-horse in the mouth and he is scum. Marion wasn't being scum, but she was being reckless with the feelings of other people.

"We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances."

shits got a higher opinion of me than I do

We are the same.

We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.

Men: Do we detect a sense of chivalry and idealism under the sophistication?

Honestly, I’m not sure why Little John is getting ranked so highly. The guy’s a fucking opportunistic asshole that wasted no time in making off with his best friend’s girl.

Little John is the classic white knighting “nice guy” douchebag that just waits around hoping to get the scraps of someone who actually has the confidence to talk to women.

It’s pretty obvious that this test was written by a “Little John”

I was thinking the same thing, even though I ranked him higher. For me, it's because what he does is relatively better than what everyone else does. The Sheriff shirks his duty by even considering letting two criminals go, Robin Hood is an abusive asshole, Marion is an adulterer that caused Robin Hood to be an abusive asshole, Little John came in while Marion was vulnerable and whisked her away from a bad situation.

Between corruption, abuse, and being a weak-minded adulterer, I think being a "white knight" is the lesser of the evils.

EDIT: Also, this goes into none of that happening if Marion hadn't slept with the Sheriff. This is mostly her fault.

You're supposed to rank on honesty and morality. From that perspective he didn't do anything morally wrong, nor did he lie. Not to mention Marion saved him as well, so it's possible he felt indebted.

If anything the test was written by a feminist. Your result is better the higher you rank Marion and the lower you rank robin/the Sheriff.

The Sheriff, Maid Marion, Robin Hood, Little John

If you are not living a happy life, the cause is within yourself. You are a rebel with a trace of spoilt child about you. You value truth above morality, but you are reasonably tolerant of those who disagree with you.

Men: Any problems you have are not likely to be centered in sex.

Yeah, sure let's go with this.

@Danaos

Stop arguing with Steve for one second and answer the Bridge Test.

If your answers are anything like they are for the Robin Hood test, there should be some interesting reactions.

Adding a sense of morality to these situations is hurting my head.

Go away, stop ruining my fun! And give me back my abortion/porn/religion/ ass eating thread!

That was my abortion/porn/religion/ass eating thread! And it was FOR THE ART!

Our abortion/porn/religion/ass eating thread.

I'm trying to multiply the lulz, now go argue with him about his choices for the Bridge test. He put Malk last.

On it.