They sure are judgmental.  It's quite lovely.  There are no wrong answers in the sense that you can't "lose", I guess.

In any case, I submitted Maid Marion, Little John, Robin Hood, and The Sheriff in that best/worst order, and claims that I am expected to be a happy, well-rounded person.  Does that mean I won?

Do you realy beleive that The man who took sexual advantage of someone for a favor is more moral than a person who was disgusted by her agreement to do so? in no way is robin in the right here, but the sherif is far worse.

Wait, did it say that robin physically abused her? If so then i missed that and your probably correct.

it said abused. he could have voiced his dissaprovement harshly or wrote a harshly worded email.

In this scenario i suppose i would flip the sheriff and robin hood. hmmm...

Thats my first impression as well, but I can admit it doesn't specifically name physical abuse, so he could have abused her by calling her a slut or whatever. Also, did they say slut in ye olden times? I don't think this story is very accurate lol.

Its obviouse what order the writer beleives is correct if read them 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.

Thats the order i chose as well.

I put robin last. He shouldn't have done that to his girl like a few people have said before.

I agree

true, but I rate using a woman sexually worse. It can be very traumatic.

I was thinking: He gave her a choice...

Which now that I think about it... Robin had a reason to get upset with her for agreeing... Still he definately should not have done what he did...

Okay now i'm having second thoughts

Of course he shouldn't have from my point of view, I mean she did it to help him out, but the nasty fact of the matter is the Sheriff gave her teh choice of having her man rot in jail or becoming a whore. She exchanged sexual favors for a form of reward, so I would call that becoming a whore.

I was going to say Robin is the one who landed himself in jail, but it was for 'good' reasons, and the sheriff is the one who caught him. But then he was just doing his job...

I will ponder this until my brain hurts.

The sheriff is the bad guy. Even though he was just doing his job, he released the convict to get laid, which means he's corrupt.

True, I just don't like guys who abuse their 'girlfriends' (I guess i must've let my feelings get in the way of my judgement)

Actually, now that I go back I might have actually chosen Robin as worse than Sheriff. Might.

I picked Little John first. Obviously did the right thing by caring for somebody in distress.

Second, I put Maid Marion. I absolutely hate women who cheat, but in this case she did it for all the right reasons (to free Robin).

Third, I picked the Sheriff. He was doing his job by imprisoning Robin, and though he is corrupt he kept to his word.

Lastly I picked Robin, who was ungrateful for her role in his release. Even though I understand the anger he felt, violence/abuse doesn't solve anything.

I considered my answer carefully before putting it in. At first I wanted to put Maid Marion last, but I considered the circumstances and changed my mind.

I remember bo saying that using a woman sexually can be very traumatizing, and yet...she agreed to it and was not 'bewildered' and those words specifically, yet she was when Robin abused her. In a sense, the abuse was trauma, the sex, not so much. Maybe even pleasurable, in a sense. So, is the sheriff really that wrong? I haven't read about Robin Hood or did the test, but how can you compare some guy from the looks of it to a sheriff who might or might not have kids and a wife that left him? Robin Hood was praised as EndMaster said, and what does the sheriff get in return for feeding his family? Probably talks of Robin Hood on the dinner table since being like EndMaster said, being a sheriff probably doesn't pay that much. And think about how miserable his kids must be when the whole town cries your dad out as the fascist?

Robin Hood, I feel is like the presentation of every twenty year old that feels that they're invincible and the world is just an oyster he can pluck because of his selfish need for attention. Think about why the upper class today donate to charity if not to get praises and show off to his peers? Same can be applied to Robin Hood, he can help the small people, but who is he helping besides those around him who praises him? Would he help third world countries even if they never meet, write letters, or even know of each other's existence just simply so to ease a feeling of sympathy for the woes of the masses? Not likely.

And as for Marion, how can I say this..? Well, Marion could have thought of different plans, but every one of those probably involve the lives of others and have the risk of them using their lives as well. So...lets say you're female, and your love is probably going to be executed soon, you don't want to risk little john or another person losing their life to rescue Robin, and all of a sudden, the sheriff offers sex, what would you do? In this case, I think a life would be more important than say, Robin's possession of a property called Marion. Which in this case is, Robin didn't want another guy playing with his "property" and lashed out on Marion instead. Plus, if Robin had an escape plan as one of you mentioned, wouldn't you tell your love or signal them so they don't have to worry? Obviously, Robin had no plans.

From what you guys told me of little john, I can say this much: how often did you become friends with a female you really like even if she had a boyfriend? I don't know about you, but I have done it once or twice, just waiting for her to be "free" again. I can't really blame him for it, I mean, it isn't like he had an affair with Marion with she was with Robin, right? Or did he? I don't know that much about little john.

Hmm, hard to rank them based on these two things, I think. haha

Marion: She loves Hood, so she asks the Sheriff to let 'em go.  After being asked to sleep with him in exchange for her love's release, she agreed (I'll assume reluctantly).  She ultimately tells Hood how they were released, but after being abused by her love and told he never wanted to see her again, she ran into the arms of another man... So, while her first act wasn't entirely "moral," you can say it was maybe justified.  She even went on to confess to Hood, after being asked, which means that she's at least honest about it.  And after being abused, you can maybe see why her running off with another man might also be justified.  Though, her "honesty," if that's the proper word, may also seem to come into question because of it.

Robin Hood: After asking Marion how she had the Sheriff release them (this was a demand), becomes enraged.  He proceeds to verbally, and perhaps otherwise, abuse her (I'll assume with clouded judgement due to shock)... So, while his actions against Marion after his release may not have appeared moral, they seemed to be entirely honest.  The event doesn't explicitly state that he physically abused her, so giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll say he was pissed about it and yelled at her.  Though, it seems he took it pretty far.

The Sheriff:  He imprison's Hood, and why shouldn't he, it's kinda his job.  He then agrees to release them under the condition that Marion sleeps with him, and then does so after his night with her...  Seems like a clear case of immorality, in regards to his condition.  And also a lack of honesty in regards to his position as Sheriff.  Although, he does release the two as promised in the end.

Little John:  After witnessing his best friend Robin Hood abuse Marion, he makes a move.  This could be either because he sees her in a vulnerable position and just wants to make a move before Hood calms down, or because he truely digs her and can't stand the way Hood's treating her.  Either way, clear violation of the bro code :p ... Could go either way.  I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt, too, and say that he's just a guy in love with his buddy's chick.  Morality and honesty comes into question in his relationship with Hood, 'cause he's kinda going behind his back.  Although, he accepts her even though she slept with the Sheriff, which was something Hood couldn't do (or, he's just down with the slutty chicks, haha). Still, though, if I'm looking at the best case, he's almost entirely honest and is moral in the sense that he's taking her away from Hood's abusive nature.

So, what trumps what?  Is some morality better than some honesty?  Or all moral and no honesty worse than some moral and totally honesty?  Really hard to say...

Marion first, 'cause she seems to just be going with the flow.  Did what she had to do to get the guys outta there, and she's probably not proud of it.  Then, after confessing, she takes of with Hood's best friend, but he is promising lifelong devotion, which we can only assume is true.  Then Little John.  Could be first, could be last, depending on how you frame 'em.  While dishonest to Hood, he's honest about his love for Marion and accepts her regardless of the night before.  Hood next, because he probably acted out of rage.  He obviously was pissed and overreacted, abusing her wasn't cool, but still entirely honest, at least about his pain.  And last, the Sheriff.  Totally immoral doing Hood like that and for asking Marion to sleep with him.  On top of that, he's a shitty sheriff for letting two criminals out of his dungeon, haha, even though he was only doing as he promised.

Marion > Little John > Robin Hood > Sheriff; get's me:

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.

Huzzah. haha  I can dig it. :p

This "psychologist" really annoys me with his/her judgements of your moral character. He/she's clearly sexist.

Haha, that's kinda hilarious though.  I agree, it's sexist BS, but still kinda funny

Hahah, whaaat!  Really?

Hahah, okay.  I was like "what the hell did he put?"

I know there's a lot of talk about the Psychologist being sexist on here, so I decided to go back and set all of my choices to exactly the same things I did before, only this time I said that I was a woman to see what reaction I would get. Basically, when I'm a man, I worship women and think they are a lot better than they really are, but when I'm a woman, I think men suck because I want too much, and so I'm gonna be lonely for the rest of my life. Has anyone else tried this tactic? Maybe the Psychologist isn't so much sexist rather than just an ass.

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?

The way I saw it, Little John was the only one still there for Marion after Robin Hood abused her. Little John still promised to love her even though she had nothing left to give him.

Marion did cheat on Robin, but for good reasons. John also "stole his best friend's girl", but he did it to keep her from being abused, which for all we know could have been very brutal. So, on a morality scale, I ranked John pretty high on that one.

The madman, the woman, the lover, the friend and neither the ferryman nor the baron knew that their actions in this could even remotely result in anyone's death (although the baron deserved being cheated on, but that is not the issue here), so I consider them to be equally innocent. Unless the woman told the ferryman that if he wouldn't ferry her across, she would die, but then again, if I was in that position, I probably wouldn't consider it to be very credible. Also, I assumed she explained the entire situation to her friend, and it was obvious that her lover knew what the situation was, so yeah, assuming all the things I just said are true, the row is as I described above.

The Woman, The Madman, The Lover, The Friend, The Ferryman, The Baron

Funny- the reverse order of how it was put up there. Ultimately, it was between the Woman and the Madmad. It was the woman's fault for disobeying The Baron and not listening when the Madman said he was going to kill her. The Madman is second guilty because he actually killed her. Then again, in court, you might be able to say that's premeditated murder, but I still think it's mostly the Woman's fault.

I have to agree, the other's may be somewhat responsible to how they acted to the situation the madman gave them, but it was the madman that made the situation.

I don't know. I still blame both the madman and the woman. She knew that if she was going to cross the bridge, she was going to die. It's almost suicidal. It's like she looked at the beartrap and then deliberately decided to step in it.

Yes, but she took the chance of dodging the "beartrap". She knew the madman would try to kill her, but of course, she would try to endure that he wouldn't succeed. I agree that the woman is somewhat to blame, because as you said, she could have made a decision that resulted in her not crossing the madman's path, but if it hadn't been for the madman, she wouldn't have had to make the decision in the first place, therefore, it is mostly his fault.

Ensure*

Yet also, if the woman didn't have a lover on the side, she wouldn't have been killed by the madman.

True, but when she made that decision, the madman wasn't considered. Of course he wasn't. When someone decides to go outside and gets killed by a psycho, they can't be blamed for not assuming there's a psycho he/she'll run into. We can all agree that the woman's decision was wrong, but whether she should have cheated on the baron isn't the issue, it is who's fault her death is. The point being, she couldn't possibly have knows that the madman would be there when she started going out with her lover. Besides, the madman sounds mad on a level that he would have killed anyone going past him, whether it was her or not. lets say someone was out for a stroll and crossed the bridge, causing him to get killed by the same madman. is that person to blame because he decided to go out for a walk?

If he was warned that the madman was going to kill him like the woman was, I don't believe he would be completely faultless.

I mean he's not to blame because he decided to take a walk. You said that the woman was to blame because she was having a lover, my point was that she didn't know she would meet the madman any more than the guy taking a stroll. And as for the fact that she decided to cross the street anyway...well...I covered that in my final comment. She is somewhat to blame, but not nearly as much as the madman, as he is the reason she had to make her decision in the first place.

I agreed with everything... up until...

She is also the reason she had to make the decision, but for the sake of the fact that I'd rather not argue until the sun rises, in, say, a court, the madman would easily be the one blamed for the murder. What his sentence would be is another question. But, then again, if you look at everything, perhaps the madman could not get so much blame- which is my point. He wasn't some random guy; he was a madman. Why stress the mad if not for a reason? I bring back into perspective the fact that he may not have had control over his actions, but, the fact is, we just don't know.

Even though he isn't fully in control of his actions, he is more to blame than her (at least for the decision to murder anyone trying to cross the bridge), and as I said, if it hadn't been for him, she would never have had to make that choice in the first place. Think of it as a tree that branches into several different branches, and each branch does the same. Now lets say that the branch represents everything anyone involved could have done in the situation, and the branch that ends with the madman killing her is of course how the event ends up. All the branches are decision people would have had to make (such as everyone turning her down when she comes for help) would never have occurred if the tree itself (which represents the madman wanting to kill everyone who try to cross the bridge) was a different course of action.

Descending as in the one who is the most guilty goes first? In that case

Baron

Woman

Madman

Lover (which turned out to be just a booty call)

Friend

Ferryman

Reasons:

Baron: The Baron locked away his wife in the first place.  Love for your wife I can understand, but locking her up in order to ensure her loyalty is bound to end in disaster. Basically, if he treated his wife a little better, this whole escapade wouldn't have happened.

Woman: Although she was within her rights to leave (although she did marry the dude in the first place) she knew it was risky to leave the castle. She might not have known that risk was a knife weilding maniac, but the fact remains that she could have stayed within the walls.

Madman: I know the madman was crazy, and so probably either didn't know what he was doing or was too insane to care, but the test was who is the most responsible for the Woman's death, so the guy who wields the murder weapon is pretty highly up there.

Lover: Basically, he was a dick. Assuming the lover was on the side, and the woman had to come and go quickly, we can come to the conclusion that she had to go to a nearby village to get her lovin'. If the village is nearby a castle, chances are the residents know who the owner is. Especially if the owner is a high ranking official like the Baron. They would also know his tendencies and the identity of his spouse. Knowing these things, the Lover still did things we can only imply with the Baron's wife. Although he did have the right to save his own skin (and by doing this I think we can assume he didn't truly love her), but in doing so he ranks himself in the middle of this list.

Friend: Didn't really see many reasons to fault her, honestly. Maybe I'm just missing something, but even though loyalty to your friends is important, it doesn't mean you need to go and get yourself killed so your friend won't get slapped around.

Ferryman: I didn't see anything he did wrong at all. He had a toll to ferry her across, and seeing as he was scammed before, he demanded cash up front, end of story.

Those are who I believe are the most responsible for the woman's death. Feel free to debate it, but I doubt you will sway my mind on this.

I have to say that the only thing I feel wrong with that is the baron. Yes, he was a complete asshole and shouldn't have treated his wife the way he did, HOWEVER, I do not see him being to blame for her dying, which is what this is about, isn't it? He was one of the few who didn't even know about the madman (and if he did, that wasn't mentioned), and although he got what was coming to him when his wife cheated on him and he might have been able to forsee that, I don't see any way he could have forseen her dying at the hands of the madman.

None of them forsaw the madman, and only a few knew. But still when Endmaster asks who's to blame, I'm going to go with who started the whole situation in the first place. Hypothetical situation: the Chinese invade America, and kick our asses so badly, the last American stronghold is DC. Seeing this, the current President goes a little crazy and presses the big red button. Although the blame for the Apocalyptic wasteland would fall upon the President, it would also fall upon the Chinese for starting the whole thing.

Of course I might be a little biased because I am American, but I would blame both.

Sure, but the Chinese wouldn't be able to forsee it's effects, if they knew it was there, they might be able to assume that if they push too hard, they might force them to use it...whatever it is. However, the one that makes the actual decision to do it is the President. Yes, no one forsaw the madman, and the woman cannot be blamed for going to see her lover that night (well, she can be blamed for cheating on him, but not on the subject at hand), because no one can expect her to be able to predict the future. However, she did make the decision to try to cross the bridge after being warned by the madman, and that is why I placed her second. She should have known better, but if there hadn't been any madman, there wouldn't have been any trouble. Additionally, the baron can't forsee the future, anymore than his wife can. He seems to be a total douche, and you're right, the whole relationship was bound to end with a catastrophe, but the madman wasn't a part of the relationship, and that catastrophe was a completely random unforseeable event. When I said the baron was one of the few that was oblivious to the madman's existance, I mean during the event, the woman knew about him, the lover knew about him, I assume the friend did and I don't know about the ferryman.

My jest is this: why was the ferrymen the last option? Should it have been the first? I mean, if you're the wife of a baron, borrowing 5 gold pieces really isn't that hard, is it? Another thing, why didn't she carry any gold at all in the first place, because she didn't trust her lover? And if she didn't, why would she RISK her life to sleep with him?

From my perspective, yes, the madman did kill her, but if say the baron hired the madman or if he found out and killed her- would that mean the baron was at fault this time? The judgment of the poor girl is ridiculous. If you're going to sleep with some random person, sleep with a person in the castle. Not to mention, if she was locked up, how did she escape in the first place, especially if the baron probably had told the guards to watch her or not let her out. Did she sleep with them too? And yes, she probably can order them to let her out, but the guards would have probably told the baron. How slutty is she? I mean, I doubt the baron always kept the same guard to watch her. So, did she sleep with a lot of different guards in order to escape? Her character definitely is in question, even her so-called friends abandoned her.  Not to mention, even if she didn't have 5 gold, she probably could have bought the ride with her dress, shoes, or even sex, rofl. I'm just kidding, but honestly, come on!

Considering her personality, she is in the likelihood of losing her life even if she had married someone else. Her attributes are so bad that if she didn't have a possessive husband, she still have slept with someone else, and inadvertently meant being found out sooner or later. And if found out by a farmer for example, he would kill her or physically abuse her. If she was married to a duke or something, the duke would try to salvage the humiliation from the ongoing rumor by having her assassinated.

That being so, here is my order:

Woman

Baron

Madman

Friend

Ferryman

(I specifically listed baron ahead of madman because she still would have died if the baron found out- if we consider how obsessive he is. Not to mention, any person *that* obsessive would probably be paranoid as well. He would have found out eventually.)

(The friend isn't that really at fault except that of being a bad friend, if we can even consider her as a friend.)

Parents

Sniper

Girl

Baker

I agree the parents should be a factor. Sniper, Parents. I don't think the little girl or the baker are at fault here. The sniper is at the top of the list for killing the little girl for no good reason.

I honestly think this is pretty ridiculous, but I'll give my ranking.

Sniper

Banker/girl (as in a tie for zero)

I saw 3J post about how the sniper randomly killing a girl placed in the middle of a wartorn neighborhood is the same as a madman killing the woman who has a possessive husband and horrible friends. Seriously 3J, you're saying a random scenario like that is the same as a murder case with pre-existing consequences? Obviously the consequences of the first story were what is important, not the fact that the woman was murdered in the middle of the bridge (seriously, you would think that a baron as possessive as her husband would at least gaurd his territory a little better). Now, the reason this is a morality question is because there are a whole lot of reasons this went wrong. She had a possessive husband, she cheated, her boytoy was a dick, and her friend sucked, not just that she walked down a bridge and got murdered. That is where you decide, and presumably, if there were a psychologist behind this, how you rated reflects how you view life.

I know I'm rambling far too much here, but my point is don't compare two completely unrelated cases and expect them to tie together perfectly. It does not proof your case, it doesn't even come close.

How very shortsighted of you.

Sorry for all the apparent confusion.

"existing consequences" as in things that happened before that tie in to the event, in this case murder. Someone walking down the road to get a loaf of bread and getting shot is not the same as someone who got killed when at least two different people both knew about it and could have stopped it. If you have the chance to stop something and refuse, then you are responsible as well.

I didn't stipulate that it had anything to do with the bridge either. The fact of the matter is that she died on a bridge, if I bring that up, it doesn't mean that it changes everything in the equation.

What I was getting at is that if other factors contribute to the murder, then you can't single the cause down to one problem and completely ignore the other factors. That would be like seeing a woman being stabbed on the street and saying that there are no other reasons for her death than the man just felt like stabbing her. Just like the scenario I just mentioned, you can't say the sole reason the woman died was that a madman stabbed her if her death could have easily been prevented.

....Yes, lord 3J, all people who could have prevented it, no matter the consequence, are murderers. They shall all get the chair for their intolerable crimes. You are also right in how the only person responsible for her death is the stabber. I recall all those in interviews who stood by as someone was killed later remarking how they couldn't have done anything and it isn't their fault at all. None who opposes you could possibly make sense. All hail the all-knowing 3J

Screw it, I'm too tired to argue with someone who is that close-minded about something.

In both EndMaster's and JJJ's scenarios, the person who actually killed the girl is the person responsible for the girl's death. I can't see why there is debate over this. Sure, the other people may have contributed to the circumstances in which the girl was killed, but they didn't actually kill her. The madman/sniper did.

To the person above who had the scenario about China invading America and the POTUS effectively committing suicide on behalf of the whole of DC by pressing a big, red self-destruct button - the Chinese may have contributed to the circumstances which made the President want to press the red button, but they are not responsible for destroying DC. The President is, because he pressed the button. If the President didn't press the button and China wiped out DC with atomic bombs, THEN China would be responsible for the destruction of DC.

3J, I used logic, you refused to aknowledge it. The reason I refused to go on was because I put these things out there, and you just acted like everything that comes out of my fingers is stupid. I never said I was right for no reason, and I listed the reasons why I am right, so please be a little more mature about this. I also never said you suck, now if you would like to move on and quit putting words in my mouth, so would I.

Dangit, I typed something huge and it screwed up on the loading. Luckily I I pressed ctrl+a and copied when it took so long to load, so hopefully that worked.

Damnit, that didn't work, I'll post this again under a new post, hopefully it will work, if not I'll send it via PM and if you can make it work, please do so.

Ok guys, I'm pasting this but I'm getting a pop-up saying that "You need to post a message, silly!". I mean, I'm posting it, and the words are on the screen, but its not working. Could this be because I copied as it was loading?

Hold on, let me post to a Word document, then copy that and paste it here, that might work.

Ok, it got what looks like the first 20 words, baby steps I guess. I'll try re-writing everything I just posted, copying it from the word document onto the forum page, if that doesn't work, I'm going to be pretty irritated.

I bowed out sarcastically because I realized you wouldn't listen at all, or at least even put more than 5 seconds of thought into what I said and then ask pointless questions.

(Sigh) Fine, let's do this using your most recent post where you used counterexamples.

"I don't think you know what a 'pre-existing consequence' is. hell, i don't know what that is but it's certainly not what you're talking about" - 3J

Ok 3J, I'll put this simply. A pre-existing consequence is a consequence that has existed since before teh event in question (that's why "pre" was used), in this case the madman murdering a woman. Basically, the fact that the Baron was very possessive and caused the whole scenario., the fact that the Woman cheated on her husband and put herself in a position to be killed, how the Lover was shallow and refused to help her (knowing that she was going to be stabbed) an dhow her friend refused to help her at all, would all be pre-existing consequences.

"So if one has the ability to prevent a muder, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to do so, or they are murderers?" - 3J

yes, it is their responsibility to do so, at least by alerting the guards. However, you are obviously not a murderer unless you murder someone, and I never said they murdered her, just that they could have prevented her murder and didn't, so they are partially responsible for her death.

"I mean, these people knew she'd die and they didn't do anything and her mother knew she'd die eventually and didn't do anything, so therefor her mother is responsible for her death right? I mean, according to your logic, that's the way it works, correct?" - 3J

Went ahead and cut out a whole paragraph for this, because I personally found it funny. Look, we all know people are gonna die right? It's a simple fact of life. However, the difference is that none of us can prevent dying of natural causes. But in this case, they could have stopped it, and so they share responsibility.

Those were the things you typed that I felt should be addressed, if you want me to talk about anything else you said, I'll do so.

I think the Necromancer had a gray robe didn't he? :P

Yeah, I don't see how anybody could have stopped it.

And the Necromancer knew the risks when he began prac ticing illegal magics.

But I have another scenario that I would like to question:

A man is placed in a white box for scientific purposes. He was told that, if he ever needed something, he was to press the blue button on the wall next to the (only, unlocked) door and speak into the intercom. The only thing he couldn't ask for was human company. If he wanted to leave, he was to simply open the door, and the experiment ended.  Seeing as the room he entered had absolutely nothing in it, the first thing he asked for was a bed. He pressed the blue button, and asked for a bed. Within an hour, a bed was placed in his room. After a month of this, he became lonely and homesick, so he left the room. Little did he know, for every time he pressed the button in that one month, someone had died. They were young, healthy, and they wouldn't have died if he simply hadn't pressed the blue button on the wall. Whose fault is it?

Yeah, he's more of an instrument in this case.

I'd say that the man caused the deaths, but the scientists were responsible for them (as the man had no knowledge of what he was doing).

As in, the man is killing people but he isn't responsible for the deaths.

Definetly the scientists. They killed people before their true time came and ruined the man's life by letting him kill people without knowing it and then he has to live the rest of his life with the guilt of killing those people.

Really JJJ?

I'd have to go with the scientists. The man might have killed the people, but they caused it.

      Can we just blame god and stop arguing about who is most responsible?

          Also let me put in another scenario, if god has a way to stop all the problems in the world but chooses not to should he be held responsible?

Well...if he created everything, didn't he create Satan? What about evil? Didn't he create that? So yes, I would say he can be held responsible. Besides, he should have been able to erase all those things after he found out creating them was a bad idea, even though if he was truly almighty, he would know the results of his actions before he made them. But what we're talking about is a perspective where god isn't involved, and if he is, then we're talking about whoever is the most responsible of the mentioned characters, and god is not mentioned, so whether he is responsible for any of the scenarios described above is completely irrelevant.

Horrible scenario I guess. Anyways I've been reading some of these posts and it looks like nobody really answered what JJJ and Bo were arguing about, if it's morally irresponsible for people to ignore other people's problems when they were in a postition to help?

Yes and God had the mercy and compassion towards humans not to kill us all and give us a chance to live our lives.

But...if he can do everything, can't he just erase both Satan and evil?

And everything that stands against him for that matter.

Also, if demons are fallen angels, which god created, couldn't he just...you know...bring them back?

So he's not almighty after all? Because if there is anything he can't do (such as turn demons back to the light side), then his power is by definition limited, and therefore he is not all powerful. Correct?

But...aren't sins supposed to be a creation of Satan, not God? Therefore, they do not fit into his vision of the world, and when God intended to create humans, he probably didn't consider that Satan would bring sins into their world, so is it that God was going to create humans without free will, and then Satan installed it afterwards? Because if that is not the case, I don't see how erasing Satan (or any of the other demons for that matter) would have an impact on free will, because then everything would be as God intended it to be...unless of course God had a bad plan to start with and thinks Satan's version of the plan is better, but since God is supposed to be all knowing (btw, wouldn't he know Lucifer would become Satan before it happened? Isn't God able to timewarp or something) and Satan is supposed to be the represendant of evil, I doubt Satan's plan was better than God's.

I am by the way not trying to insult christianity. Just pointing things out as I see them from the perspective that christianity is real.

Well maybe you should read revelation the last chapter of the bible. It tells how God is going to defeat Satan. We had freewill it's just that we didn't have the knowledge needed to use it to full force. Angels also have free will. In the bible before Satan turned evil it tells how Satan was a beautiful angel that had the most wonderful voice among the angels. He was there to please God. But his head got too big. He didn't understand why someone as beautiful as himself wasn't aloud to be in charge. So he had a falling out with God many angels followed him becoming demons. And ever since he has been out to destroy humanity and thus he helped corrupt the whole planet.

Oh by the way he knew this would happen he is all knowing but he still knew that some of the humans would be able to overcome sin and get the ultimate reward which is heaven.

And so he did not stop the angel Satan was from "falling over to the dark side" in a matter of speaking, even though he obivously could because he can do anything, and so instead of allowing everyone into heaven, he lets Satan create something that can make people too unpure to enter heaven and instead they now have a chance of being damned into eternal torture, even though God could prevent all of this by waving his hand? That's a little...well...sadistic, isn't it? Also, I have read the bible, although I can't say I remember it word for word. And as I asked before, can or can't he turn demond back into angels?

Also, why wait with defeating Satan? I mean, if he's going to do it anyway, he could easily accomplish it at any time?

Also, Satan was there to please God? Can't he just create anything to amuse himself, if that is so important?

Well that's the thing. It's not our choice. It's actually believed that time is different in that realm. And pain and suffering is to test faith. Faith is everything.

He did create it. He created Lucifer. Which was Satan's angel name.

Right, and he created Lucifer as a jealous person who eventually became his archnemesis, or does he just randomize the personality of beings he creates?

Free will. That's the theme. You choose who you are. Lucifer chose to be Satan because jealousy.

But...God constructs everything about a person...doesn't he? Combine that with the ability to forsee the future, and he will know exactly what kind of person he is creating. I mean, he gave Lucifer the personality that caused him to become Satan. Also, if God is all about free will, why does he insist people believe in him? I get that it's nice to get credit for your work, but a part of free will is...well...free will, and if he really wanted everyone to have a free will, he wouldn't care if people believed in him or not since...well...they are free to believe what they want. Isn't "you shall not have other gods" or something like that (I can't recall completely how it was phrased, but I think it basically made the same statement) a referance to the fact that he doesn't want people to believe in just about anything?

He does admit that he is a jealous God. But why not? He did create everything if you created everything out of nothing don't you want to be reconized for it? And he knew that the days after the world had ended would be infintlely better. He and all of his loyal subjects would be able to live in peace for the rest of eternity.

So he actually damns people for believing in another god (or no god at all). That goes against your previous statement of him supporting free will. In fact, that means he forces opinions.

No no no. He gives unlimited chances to redeem yourself. And he lets you choose your fate. He just wants you to choose him. And he is genuinely sad when someone makes the wrong choices.

Well, of course, but sending them off to be Satan's vent for anger is a bit much, don't you think?

Well you know he was good enough to let us live. And give us a chance to get to heaven. You just can't get it all. He does what he sees fit. I mean he could kill ever single one of us or make us feel so much pain we wish to kill ourselves but he doesn't. I mean there is an old saying I rather get to the afterlife with my religion and find out I didn't need it than get there without it when I needed it.

Good enough to let us live? He made us live, but of course, if he makes us live just so we can be tormented would make him a very sadistic individual. Also, did God create personality? If so, does he have personality? If he does, what kind of personality, that of a human? Also, he decides how we think, so he could make sure we think in a manner that causes us to believe in him, making that our choice, therefore, he would not break his code of free will, and everyone would get to heaven.

All right, this is how I see it the whole damning people thing..

You know that annoying guy in the middle of every school-related team or function who has no idea what he's doing and is just there because he felt like he needs something to do when he doesn't really deserve it, which makes everybody super pissed and ruins the experience? That's what I feel about how God  keeps certain people out of heaven. Yes, he created us with free will so we can choose to follow whatever religion we want, be it Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, or simply no religion at all. I see this as being all a part of his grand screening process. Although I personally do not think that  religion is gonna keep you out of heaven as long as you do what the Bible defines as morale, I know some Christians do think that, (as well as certain feelings about homosexuality) so feel free to include that into what I'm about to say. I believe that God gave us the ability to be evil, just like how he gave us the ability to be good, so you, as a person, will decide whether you are righteous enough to enter heaven. Otherwise, the purity of heaven will be compromised leaving us all with a far less enjoyable experience.*

*Many of my beliefs on Christiany are conflicting with traditional Christian churches. I do not "belong" to a certain protestant branch, because seing as no churches I visited made as much sense to me  as I would have liked, I decided to form my own beliefs. Some of my views may offend some strict Christians (they have in the past), but I assure you that is not my intention.

I have to ask, is that being christian? I mean, believing in divine beings is being religious, but religion is not just christianity. How is your religious views any more...lets say Greek mythology? Or buddism. What religion it is is besides the point, but you get what I'm saying. What makes you christian?

The biggest factor is probably being saved along with certain beliefs most christains approve of.

But...most of the religions are (in certain aspects), extremely similar. A friend of mine says he believes in something unexplainable, and claims therefore to be christian? Is he?

It depends. Sometimes it's just a deep unexplainable feeling that makes you beleive in one thing or another.

But how does God see it? When this guy would die, where would he go? There is nothing that indicates the god he believes in isn't Zeus, Allah, Buddha, Thor or any of those guys. Would God know what he believes in, even though he himself doesn't? I mean, I imagine he calls himself christian because christianity is the most common religion in his country, and for him religion=christianity (maybe, I am not making any assumptions). 

Well God knows all and he would judge by thought and actions.

Yeah, but if the person is indecisive, then how can God know the answer, because there really isn't one? It could be anything and there really is no way to determine what it is. I mean, even Chuck Norris couldn't lift a boulder that isn't there.

I guess it wouldn't count as christainty because it wasn't a definite yes.

So if whether the answer is yes or no is unclear, it is treated as a no? Even though it could turn out to be a yes?

Silly Sindri, Buddha isn't a god :)

Actually, if you imagine something is true, then you are assuming it, which means you are making assumptions.

Well it couldn't have been a yes if the guy wasn't saved anyway.

I was thinking more along the lines that he said he wasn't making assumptions when he was assuming that his friend only believed in Christianity because it was the dominant religion in his region.

I suspected.

I think you misunderstood what I means with not making assumptions. I suspected that the reason he considered it to be christianity is that that was what his family believed, and so when he claimed to believe in something unexplainable, he called it being christian, even though there is nothing that indicates it is not some other religion. I said I suspected that, but I also noted that I wasn't assuming that. That is all I meant.

Well, some people have an unexplainable feeling deep inside that tells them that God exists. I've heard that most preachers had the feeling and the only way to sate it would be from spreading his word, so who knows?

Being Christian means that you have accepted that Jesus as your lord and savior. Jesus Christ=Christianity, get it? I would say that the god you believe in decides your religion, but don't Jews believe in the Christian god and vice versa, but we disagree about the whole Jesus thing?

I don't know. As I said, I'm just trying to understand christianity (and more religions for that matter) right now, because I can't say that I do. Anyway, speaking of other religions, how do christians view other religions?

As far as how Christians view other religions, the answer would be as different as the people who believe in it. As far as I know, there is no "Christian council" for protestants who decides how we treat others, but I personally don't care unless they persecute my religion.

Do you find them illogical or ridiculous or something along those lines?

Well some of them like Satan worshipers are nuts. I personally support Jews, catholics, penecostals, methodists and some others.

Hmmm...why are Satan worshippers nuts? I mean, I think supporting the representant of evil is rather odd, but what makes it so insane?

The fact that they choose to worship a deity that deals in sin, pain, and abortions might suggest some screws loose psychologically, but I don't think they're any more insane than I am for worshipping a bearded man in the sky who grants wishes.

That's good. I hate it when people consider their own version of the world to be better than others. Probably as much as when people claim your view is the wrong one.

I do claim that your view is the wrong one, the fact that I'm Christian and your not should be practically screaming it lol, I just won't try to stop you from believing what you please.

Also, I said that wrong earlier. It wasn't abortions that the devil dealt in, it was miscarriages, don't know why I typed abortions.

Right, what I said didn't seem to get my point across. I meant of course when people are in your face about it, like you said.

That's what I assumed (why I added that last bit of the paragraph) but I felt I would address the other as well, seeing as you brought it up.

Also, I have to ask since we we're talking about this earlier, we were talking about how God does not make decisions for people because of free will and all, but what are the things he does not participate in?

Depends on your view of Christianity. It is made up of many different sects (most of them under the Protestant banner, because Catholics make up their own branch) that have different specific beliefs, but for the most part the same general ones. I myself believe that God isn't actually that active in the world, but differrent types of Christians, like dogbox, would probably believe differently.

So...what does he do? He created the world, formed life and sits back and watches? I mean, that might make sense, but if I was a god, I would probably be more interactive with my world. Hell, I would do many things differently than he is supposed to have done it.

Like I said, that's just my belief. I would direct you to a handy little book known as the Bible if you're so thirsty for knowledge :) It would probably explain things better than dogbox or I could, even if I don't agree with everything in it. Even if you have no desire to own one, the local libraries over here have them, and even a few waiting rooms, so maybe you could read a little at a time, write down where you left off, and refer to the note next time you use it.

I actually read it (kinda had to for Homo Perfectus, I originally wrote it as a movie script and the Bible was referanced a lot more there than in the storygame). It's on the internet, so I didn't need a library or anything like that.

Also, if you read the Bible you'll notice that the way he deals with humanity changes over time  (I'm assuming through experience) whether it is providing a perfect paradise for his first humans or wiping out the population of the world (save two of each species and a couple of humans), the way he deals with them changes. I don't know how this slipped my mind earlier when you were asking about why God gave us the tendencies that he did, but I'll go over it now. If my memory serves me correctly, In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were living in bliss with plentiful food, shelter, etc. untill they partook (against God's instructions) of the forbidden fruit at the snake's tempting. When they ate this fruit, they started feeling these emotions, symbolized by the immediate need to find clothing after eating it, so God didn't intentionally design us with these flaws.

But when God told them not to eat the apple, didn't he know they would? Doesn't he know everything?

I'd have to reread, but I assume so. Remember that I havn't read the Bible in a long, long time lol. But my point is that he didn't intentionally make us flawed, after he made us maybe he knew we would become flawed, but I don't really know for sure.

He should, I mean, he's supposed to know everything. If there is anything he doesn't know, then...well...he doesn't know everything, just like if there's something he can't do, he's not all powerful.

Like what?Maybe if you list some examples I can help a little more.

 I actually like a quote from Futurama after Bender literally finds God somewhere in the universe and he doesn't ever talk in straight answers, simply things like "I assume so"  and "That's possible" and things like that, yet at the same time he knows everything about Bender's life as well as those of his friends. Earlier during this episode, Bender is floating through space after being shot out of a torpedo hatch  and is hit by an asteroid containing a race of small humanoids. These humanoids later refer to him as the "metal lord" and Bender goes through various phases mimicking the Bible. At one point he pays too much attention to his little civilization and causes floods, droughts, and things like that untill he makes a vow not to interact with his people to save them from suffering. During this phase, however his people start making their own versions of his religion depending on the region they live in, and end up destroying each other in nuclear war. But I'm digressing, here's the conversation, paraphrased.

"But I just ended up hurting them no matter what I did, when I tried to help them, I ended up killing them, and when I left them alone, they ended up killing each other." - Bender

"Yes, the key is not to touch them, but have your touch so delicate they don't feel it. If you're doing it right, they won't even know you're doing anything at all." - Futurama's portrayal of God.

"The key is to touch them"*

Hmm... a nice example, but if you want me to give you an example of what I mean then I absolutely can't understand why he didn't just transform Satan and the other falled angels back into angels or prevent them from changing into demons in the first place.

Eh, if you ask me this is a smarter solution. Not only does he prove that he is just by allowing Satan to have his free will, he also has a little piece of land to throw all the rejects from heaven in. Once again, that may be blasphemous, but that's what I took from the situation.

Lets use Batman as an analogy. The Joker has a free will, but he is too dangerous to be allowed to use it, and so, the Batman puts him in Arkham Asylum. God could easily defeat Satan, or render him harmless, but he doesn't. Couldn't he at least remove his demonic powers or something?

He could but I do recall him loving all of his creations, perhaps that's a factor. But still, without demonic powers, who's gonna run Hell? Hades? I doubt he'll be happy about it :) Anyway, a way I like to think about it is this: as far as God and Satan's level goes, we don't know a damn thing. Everything we know to be true could be impossible, and everything we know to be impossible could be true, or maybe a mixture of the two we couldn't comprehend.

I'm not sure if anyone touched on this since I basically skimmed through all of these posts. But if god is omninicient, then would'nt it be impossible to have free will, since he should be able to know everything we will do in advance? 

I touched that a bit, or...well...closed in on it. I am curious about that as well.

So could we say that god is not omniscient or humans don't have free will?

Not at all. If he knows what we are going to do, it doesn't mean he makes us do them, just that he knows we did them. Simple as that.

But he designs us, and he sees the future, so when he makes us, he knows exactly what that will make us do, if he makes us any different, our actions would be different, and so when he originally makes us, he knows exactly what will happen, and what happens if he makes us the way he...well...makes us, which undoubtedly can alter his decision. I mean, when he is making a...lets say terrorist (just taking an example of a human we can agree is bad), while God is making him, he should know exactly what he is making. Right?

Depends on how you like the future-seeing theory to pan out. I personally like the theory that there are multiple paths that merge into one only after a decision is made, so maybe after he makes us he can see what we do. Other than that, we can't have all good all the time, everything including the good and the bad is what makes us so special, and maybe thats what God intended. For a better explination I would ask just about any preacher "after hours", I doubt he will turn you down if it means potentially converting an atheist. Not that you will convert, just that's how he will see it.

       Somehow god just knowing our choice in end takes away our free will in a way, even if he does'nt directly impact our decision by knowing our future actions.

     Ugh my logic is faulty and I dunno how to prove it but somehow when god knows our actions he impacts the result.

     Ok so if a man wants to choose between door A and B and god somehow knows that he will choose door B. The man has no way of choosing door A, even if god has no interference in the situation. His freewill is undermined by god's decision.

Yes, I believe so. And Bo, you know how DNA works, right? It is essentially a script of our bodies. If God knows everything, he will know what our "script" will tell us to do at any given moment, therefore, he will be able to forsee any decision we make, causing what I said earlier to come into effect.

     I'm not sure if DNA determines all your actions.

I meant a sort of script of all your attributes. Which DNA sort of is (unless I completely misunderstand what it is).

So you mean Jews and Christians -_-

Yes.  I personally believe that several religions will make it to heaven. And then there is also that Jesus was a Jew so yeah Jews will probably make it along with christains and a few others.

I also don't know who Buddha believed in (he was Indian, so maybe Hinduism? Please forgive me if my timeline is way off), but he didn't think he was a god, just an enlightened man. As far as I know, he wasn't viewed as supernatural untill the Chinese and Mongols got a hold of the religions and it got converted into what is basically ancient manga. (Lol, I had a little book outlining the basics of different religions and beliefs throughout history that I got at a yardsale, and it had a different section for each kind of Buddhism. Indians were the most down-to-earth, followed by Mongols, then the Chinese had him supernaturally fighting demons with his kick-ass sword and whatnot)

I could go into how I don't think gods are supernatural again, but I won't!

LOL well of course he can, but then he would lift it any way. :P

Okay, now I'm going to answer the original question that started this whole religion talk with the information my questions have given me. Can God be blamed for everything?

Yes. And here's why:

1. He created us with our personality, and since he can do anything, he can see exactly what decisions we would make with those personalities, and since he can see the future of everyone, he can also see how two (or more) individuals react upon encountering one another. Regardless of whether he interacts with our world afterwards, he wouldn't have to because when he makes us he decides what people raise us, what society we belong to, what kind of environment we are raised in and all this really decides what kind of person we become, therefore, deciding our decisions (because obviously, we make our decisions based on what kind of person we are). This of course goes for everything, when he created Lucifer, he would know that he made him too jealous, and that his character would lead him to becoming Satan AND he also knew that Lucifer would create the sins and release them upon mankind.

2. Following the previous remark, because he decides how the character of people developes, he is really responsible for all other religions. He could easily have made us in a way that we wouldn't have formed other religions (this is of course from the perspective that christianity is true and therefore, all other religions ar untrue), and it still wouldn't have gone against our free will, because we could have formed other religions, we just wouldn't because that wouldn't be how our character had developed, which, as described in 1st remark, is also controlled by God. Therefore, when he sends people to hell for not believing in him, he really has only himself to blame.

3. People say Satan created sins, and that is why God doesn't agree with them, because they are a creation of Satan and not him. But, just like with other religions (or atheism), it was in fact he who started the chain reaction that resulted in the creation of sins, therefore, he can be blamed for that as well.

If you feel like yelling and sending me endless amounts of hatemail after this, then it's probably because deep down, you saw truth in what I said (like a fat person in denial, and constantly gets angry when people mention the word fat (obviously, he should get angry when people are using it to mock him, but I'm kind of talking about in a more friendly manner)). If you not, you'll either agree with me or laugh and explain what I misunderstood, how I misunderstood it and explain what is truly correct.

Why can't God do all of that and not be guilty whatsoever? After all, he's God and he doesn't have to play by anyone's rules. You're trying to bind an omniscient being into logic. Ever thought of how proposterous that is?

If he creates a living being from scratch AND sees into the future, he sees exactly what decisions his creation makes, and so if he changes his creation (lets say he makes the person less a less jealous type of person), then that will impact the decisions that person makes, therefore, when he creates a...lets say terrorist, he knows that his creation will become a terrorist while, and even before, he creates him, therefore, he creates the terrorist, while knowing what he will become and what he will do.

You say "why can't God do all of that and not be guilty whatsoever?" I say "why can he do all that and not be guilty whatsoever?" Does he change the definition of guilt? Does he magically make himself not involved? If he can do that, wouldn't he erase all he has done, because after all, if he isn't involved, he doesn't create anything, does he?

Also, why is it preposterous to talk logic about God? Are you saying he's unlogical? I think so too and that's why I'm an atheist, but I am trying to understand christianity, and if there's nothing more to it than "it's just like that and that's final", then I don't understand what people see in it. I think logic apply to everything.

If God is supposed to be able to do everything, and Satan is not (I'm not even sure what he's capable of), then even if Satan had the entire universe on his side, he wouldn't stand a chance, because God could easily just create another universe on his side or mind control Satan's universe, or even Satan himself. You know, if it came to a fight. So you're right about the "no one can oppose him" part (unless his power is exaggurated, which I find likely because if he really did have infinite power, things would not be the way they are, or at least I don't think they would).

Another itty-bitty blasphemous idea, what if God intentionally does these things to amuse himself. I mean, he's done some bad things in the past, floods, famines, locusts, whatever, why couldn't he intentionally do these things. It might be because he's bored up there and wants to see what happens when he tests us. That might go against his little see into the future theory, but then again, with a being that has the ability to create everything we have ever known, concieved, thought of, (perhaps he even made our concept of logic?), maybe what we see as logical doesn't apply to him.

---------------------

I bowed out sarcastically because I realized you wouldn't listen at all, or at least even put more than 5 seconds of thought into what I said and then ask pointless questions.

(Sigh) Fine, let's do this using your most recent post where you used counterexamples.

"I don't think you know what a 'pre-existing consequence' is. hell, i don't know what that is but it's certainly not what you're talking about" - 3J

Ok 3J, I'll put this simply. A pre-existing consequence is a consequence that has existed since before teh event in question (that's why "pre" was used), in this case the madman murdering a woman. Basically, the fact that the Baron was very possessive and caused the whole scenario., the fact that the Woman cheated on her husband and put herself in a position to be killed, how the Lover was shallow and refused to help her (knowing that she was going to be stabbed) an dhow her friend refused to help her at all, would all be pre-existing consequences.

"So if one has the ability to prevent a muder, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to do so, or they are murderers?" - 3J

yes, it is their responsibility to do so, at least by alerting the guards. However, you are obviously not a murderer unless you murder someone, and I never said they murdered her, just that they could have prevented her murder and didn't, so they are partially responsible for her death.

"I mean, these people knew she'd die and they didn't do anything and her mother knew she'd die eventually and didn't do anything, so therefor her mother is responsible for her death right? I mean, according to your logic, that's the way it works, correct?" - 3J

Went ahead and cut out a whole paragraph for this, because I personally found it funny. Look, we all know people are gonna die right? It's a simple fact of life. However, the difference is that none of us can prevent dying of natural causes. But in this case, they could have stopped it, and so they share responsibility.

Those were the things you typed that I felt should be addressed, if you want me to talk about anything else you said, I'll do so.

----------------------------

The above is Bo's post.

On the topic of a "pre-existing consequence":

DEFINITION OF CONSEQUENCE: " something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequence)

So a consequence clearly comes from a set of conditions. A pre-existing consequence is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. A consequence literally exists because of a set of conditions, how can it predate those conditions? Stop with the ridiculous made up terms. Just stop it.

"just that they could have prevented her murder and didn't, so they are partially responsible for her death." - Bo

So if someone can prevent a murder, and doesn't do it, then they are (at least partially) responsible for their death? So, unless I throw myself in front of a train to save a man standing on the tracks, I am responsible for his death? Clearly, I could have prevented it and did not do so. You would hold me accountable for that?

Technically, nobody said the woman would be killed by the Baron, just severely punished. Of course you could assume that he would kill her, but then again you could assume that  her choices were between being beat up and being killed.

Her example is only flawed because it contradicts yours.

You know what, I'm out. I explained things repeatedly, and you either acted like you can't grasp simple terms, or you're stupid, which I think we all know isn't true. You can taunt me from here on out, I don't care, I know that I won't be convinced because your idea of the killer being the only one who could have possibly lead to her being killed is incredibly shortsighted, and I know you won't be convinced because apparently you just refuse. I'll comment on the religious portion of this forum and any further developments or future tests, but not this, it also doesn't matter if things progress in my favor or simply lie in a standstill, if I say I'm going to do something (or not do something), I'm going to do it (or not do it). As of now, I'm going to agree to disagree, whether you do or not is your choice.

I'm trying to, but apparently I'm getting taunts from my unemotional competition.

When did I say I can't handle it? Cool asked if we could get along, I said I'm trying but you're still taunting me trying me to get into your strange idea of a debate. It's a simple conversation.

I didn't take a stab at you, I stated a fact, you just saw it as an insult because you are getting emotional over this. Its no more unforgivable than what you've been saying, probably even less unforgivable.

And nobody's going to read this whole forum and believe you are really as unemotional as you previously claimed to be, but even if they don't think it was innocent, it was. That is a pretty bad statement though, didn't know how to articulate that part of my post.

What are you referring to?

Lol, we got emotional a loooooooong time ago :)

Anybody else feel like making a rule that thisisbo and JJJ can't argue anymore. No disrespect to either one of you guys but your blowing up in each others faces.

No offense taken, but I don't see why a rule that can't be enforced should be enacted when we can just be ignored, but I apologize for the disruption. I'm actually pretty thankful 3J isn't really  blowing up, or he could use his admin powers to an unjust effect, but I don't think he's that kind of person.

Well it's an emotional topic. The answer is different for each person. And sometimes anger starts running like water. I say we all just stay civil from now on and use our heads instead of our emotions.

And thank you EndMaster for probably jinxing us.

I actually had a little chuckle about that as well, seeing as there has been a lot of questioning of a dominant religion and some blasphemous ideas about the religion. Here's hoping it doesn't get emotional, I don't see it getting emotional from here though.

Thank you for using your admin powers for good then JJJ.

Unneeded censorship is never a good idea, but that's an entirely different argument altogether.

But for moral responsibility in a fictional story, internet fights broke out.

Actually, depending on the viewpoint, our discussion on religion could apply to that as well.

True.

Not really, I did'nt see any real emotion during that conversation.

That's not what I meant. We weren't emotional during that conversation. But depending on your viewpoint, it could apply as discussions on moral responsibility in a fictional story.

Well that depends on your religious views.

Which is exactly what I said, "depending on your viewpoint"

Actually, now that things are finally settled between me and 3J, not as much, but yes I'm happy :)

It said "guilty of all the good he did not do" as in don't say it's not your fault if you didn't to anything to help. I didn't expect it to be a groundbreaking quote that wins the argument or even to take it literally, I just thought it was interesting and could have applied to the argument.

Robin Hood
Little John
Maid Marion
The Sheriff

You are a moralist with conventional ideas, which some people would call old-fashioned.

Men: You probably consider yourself a fair-minded man in a world which falls badly below your standards. Your inhibitions and sense of guilt are in the way of your happiness.

___________________________________________________________________________

I don't really agree with it's interpretation but I'll explain why. For starters I'm not saying Robin Hood was good in this scenario and I think every party was at fault. Anyways here I go:

Robin Hood - He was the most honest and truthfully acted like I would have expected him to. Beating Maid Marion wasn't a good idea by any means, but it's not all too unexpected either. The woman cheated on him and then acted like she did nothing wrong at all. Granted it was a lose/lose scenario, but she showed no real signs of remorse or having an attitude like "I didn't want to do it, but it was the only way". For all Robin knew she could have wanted to do this all along and just never had the chance.

Little John - Pretty self explanatory here. He could have comforted Maid Marion as a friend however he choose to take advantage of her and ride away with her. He also betrayed his best friend.

Maid Marion - Probably the most morally gray of all of them. At first it seems she did what she had to in order to save the one she loved. However this act was pretty selfish as she only thought of what she wanted and not what Robin Hood actually wanted. He may have very well preferred to stay in jail over her having to sleep with The Sherrif. Then after Robin Hood abuses her and leaves hers, she jumps right at the next man who offers to take care of her. It wasn't really inaccurate for Robin Hood to call her a slut.

The Sheriff - Did everything wrong he could possibly do. He took advantage of Maid Marion, and let crimals escape. The only redeeming thing he did was keep up his end of the deal. However that involved exchanging sex to free criminals, which is obviously morally wrong.

Since this is about honesty and morality (but tbh most parties were honest anyways so I didn't really count it) I'll explain a bit further.

Robin Hood - Honest, morally wrong

Little John - Dishonest, morally gray

Maid Marion - Honest, morally wrong

The Sheriff - Honest, morally wrong

As for Endmaster's example:

The Madman

The Woman

The Lover

The Friend / The Ferryman / The Baron

The Madman is first because, well obviously he killed her.

The Woman is second because it was her choice to leave. Had she not left she would have never been killed.

The Lover is third because he was the reason The Woman left the castle. 

The Friend could not be blamed at all.

The Ferryman could not be blamed at all.

The Baron could not be blamed at all (unless we are given new evidence that The Woman was forced to marry him, therefore making him the cause of her wanting to leave and finding a lover).

Maid Marion Little John The Sheriff Robin Hood

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.

Women: You like being a woman, you understand what love is, and frankly enjoy sex.

No reasosoning?

Nope. Funny, though, the thing for men who chose that was just as accurate.

Accurate....

Right....

Not that either of them is especially accurate.

Your reasonsing matters more than what the results say....I mean the test itself is entirely biased:

_______________________________________________________________________________

Maid Marion, Little John, Robin Hood, The Sheriff

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?

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

______________________________________________________________________________

This is clearly the authors ideal version of morals, as if you look at the reverse version....

_____________________________________________________________________________

The Sheriff, Robin Hood, Little John, Maid Marion

Although you make a brave show of being self-sufficient, beneath this you are unhappy and rather mixed up.

Men: You don't understand women - probably you are afraid of them. You do not know what love is, and you are more likely to boast about your conquests in a bar than prove them in a bedroom.

Women: If men attract you at all, they probably are the wrong sort.

______________________________________________________________________________

Just go down the list and you can see how completely biased this test really is. Which is why everyone explained their reasoning.

Well, then: I think Maid Marion was doing the right thing to save the man she loved ( BLECH) and his friend, Little John was maybe taking advantage of her but Robin had been being mean to her, The sheriff let them go after he captured them even though he wasn't supposed to, and Robin Hood was mean to her and abused her for saving him.

Is that good enough?

What no essay long explanation?

For shame!

Yeah, there was a theory going around that the "psychologist" was sexist, but after putting in the exact same details (including checking the first time box) I pretty much figured out that whoever created this was just an asshole haha.

It might not be sexist but it definitely sympathizes with women.

You explain your reasoning well so I have a question.

If Robin had not abused Maid Marion (to which I think he smacked her around a bit and pushed her, as I imagine the events involving the abuse and Little John defending takes place over the course of a few minutes), and instead simply insulted her and said he never wanted to see her again, would your opinion of him change at all? Was the severity of his reaction the reason the rank him so low, or is it simply the fact he reacted the way he did?

Also like to point out Little John didn't thank either the Sheriff or Maid Marion either, so that was kind of a moot point.

That doesn't make sense.

What you're saying (since you said regardless if he beats her or not his ranking wouldn't change) is that you rank him lower than everyone involved soley because he got upset that Maid Marion slept with someone else in order to free him. The fact that he actually hits her (which you focus on originally), in the ends doesn't dictate his ranking to you.

Because that's all Robin did. He didn't lie or cheat or anything along those lines, he got upset. The severity of his actions (the fact he abused her) is the only thing he actually does wrong.

If you take away that I fail to see what Robin did wrong in order for you to rank him so low.

Actually Robin left Maid Marion, then Little John left with Maid Marion. We have no idea how Robin actually felt towards Little John when he left, but we know that Robin didn't leave his best friend.

Little John and him committed (assumingly) the same crime, so unless you dock that from Little John it doesn't count.

After that it's simply like I said, him being mad. He insulted her because he was mad, and he wasn't grateful because he was mad. I don't think you can count the predicament his capture put her in as anything, as both him and Little John were captured and the three of them were probably well aware that it could happen.

Lack of showing good qualities doesn't make his minor bad qualities worse than the other's major bad qualities.

Robin: Got mad his girlfriend cheated on him, despite it allowing him to be free

The Sheriff: Took sexually advantage of a girl, released two prisoners from jail

You're honestly saying that simply because The Sheriff kept his word that's it makes up for his bad qualities? Robin at no point lied, or took advantage of anyone. Yet you're assuming because he was never given to opportunity to lie or take advantage of someone, that he would?

You can't rape the willing.

Cheating implies sleeping with someone who you are not currently in a relationship with, without the consent of your partner (cause you know...swingers exist). It has nothing to do with betrayal as half the time the cheater won't even see it as betraying their partner.

I'm fine with you having your opinion as well. But your reasoning still doesn't make sense. Rather than actually focusing on all the characters in this you're focusing on Maid Marion and how each character treated her. It's more like you're imagining that you're her and then just reacting on how each character is acting towards you, then basing your opinion on that.

No he didn't....He said you want your boyfriend, have sex with me. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. She was not forced at all, she choose to, hence you cannot consider it rape. Remember that the two were in jail for a reason (though it's unknown), so it's not as though the Sheriff was using them to lure Maid Marion in.

I find it hard to believe you imagined yourself as Little John, who did nothing wrong according to you, yet still thought Maid Marion was more moral.

Guanyin, that depends, what are you willing to do to make us believe you? *hint hint* *wink* rofl

Haha, you find it funny that mistrust spreads, and yet you automatically blame Killa's suspicion on the Continent game, which is completely unrelated, and not his personal beliefs at all?

Wait, so it's wrong for Killa to judge you because of a game... but it's perfectly fine for you to judge killa? I know you say that it is OOC, but I don't remember a post from him that was OOC in either of those games, and he wasn't very active on the nation game thread, so I'm assuming that you're making your judgements based on what he said on Continent.

Ever hear the saying "The pot calling the kettle black"?

The reason we were talking about him not being abusive was to understand the reasoning behind why you felt he was the least moral of all. If you had said your opinion was going to change then it was directly linked to him abusing her physically. If you didn't change your stance, it means you were more offended at the fact he didn't appreciate what Maid Marion did for him rather than the actions themselves (which would make your opinion incredibly biased towards Maid Marion and well...meaningless).

The other two of the three first paragraphs....I have no idea what you're trying to point out. No one agreed with your rankings, I just acknowledged you actually put some thought into them. I didn't see the kidnappers raping post, but by the sounds of it they made a really shitty comparison.

Yor're modern example is, yet again, completely different than what actually happened. The corrected version would involve the defendant's wife pleading for the judge to free her husband, who in turn would offer to do so under the condition she sleep with him.

This is not rape. The judge is in no way, shape, or form, the cause of her husband being the position he is in. He is simply offering the woman (per her request) a chance to free him.  If I'm not mistaken it would be considered extortion, but certainly not rape.

I find it funny you're narrow-minded enough to think of that connection. I don't trust that you identify with Little John because if you had you would have considered him the most moral of the group. Your actions (technically words) contradicted each other, hence I don't believe you.

So the difference between rape and extortion is who approached whom? Maid Marion went to The Sheriff to plead for her boyfriend. She didn't go there for sex. The Sheriff could have handled it many ways but he went the way he went. You're saying that because this conversation happened in The Sheriff's office then it is extortion but if The Sheriff went to Maid Marion's house and made the same offer "sex with me or no boyfriend!" it would have been rape? I'm confused as to why who started the conversation determines the type of crime it is.

This is not rape. The judge is in no way, shape, or form, the cause of her husband being the position he is in. He is simply offering the woman (per her request) a chance to free him. The judge doesn't have to be responsible for the husband's position. He could be a passerby on the street telling a scared wife that he won't save her husband (who is dangling from a ledge) unless she takes her top off. ...for example. What matters is not what came before the crime but what is happening during the crime.

Besides, she wasn't requesting sex. She was requesting help. If the judge demanded money then it would have been extortion. If he demanded her kids then it would be kidnapping. If he demanded that she kill her neighbors then it'd be murder for hire. But he demanded sex so it would be rape.

So you ignore the main point and focus on your example, alright then.

Extortion means using your position of power for personal gain. That's quite literally what the Sheriff (or Judge) does. He uses the promise of freeing Robin and Little John as leverage in order to get Maid Marion to sleep with him. The reason it is not rape is because she is not forced to accept it. She could have asked for a different exchange or just flat out refused. Sure she would have had to deal with Robin being in jail, but that's Robin's fault, not the Sheriff's. It doesn't matter if Maid Marion asked or if the Sheriff offered, either way it's extortion.

Again, that is extortion. Regardless of the demands she is not being forced to accept the conditions. She is consenting to preform the act, so it can not be considered rape or sexual assualt.

It's going no where because you keep going in a circle...

If you disagree with what I'm claiming rape to be than it's you who does not know what it is. It doesn't matter if they didn't enjoy it, or even if they didn't want it. If they consent to it then it's not rape (provided the circumstances aren't : agree to sleep with me or die or something along those lines).

But that's exactly the circumstances! "Have sex with me or Robin stays in jail." That is definitely something along the lines of "agree to sleep with me or die."

But you seem to be saying that it isn't rape because The Sheriff isn't responsible for putting Robin Hood in jail. (Aside from the fact that he was the one who captured him and put him in there, The Sheriff is the one with the power to keep or release him.) And you're saying that it isn't rape because Maid Marion approached The Sheriff instead of the other way around.

Those.

Are.

Not.

The.

Same.

Circumstances.

Robin is being put in jail because he did something wrong. You can not hold it against the Sheriff for doing his job (which is what you are doing). If someone points a gun to your head, and demands you do something, you probably have done nothing wrong to deserve it. Making them different.

You're assuming the act of Robin being put into jail is a bad thing, which isn't the case. Robin broke whatever law he did in order to get put into jail, at the end of the day he does deserve to be there.

The circumstances do matter. You can't ignore everything else and just say "Robin will be in jail forever unless Maid Marion intervenes. Therefore she is being forced to intervene and accept whatever cruel conditions the Sheriff proposes."

That makes no sense and is incredibly biased towards Maid Marion and what she wants.

Haha, "You can't rape the willing" is such a stupidly wrong term it's funny, but it's used so often I'm actually concerned for the future.

Where did we come up with the idea that Maid Marion was happy with sleeping with the Sheriff? Granted, it's been a month or two since I read the test, but I don't remember her being happy about it, she simply did it as a way to get her boyfriend out of prison.

Anywho, I never actually thought of envisioning myself as one of them, but I don't actually want to  seeing as that would make me sliglty biased one way or the other. As is, I've changed my opinion after thinking about it for a while, even though I still havn't re-read the test haha. My new judgment, from most morale to least morale, is as follows.

Maid Marion -  I don't really think she did anything that immoral. I mean, yeah, she slept with the sherrif, but her intentions were in the right place the entire time. I mean, Robin may have been pissed afterwords, but would he really be that happy all she was willing to do is say "Hey, can you let my boyfriend outta jail, pretty please? No? OK then." OF course, it really doesn't matter what Robin thinks, but yeah, I think Marion was in the right here.

Little John - The only character flaw that really screamed out at me was betrayal, but without a proper definition of "abused", I'm gonna assume he witnessed Robin smacking Marion around (after all, this was back when females were considered second hand citizens) and, after already having feelings for the girl, ran off with her to start their own new life. The only reason he's in second is because, in my eyes, while Marion purely did it thinking she was doing the right thing, John had to know he was stealing his best friend's girl, so he knew was doing something in a morally grey area and still went with it. I agree with it, but that's still a factor.

Robin Hood - Robin... Robin got angry. Yeah, he treated Marion badly, and yeah, he should have been appreciative, but I think he was just angry and maybe had a little blow to the ego as well. I mean, picture the great Robin Hood, the man of the people, the one who's constantly fighting the aristocracy in order to better the commonfolk, and now he was caught and had to be saved by a woman (Once again, I think this is his view and at the time females were second class citizens, this isn't my view at all). Well, I would say that he's at least a little embarrassed, and that would make a man like him pissed, and think about it, how many times have any of us been publicly embarrassed, and then snapped at someone close to us for no good reason? I know I did it at least twice.

The Sherriff of Nottingham - In my eyes, the Sherriff was by far the worst one here morally. I mean he accepted the job presumably because he wanted to uphold the law (Unfortunately a good history wasn't provided) and spent a good part of his career chasing after Robin if the tales hold true. However, when he finally gets the criminal in his prison, what does he do? He allows corruption to sneak in and rapes a young woman in exchange to release two HUGE government prisoners (I'd imagine someone who steals from influential people as much as they do  would get a lot of attention.). So in short, he is obviously morally corrupt, and while the others are justifiable, this guy simply let go of all morals and proffesionality (is that a word?) in order to satisfy his own selfish needs.

Second class citizens* Not second hand citizens haha, that sounds silly.

That depends Bo. Let us say that your girlfriend and yourself are having sex for the first time, she says it hurts, yet she is a willing participant, does that mean you rape her because she is not happy about having sex? Or we can look at another scenario, what if she isn't a vrigin, and she is still unhappy about sex, but obligated to because you 'did something nice' for her? Isn't that similar to bribery or threaten since you would be unhappy if she didn't?

How does that pertain to the scenario, or even what I said? I honestly don't get it.

It pertains to your opinion of "you can't rape the willing". You don't have to be dense to wrap your head around it.

That's why we put quotes around what we are responding to. For all I knew you were talking about Maid Marionor or Robin Hood, there was a lot of information up there that you could have responded to.

Anywho, "You can't rape the willing" is false simply because you can still be convicted of rape. Especially if you're either forcing it (a lot of rapists think that the women enjoyed it or even wanted it, it's a weird thing in their psyche) or demanding it in exchange for something else. Then of course there's stachatory rape, but I think most people know about that one

You mean "statutory rape"? What does that have anything to do with what I said? And secondly, what the hell are you talking about? We're like in the crusade years when Robin Hood stories took place, you really think rape wasn't common? And what, you can be prosecuted for it, at that time? Unless Marion was a noble, and robin a commoner, I find it unlikely. And thirdly, demanding it for something else is not rape when the benefits are mutual. Unless we're talking about threatening which leads to my previous post.

When have I said that rape wasn't common? However, rape being common does not mean that it's not rape. Hopefully, most humans know rape is immoral.

Marion was obviously forced to make her decision through coercion, which means she's being threatened into rape.

What I think you're arguing here is that the Sheriff should be prosecuted for rape based on the standards from that time period. However, what we're arguing is whether or not Marion was raped, which by today's standards is horribly wrong. I mean, if you want to base your decisions on what people believed in the past, I'm not gonna stop you, but when the quiz is asking me on who I think is immoral, then yeah, I'm gonna say that the rapist is immoral.

Sadly rape is a very lousy used word. To most people it simply means the woman did not actually want to have sex (as yes I mean woman not man, I doubt any of you picture a man when you think of rape).

Care to explain why "You can't rape the willing" is such a stupidly wrong term it's funny? I don't agree 100% with the term, but it's not nearly as inaccurate as you portray it to be.

Well...we are a growing community, and even if the base members have their say in opinion, our new members can still has a voice....or a keyboard in this case.

NONE CAN STOP ME AND ALL SHALL BOW IN MY GLORY.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Go to my members page and look at the join date.

WHOSE THE NEW GUY NOW HUH?

Haha, why don't you tell me why it's accurate? Giving conseant isn't the same thing being williing

Wait, can you be prosecuted for raping the dead? ;p

Of course it is. If you give consent then you're willing to have sex with them. It doesn't mean you actually want to though.

@ EndMaster - Lol you're right. Maybe they played xbox all night, had pillow fights, and then when she told Robin hood he was so jealous that he couldn't play xbox or have a pillow fight with them that he raged.

I'm arguing that point....

Pay attention cool.

I agree the format of these forums is very confusing at times.

Me and Edrudite were arguing with Bo about the proper definition of rape. He has stated his stance but has yet to really aruge anything.

Before Me and Guaynin were arguing over why if you remove the abuse, Robin was still the least moral of everyone. I was arguing against it and she for it. You can determine for yourself what happened in that argument. At an earlier point Ziraka came in and supported my side but hasn't responded again (though no new points were really raised since).

Both Guaynin and Bo seem to think that Maid Marion was raped by the Sheriff in this.

And EndMaster thinks they just chilled and played Xbox.

Sorry dude, mix of computer problems and better things to do then wait for my internet to come back up haha. I'm just saying that you can still rape someone even if they want the sex, because wanting is not the same as giving consent.

Say that there is a woman who is unhappilly married, yet honors the institution of marriage and has a few kids, so she wouldn't get a divorce or cheat on her husband (it happens). Well, she meets a guy who she finds attractive, and that plus the fact that she can't stand her current husband means she would actually lust for the man, but even though she may want the sex, it doesn't mean that she would actually go ahead and do it. Well, it just turns out that this dude is a psycho and breaks into her house while her husband is away and offers her a choice: let him kill her family (and thus torture her for turning him down), or let him sleep with her against her will. Obviously, she chooses the sex to save her family, but even though she was given a choice, does that mean he didn't actually force himself upon her? I would agree with Guanyin here and say that it's sexual assault, if not rape.

So sorry for the delay, but there's my argument.

He wouldn't punish Robin unless she slept with him, Robin being punished was a seperate issue.

I really like both of your arguments here, but I'm gonna say Guanyin did just a bit better, but here's just a few points I'd like to make, guanyin probably mentioned a few before, but I'm gonna restate it.

1. The sherriff was obviously using durress during the conversation by giving Marion a simple choice: sleep with me or he stays in jail. Plus, I would guess that with all the wealthy and influential peopel Robin robbed, he'd be facing death as well because I vaguely remember older English government being corrupted by the nobles. But since you like definitions, here you go:

"Coercion illegally applied" That was the first one I came across, but I don't like it, so here's another, "compulsion by use of force or threat; constraint; coercion (often in the phrase under duress)"

So there you go, she was coerced (you can look up that word on your own if you want, I'm not gonna do it, but most people know the meaning of that word) by being told "Hey, if you don't sleep with me, your boyfriend is gonna rot.", which is obviously a threat used to forceher decision. Since it falls under the first definition, then yes, it's rape.

2. it doesn't really matter if the dude is being mean, the obvious fact of her boyfriend's jailtime (and likely life) is on her hand, will put her under a lot of stress, and she was probably "distressed"

3. Alright, if I walk up to a woman right now, and say in a cheery voice "hey, either you're gonna sleep with me right now, or I'll kill your husband" I'm being very factual, and if by "threatening" you mean taking a threatening tone, then no, I'm not threatening. If by "threatening" you mean I'm making an actual threat by saying that her husband is going to die if she doesn't, then that's the same as the Sheriff saying that Robin will be jailed if she doesn't, then he's being factual and threatening at the same time. Which falls under the 1st definition, making it rape.

4. Why would it being in a business-like atmosphere make it any less of a rape? From the dramatizations and movies of the Itallian mob, even their murders are business-like, does this make it any less of a murder? The point is that it doesn't matter how polite you are, you're still left with a dead body, or a raped body in this case.

Well of course you agree with Guanyin. You were arguing the same thing she was. I would be surprised if you didn't agree with her.

Neither of you seem to understand what the circumstances actually were, as both of you have made examples that are clearly completely different and called them similiar. I've already explained why so read back. If you still don't understand then we really can't discuss it much further. I'm not going to continue to repeat the same things over and over again.

Oh sorry, I forgot that we were making different circumstances. I mean, it's not possible that two events could be related in some way.

Oh, and what did you do to question Guanyin's ranking of Robin? You said something along the lines of "What would you do if Robin wasn't in jail?" or something like that, unfortunately I can't find it, but I'll keep looking. Anywho, as far as I can tell, you just twist the circumstances to serve what you want, then complain when others use examples that may not be related to the exact subject. But fine, tell me where I misunderstood the circumstances, and then tell me how they don't relate to the actual circumstances. You won't find much haha, and you're the one who obviously can't comprehend two like circumstances. Now, guess how judges make decisions on how to punish criminals. They look at like cases, and use that, just like we're using like cases to base our judgements.

Oh, and since 3J isn't here, I'll do the honors. "Well, you're obviously wrong! I'm not gonna say how or why, but YOU'RE WRONG!"

Oh, here we go. "If Robin had not abused Maid Marion ... and instead simply insulted her and said he never wanted to see her again, would your opinion of him change at all" -Killa_Robot

You see, while Guanyin and I use other  scenarios with the same circumstances  to make you question "Hmm... if I agree that this is rape, but this isn't rape, and they're doing the same thing, maybe I'm a bit biased...", you simply take the same scenario, and then mutilate the circumstances completely different. Yes, beating your girlfriend/wife is far worse than  simply insulting her, but seeing as that isn't the case it doesn't mater at all.

You see, when Guanyin and I do it, it's simply a different scenario, and the same circumstances despite how you say they're different, while when you make others question what they think, you take the same scenario and change the circumstances.

I spent longer on my first post than I thought....anyways I'll explain more further down.

They aren't related, that's what I've been saying this whole time. You're twisting the variables of the scenarios to create two almost completely different ones.

You're getting really ahead of yourself....acting like I've decided I've lost and am trying to back away. Here's my post which started the back and forth with Guanyin:

"You explain your reasoning well so I have a question.

If Robin had not abused Maid Marion (to which I think he smacked her around a bit and pushed her, as I imagine the events involving the abuse and Little John defending takes place over the course of a few minutes), and instead simply insulted her and said he never wanted to see her again, would your opinion of him change at all? Was the severity of his reaction the reason the rank him so low, or is it simply the fact he reacted the way he did?"

It had nothing to do at all with Robin not being in jail. I didn't question her reason for Robin's ranking (as I pretty much knew already why), I brought up a "what if" scenario in order to see if the reason I thought she ranked him was in fact the reason she did (and it was). I didn't actually twist it, I altered it. The difference being every core aspect of the scenario was the same, except for one of the outcomes. There's a difference and I'll explain a bit now, since apparently your ability to read previous posts is....well terrible.

So first I'll tell you the original scenario, then compare it the modified version you two produced. I'll then do another comparison to each the normal version and your modified version in order to further try to explain to you. Since this will take a bit, I'll do it in my following post. I don't really like doing super massive posts.

So....here we go. First we will start with the original:

"The Sheriff of Nottingham captured Little John and Robin Hood and imprisoned them in his maximum-security dungeon. Maid Marion begged the Sheriff for their release, pleading her love for Robin. The Sheriff agreed to release them only if Maid Marion spent the night with him. To this she agreed. The next morning the Sheriff released his prisoners. Robin at once demanded that Marion tell him how she persuaded the Sheriff to let them go free. Marion confessed the truth, and was bewildered when Robin abused her, called her a slut, and said that he never wanted to see her again. At this Little John defended her, inviting her to leave Sherwood with him and promising lifelong devotion. She accepted and they rode away together."

So the events are, in order:

- Sheriff captures and imprisons Little John and Robin Hood

- Maid Marion begs the Sheriff for their release, due to her loving Robin

- Sheriff agrees, under the condition she spends the night with him (AKA sex)

- Marion Agrees

- Sheriff releases prisoners next morning

- Robin demands to know how they were released

- Marion explains

- Robin gets pissed off, insults her, beats her, never wants to see her again

- Little John defends her (not sure if her intervenes or just sticks up for her)

- Little John invites her to run away with him, promising lifelong devotion

- Marion agrees and the leave, living happily ever after

Now, you'll notice the top 5 events are bolded. These are the ones that have to do with the whole "Rape" argument. The key points are as followed:

A - Little John and Robin Hood were capture BEFORE any contact was made between Maid Marion and the Sheriff

B - Maid Marion asks for a favour from the Sheriff

C - Sheriff agrees under the condition they spend the night together

D - Marion Agrees

So now let's compare that to one of your examples, Guanyin's first example:

"Or, I dunno, a guy breaks into your house while your kids are playing in the back yard. He says that he's going to have sex with you and if you don't act enthusiastic then he'll go outside and kill your kids. So you have sex with him and act like your enjoying yourself (and hating the fact that you're doing it). That's rape. Just replace "kids in the backyard" to "boyfriend in prison" and you've got something like the Robin Hood situation."

So she really didn't go into detail in how it all played out, neither of you actually produced a real example (how shocking....) so let's try and work with it.

A - Man breaks into women's house

B - Demands sex else he will murder children

So....I see what you mean. Those two are most definitely along the same lin- Oh wait no they're not. They're quite different. I am utterly shocked at this brand new piece of information.

For starters, Little John and Robin are in jail for a crime. Marion has nothing to do with that. Marion could have just walked away and left them to their fate, and it would not have been her fault. The women in the second example however, could not. Her children had done nothing wrong to deserve to die, and if she had done nothing they would have died and she would have felt responsible for it for the rest of her life.

So quick comparison - Robin had done something wrong to be in his position, the children had not.

Next, the option. Marion has THE OPTION to say yes or no to the Sheriff's proposal. Nothing new will happen if she refuses. The Sheriff won't sentence the two to death and he won't increase their sentence. If she says no, she will lose nothing she hasn't already lost. The mother is different. Her kids are still alive when the choice is made. If she says yes she get's raped (yes it's rape in this case), and if she get's no she loses her kids.

Now for why the women being raped. It's rape because she does not gain anything, at all. She is not having sex in exchange for something better to happen, she is having it to prevent something bad. Maid Marion is different. Like I said, she will not lost anything she hasn't already lost if she says no. She's not having sex to prevent a lose, she is having sex to gain something.

On second though another two options is a lot of work. So this will have to do.

Not really. She sold her body to gain something but I wouldn't really label them like that.