Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cecilff2]

First, soulmate is a horrible concept. It's a selfish concept that someone out there was made just for you. You're so special that someone else's individuality was suppressed in order to be your perfect match. There are no soulmates.

Coming to a serious representative of the law and pleading that a person under arrest should be freed because... because he's innocent? No... because she loves him is tantamount to challenging the Sheriff to give her an extralegal offer, since it certainly cannot be taken at face value as a legal defence. The man is a criminal who cannot be defended by the customs and values of the setting: whatever his crime is, it's serious enough that she only thinks to plead a foolish thing such as her love and not the greater good of anything or anyone beyond her selfish feelings.

Not only is she perfectly free to reject his offer, she as much as solicited that offer by the moral emptiness of her own pleas. Until she can form a better reason to keep a criminal out of custody, she had no business even being there.

Point out the part of it where it says the sheriff of rottingham captured criminals.

[Catsup]

First, soulmate is a horrible concept. It's a selfish concept that someone out there was made just for you. You're so special that someone else's individuality was suppressed in order to be your perfect match. There are no soulmates.

indeed, soulmates rarely if at all exist in real life. But the story says she loved robin so i wont assume otherwise.

Coming to a serious representative of the law and pleading that a person under arrest should be freed because... because he's innocent? No... because she loves him is tantamount to challenging the Sheriff to give her an extralegal offer, since it certainly cannot be taken at face value as a legal defence. The man is a criminal who cannot be defended by the customs and values of the setting: whatever his crime is, it's serious enough that she only thinks to plead a foolish thing such as her love and not the greater good of anything or anyone beyond her selfish feelings.

she was trying to appeal to the sheriff's emotion. He'd understand if he ever felt the same as she did. Depending on the sheriff's experiences it could be very weak, or extremely strong.

Not only is she perfectly free to reject his offer, she as much as solicited that offer by the moral emptiness of her own pleas. Until she can form a better reason to keep a criminal out of custody, she had no business even being there.

arent we the cynic now?

[Frumple]

Point out the part of it where it says the sheriff of rottingham captured criminals.

It doesn't say he did or didn't, actually, in the original formulation shown in the thread. The situation changes notably depending on if the imprisoned did or did not break just law. Most seem to be partially defaulting to the character's storied background, and those that aren't are mostly being pretty explicit about it.

In the Robin Hood story, at least, R & J were definitely thieves and highwaymen, and in all likelihood murderers (goes pretty much hand in hand with highwaymen during that time period, iirc.). Possibly trying to work against a corrupt regime in the process, yes, but that wouldn't change that their actions had earned them jail time and possibly execution.

Now, with a blank-slate no-assumptions scenario... you basically can't say anything at all, beyond Robin being an abusive ass. The sheriff could have been acting normally under the strictures of the society (maybe random imprisonment is just something they do, or something R & J actively signed up for) and prostitution a normal method of posting bail, just as an example. Some context is needed to really get anything out of the scenario, and the original formulation doesn't really give folks room to do anything but bring their own assumptions to the table.

[Catsup]

Now, with a blank-slate no-assumptions scenario... you basically can't say anything at all, beyond Robin being an abusive ass. The sheriff could have been acting normally under the strictures of the society (maybe random imprisonment is just something they do, or something R & J actively signed up for) and prostitution a normal method of posting bail, just as an example. Some context is needed to really get anything out of the scenario, and the original formulation doesn't really give folks room to do anything but bring their own assumptions to the table.

i'll ask a favor then, look over all my arguments in this thread so far and point out any "assumptions" i had. Im pretty certain i went along with whatever information the story gave me, no extra assumptions added.

[Frumple]

I'd... really rather not, and was mostly aiming that at the one I quoted.

That said, one fairly obvious one you seem to be making is that Marion had no choice besides negotiating for R & J's presumably illegal release. As others have noted, the moral and correct choice (barring extenuating circumstances) given just imprisonment would have been for her to let R & J serve their time.

And, with the information given by the original formulation, we... don't know. If there was a second option, or a third, or any number of other options. We don't know whether negotiating with the sheriff was the only means of releasing R & J.

We also don't know if there was any coercion involved whatsoever. It wasn't explicitly stated, and there's not really enough material in the original formulation to draw any meaningful conclusions about that.

Even the last post... we have no reason to think soul-mates are involved at all, or that Marion was appealing to the sheriff's emotions (she was pleading based on her love for R, but she could have been making an aesthetic appeal to the nature of love, just as a counterexample to an emotive base). Before that, you made the assumption that the sheriff was intending to execute (no mention whatsoever of that) or permanently imprison Robin (we don't know that, it could have been an overnight stay for all what we're given tells us), as well as the assumption that Marion "truly didn't want it" (we don't know that, the story doesn't say).

There's probably more such examples going further back, yeah? The story is very, very detail sparse and lacks quite a bit of information. It's actually another fairly neat thing about it, thinking on it, as it's almost more of a test to see what assumptions are brought to the table and how the blanks are filled in than anything else.

[Catsup]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'd... really rather not, and was mostly aiming that at the one I quoted.

That said, one fairly obvious one you seem to be making is that Marion had no choice besides negotiating for R & J's presumably illegal release. As others have noted, the moral and correct choice (barring extenuating circumstances) given just imprisonment would have been for her to let R & J serve their time.

And, with the information given by the original formulation, we... don't know. If there was a second option, or a third, or any number of other options. We don't know whether negotiating with the sheriff was the only means of releasing R & J.

We also don't know if there was any coercion involved whatsoever. It wasn't explicitly stated, and there's not really enough material in the original formulation to draw any meaningful conclusions about that.

Even the last post... we have no reason to think soul-mates are involved at all, or that Marion was appealing to the sheriff's emotions (she was pleading based on her love for R, but she could have been making an aesthetic appeal to the nature of love, just as a counterexample to an emotive base). Before that, you made the assumption that the sheriff was intending to execute (no mention whatsoever of that) or permanently imprison Robin (we don't know that, it could have been an overnight stay for all what we're given tells us), as well as the assumption that Marion "truly didn't want it" (we don't know that, the story doesn't say).

There's probably more such examples going further back, yeah? The story is very, very detail sparse and lacks quite a bit of information. It's actually another fairly neat thing about it, thinking on it, as it's almost more of a test to see what assumptions are brought to the table and how the blanks are filled in than anything else.

thanks for your help, i can see that the test is a fallacy in itself now primarily because it does not tell us if the imprisonment is permanent or not, and thus we cannot determine the amount of coercion. I indeed did make an assumption somewhere on page 2-3, and that assumption was that robin's imprisonment was akin to his death.

my definition of "assumption" is using any information that is not directly given, so i think it's safe to say that the possibility of other options do not matter, and that there were no other options. I would also disagree that saying they are soulmates is an assumption since the story tells us that she pleaded her love for him, and this is a given.

we know the amount of coercion involved...or rather would have known. If robin was going to be imprisoned for life then that would be akin to death and it would be coercion. If he was going to be imprisoned for half his remaining lifespan then there would be no coercion at all. Marion would have to wait, but true love is separated only by death, not time.

[Frumple]

What does love have to do with being a soulmate, cats? Presumably soulmates can be in love (assuming soulmates exist at all), but so can people that aren't soulmates. You don't have to be a person's soulmate to be in love with them. Saying, "It's a given" is one of the really basic ways of saying, 'I'm making an assumption here', yeah. Or, more precisely, making the statement that you feel (rightly or otherwise) that the assumption is implicit. But a couple being in love quite definitely doesn't imply that the pair are soulmates (unless everyone potentially has several thousand/tens of thousands/millions of soulmates, which would make it a rather strange thing.), and whether R & M are, is not stated.

If robin was to be imprisoned for life, that would have been akin to being imprisoned for life, not akin to death. By your separation bit, permanent separation is the only means of separating true love (whatever the blazes that is, which is completely unmentioned in the story), of which death would be (barring afterlife, anyway!) and imprisonment might be a method of occurring, depending on how the sentence was enacted. There's no guarantee (again, the story doesn't say) that Marion would be forever separated from Robin if he was permanently imprisoned, though. Visitation is a thing.

Regardless, if Robin's actions had justly earned life or execution (though the method of justly earning such would be tricky), I'm not exactly sure I'd call it coercion of Marion to execute his sentence, if there was any coercion occurring at all. I'm not really sure what just punishment looks like from the direction of the one being punished for wrongful action. Perhaps coercion of a sort, but a rather odd sort.

Though, as a sorta' aside... I don't think the test is necessarily a 'fallacy' (nevermind that that's something rather different, methinks). It just might not have been testing what you were assuming it was testing

[Catsup]

What does love have to do with being a soulmate, cats? Presumably soulmates can be in love (assuming soulmates exist at all), but so can people that aren't soulmates. You don't have to be a person's soulmate to be in love with them. Saying, "It's a given" is one of the really basic ways of saying, 'I'm making an assumption here', yeah. Or, more precisely, making the statement that you feel (rightly or otherwise) that the assumption is implicit. But a couple being in love quite definitely doesn't imply that the pair are soulmates (unless everyone potentially has several thousand/tens of thousands/millions of soulmates, which would make it a rather strange thing.), and whether R & M are, is not stated.

soulmates that arent involved romantically are kindred spirits. A soulmate is the most extreme form of love. "It's a given" was simply my wording, i defined what an assumption was in my previous response. The story said that marion loved robin, im not assuming that marion loves robin.

If robin was to be imprisoned for life, that would have been akin to being imprisoned for life, not akin to death. By your separation bit, permanent separation is the only means of separating true love (whatever the blazes that is, which is completely unmentioned in the story), of which death would be (barring afterlife, anyway!) and imprisonment might be a method of occurring, depending on how the sentence was enacted. There's no guarantee (again, the story doesn't say) that Marion would be forever separated from Robin if he was permanently imprisoned, though. Visitation is a thing.

im assuming its the same as death, that was my only assumption.

[GlyphGryph]

Yes.  And using your position of power to make an offer somebody can't refuse is a recognized form of coercion.

Except in this case, she most certainly CAN refuse the offer. There are those in the scenario, even, the one she's trying to save, who believes she SHOULD HAVE. Had the offer not been made, she would have lived with the alternative. It was a perfectly legitimate alternative. It is the alternative she would have had to have dealt with in a situation where everyone was doing the morally correct thing.

I fail to see how that is an invalid option, or that the first alternative that comes along immediately becomes an offer that can't be refused. You only end up with MORE choices and options than you had before. In order for something to be "an offer you can't refuse", I'd argue there would have to be at least SOME sort of restriction of choice, as in the classic mafia situation, where the choice of "things progressing as they would without the presence of the mafia member" is taken off the table completely. Wikipedia defines this as "a form of predatory behaviour by the coercing party, whose aim is to narrow down the scope of other people’s actions so as to make them instrumental to its own personal interests." This concept, this narrowing of scope, is integral to the very concept of coercion. Coercion must limit choice in order to be coercion.

Now, if the Sheriff had said "For your pleading I am going to execute them tomorrow instead of just imprisoning them, unless..." that would have been completely different, as it would have taken the initial option of them remaining in jail off the table with the explicit intent of limiting her choices and making her choose the one he wanted. But he didn't. He exerted no pressure whatsoever beyond the value of what he offered. There is no application of force - if anything, offering the option is a release valve for force that already existed. I honestly don't see how that is coercion.


Seriously, imagine for a moment that I offered you 10,000 dollars if you sang twinkle-twinkle-little-star for me. Is that coercion? After all, I'm basically robbing you of a potential 10,000 if you don't, right? There's that threat there, by your logic, so by definition you cannot actually agree to sing the song in exchange for the money?

[LordBucket]

look over all my arguments in this thread so far and point out any "assumptions" i had. Im
pretty certain i went along with whatever information the story gave me, no extra assumptions added.

1) You assume that Robin and Marion are soulmates based solely on that fact that she "pleads love for him" while ignoring the fact that she:
 * Doesn't know him well enough to know how he'll react to her decision
 * Leaves him
 * Accepts the next offer to come along

2) You asssume that the Sherif intends to keep Robin incarcerated "forever" rather than, for example, taking him to court and letting a judge and jury decide his sentence.

3) You assume that Marion "had no choice" but to accept the Sheriff's offer, even though she obviously had many options. For example:
 * Do nothing, let Robin serve his jail time
 * Appeal to a higher authority.
 * Use her influence as a lady in waiting to a noblewoman of the english court to manipulate the situation behind the scenes
 * Make a counter offer. For example, pay a cash fine
 * Go to Robin's band of merry man and arrange a jailbreak

[Cecilff2]

Yes.  And using your position of power to make an offer somebody can't refuse is a recognized form of coercion.

Except in this case, she most certainly CAN refuse the offer. There are those in the scenario, even, the one she's trying to save, who believes she SHOULD HAVE. Had the offer not been made, she would have lived with the alternative. It was a perfectly legitimate alternative. It is the alternative she would have had to have dealt with in a situation where everyone was doing the morally correct thing.

I fail to see how that is an invalid option, or that the first alternative that comes along immediately becomes an offer that can't be refused. You only end up with MORE choices and options than you had before. In order for something to be "an offer you can't refuse", I'd argue there would have to be at least SOME sort of restriction of choice, as in the classic mafia situation, where the choice of "things progressing as they would without the presence of the mafia member" is taken off the table completely. Wikipedia defines this as "a form of predatory behaviour by the coercing party, whose aim is to narrow down the scope of other people’s actions so as to make them instrumental to its own personal interests." This concept, this narrowing of scope, is integral to the very concept of coercion. Coercion must limit choice in order to be coercion.

Now, if the Sheriff had said "For your pleading I am going to execute them tomorrow instead of just imprisoning them, unless..." that would have been completely different, as it would have taken the initial option of them remaining in jail off the table with the explicit intent of limiting her choices and making her choose the one he wanted. But he didn't. He exerted no pressure whatsoever beyond the value of what he offered. There is no application of force - if anything, offering the option is a release valve for force that already existed. I honestly don't see how that is coercion.


Seriously, imagine for a moment that I offered you 10,000 dollars if you sang twinkle-twinkle-little-star for me. Is that coercion? After all, I'm basically robbing you of a potential 10,000 if you don't, right? There's that threat there, by your logic, so by definition you cannot actually agree to sing the song in exchange for the money?

Kidnappers demanding ransom do it all the time.  But I guess since the person they demand the ransom from has a choice in the matter of whether to pay it, that means it isn't coercion.  Or is it only not coercion if the other person attempts to find the kidnappers and then they demand the ransom?

[Graknorke]

Kidnappers take hostages with the express intent of getting a ransom.
Do you think that the sheriff arrested Robin with the intent of getting Marion to sleep with him?

[Leafsnail]

Kidnapping and then trying to extract a ransom would still be bad if you didn't initially plan to extract the ransom

[Cecilff2]

Kidnappers take hostages with the express intent of getting a ransom.
Do you think that the sheriff arrested Robin with the intent of getting Marion to sleep with him?

I can tell you right now the first sentence is wrong.  Sometimes the kidnapped are the intended prize.

I'm saying blaming robin and john when the test doesn't say they did anything criminal is a pretty big step to take.  The test is presented in a way that the Sheriff just kidnaps them.  Maybe he doesn't like them, maybe they are criminals, maybe Sheriff wanted to get in on the action, maybe Sheriff is just a sadistic monster.

[GlyphGryph]

Edit: Bah