|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:40:07 [Permalink]
|
I saw that he offered the only means across the river in the original. However, that is an unrealistic expectation to such a situation as described. I suppose my point is that Jane did have other alternatives. She could always have said no.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
<i>No Sense of Obligation</i> by Matt Young |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:56:46 [Permalink]
|
Hmm, when I was in military intelligence our negotiating techniques consisted mainly of shooting people.
But as to who was most honorable (honor meaning having a sense of moral rectitude)
I would rate them
Bob, because he enters into a business deal the end result of which would have him crossing a wide and dangerous river and he fulfills his commitment at personal risk. He forces no one to do anything against their will.
John the 2nd most honorable as he forgoes any future gratification from Jane because of his own moral outlook.
Then Bill, who does not offer assistance to a friend in need, but doesn't hinder them either. I'd put Bill as a neutral on the honor scale
The least would be Jane who takes no personal responsibility by trying to get someone else (Bill) to make the decision for her. Then instead of exploring other options prostitutes herself in direct opposition to the love she feels for John and presumably knowing the effect her actions will have on their relationship, and proceeds to boast about it. Jane would be a negative i.e.: dishonorable.
When does Rick, I mean Bob tell Jane that the problems of 3 little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world? Make Jane & John get on the plane together, plug Major Strassa and begin a beautiful friendship with Bill as they cross the runway in the fog?
Here's looking at you kid.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:02:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater:
Hmm, when I was in military intelligence our negotiating techniques consisted mainly of shooting people.
Nah. That's interroga---I mean interviewing techniques.
Frankly, I like this scenario as an interrogation style. I'll be Bob; you be Bill. Xev can be Jane.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:19:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Frankly, I like this scenario as an interrogation style. I'll be Bob; you be Bill. Xev can be Jane.
Xev is freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee now and she sure as hell ain't getting involved with John.
Seriously, I think I was wrong about Bob the first time. My initial analysis postulated that Jane was in a dilenma where:
A: She really needed to cross
B: She would be in danger if she tried another way
But on closer examination, A seems far-fetched. And B would fail if A did.
Revised list:
John
Bob
Jane
Bill
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:15:42 [Permalink]
|
I'm still not convinced that we can simply say that Bob was being honest and straightforward, and was not forcing Jane in their transaction, therefore he was the most honorable.
He selfishly demanded a specific payment that he knew Jane was reluctant to give, and which the consequences of the act to Jane psychologically and emotionally are much more negative than, say, a monetary payment.
I would be pretty adamant to go with either (from most to least):
John
Bill
Jane
Bob
or
John
Bill
Bob
Jane
The only exception would be if Jane were trying to get across the river to save John's life (I can't think of any other scenario in which Jane would reasonably be considered to have to get across at all costs). In which case, I would go with:
Jane
Bill
Bob
John
or
Jane
Bill
John
Bob
[edit: A word about Bill: I don't think it is at all reasonable to judge Bill as being dishonorable without any idea what his reasons for not offering advice were. However, whether he was simply being a jerk, or had a good reason for not being involved, I don't think his place in the list would move.]
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/29/2002 14:17:51 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:31:26 [Permalink]
|
Last post and then I'm outta here:
TD, I can accept your position regarding Bill, and the caveat regarding Jane.
However, I don't think there is any way to call Bob dishonorable. You can certainly call him despicable, but unless your definition is vastly different from mine, it doesn't equate to dishonorable.
Have to go found the Bob Fan Club now...
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:58:02 [Permalink]
|
I have to agree with Garrette. While the rest are harder to rank, Bob has to be #1 because he didn't do anything wrong. A service was requested, Bob set a price. You might hate Bob for it but whether you pay the price or not is up to you. No use blaming that scumbag Bob for it.
I would then place Bill second because I don't see that it was his job to help Jane make this decision. Sometimes a good friend needs to let you decide on your own, especially when it might be important and of such a personal nature.
3rd I would have John. If the two were so deeply in love then John probably should have forgiven her. If she hadn't paid the way she did then the two would never be together. Perhaps John should have appreciated the sacrifice Jane made.
Last place is for Jane. Jane couldn't make a decision on her own and tried to get her friend Bill to help make it for her. She was also the one that had to get to the other side so badly in the first place. She is the one that decided to pay the price for the trip over the river and then, as some of you said, burdened John with what she did to get across.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Stygma
New Member
36 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 15:33:37 [Permalink]
|
I'd have to go with:
Bob
Bill
John
Jane
As one of the Bobbies, I tend to agree that he never deceived or any of that. Bill had his own choice not to be involved, and I don't think there's any obligation to.
There seems to be a trend of Jane and Bob being on the opposite sides of the list. I don't consider Jane all that dishonorable, just moreso than the others.
Knowledge is power. Arm yourself. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 18:59:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, I don't think there is any way to call Bob dishonorable. You can certainly call him despicable, but unless your definition is vastly different from mine, it doesn't equate to dishonorable.
It sounds more like the "Bobbies", to borrow a term from Stygma, are equating/confusing honor with honesty.
Bob was honest and straightforward, granted.
However, my definition of honor (and the one in the dictionary  ) has as much to do with respect for others as it does with honesty.
Bob shows no respect for the fact the Jane does not want to perform this ultimately personal and intimate act in exchange for his services.
He selfishly disregards her feelings (and John's) for his own gratification.
How anyone can't call this dishonorable is a mystery to me, and would require some help from some "Bobbies" to make me understand.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/29/2002 19:00:14 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:03:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have to agree with Garrette. While the rest are harder to rank, Bob has to be #1 because he didn't do anything wrong. A service was requested, Bob set a price. You might hate Bob for it but whether you pay the price or not is up to you.
If Bob did nothing wrong, and is honorable, why would anyone hate him?
How can someone be "honorable slime"?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:06:03 [Permalink]
|
Who said that Bob has even heard of John? And TD, all of this depends on a person's own definition of honor. I don't see how anyone's ranking can be obvious or absolute unless one wants to defend a position of absolute morality.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:41:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who said that Bob has even heard of John?
I think my point is valid with or without knowledge of John. It would just add to Bob's slimyness.
quote:
And TD, all of this depends on a person's own definition of honor.
Well, there's a dictionary definition, and it includes respect and integrity.
quote:
I don't see how anyone's ranking can be obvious or absolute unless one wants to defend a position of absolute morality.
If we don't agree on one definition of honor, and just say we'll use whatever we feel like, that's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with subjective or absolute morality.
Using the definition of honor, and the fact that it was said specifically in the scenario that Jane initially refused Bob's offer, then reluctantly accepted, I believe it is quite easy to come to a valid conclusion that Bob lacks honor.
Of course it is subjective where he ranks.
You'll never hear me argue for absolute morality, and I don't think anything I've posted here would support that.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:47:35 [Permalink]
|
I just don't see how you can argue that Jane's reluctance to meet Bob's turn puts Bob at fault. He named a price, it was up to Jane whether or not she paid it. You would have to say that accepting sexual favors in the place of cash is wrong. Is it wrong if you want to buy a new car but the price is too steep but you decide reluctantly to pay it because you really need a new car.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:58:58 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I did a Google search and came up with more information about this sad little event.
It turns out that Jane was a junkie, and John was her dealer as well as her boyfriend. She had to get across the river to get a fix.
Bill, her old family friend, knew that Jane had a monkey on her back. In fact, he'd been trying for years to get her into a treatment program, or get her to quit on her own. Nothing worked. He'd reached his limit -- Jane had to go cold turkey or she's be dead within months. He refused to help her hoping that she'd be unable to get to John and would have her addiction broken.
Bob was, in fact, Jane's older brother, and a real piece of work. He'd been bonking his little sister since she was twelve, but she'd cut him off a couple years before this incident. He was perfectly aware of her habit and why she needed to cross the river, and he was using it as leverage to get back in her pants (since all other women found him creepy and repulsive).
After the sad events played out, John saw the error of his ways, and dumped Jane hoping it would help her straighten out.
Resulting rankings:
Bill
Jane
John
Bob
See? It all depends on the reasons!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:59:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I just don't see how you can argue that Jane's reluctance to meet Bob's turn puts Bob at fault. He named a price, it was up to Jane whether or not she paid it. You would have to say that accepting sexual favors in the place of cash is wrong. Is it wrong if you want to buy a new car but the price is too steep but you decide reluctantly to pay it because you really need a new car.
I tried to make clear early on that I felt that being reluctant to exchange sex for something is worse than being reluctant to exchange money. There are emotional and psychological implications here, as sex is a very intimate and personal act.
I also said early on that I thought the only way Bob could be considered honorable in his actions was if Jane wasn't reluctant to exchange sex for passage.
Jane's reluctance is definitely an assumption on my part, but one I think is justified in that Jane initially refused Bob's offer. So Jane obviously didn't initially believe that having sex with Bob was worth gaining passage to see John.
Unless Bob is a total moron, he can see that Jane doesn't really want to have sex with him, but she really wants to go see John, so she gives in.
Bob dishonorably takes advantage of Jane's desire to cross the river, on a level far, far deeper than would be the case were it just a monetary exchange involved.
Of course, I know that all of this discussion is opinion, depending on assumptions about the scenario.
I'm not claiming anyone is wrong in what they're saying. I'm just saying I don't understand why they think that Bob is in any way honorable. He was honest, but in taking advantage of a woman in need for his own sexual gratification (unless she really didn't mind, which is not the assumption I'm making) is as far from honorable as I believe one can get.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
