2nd Morality Test

[Boris Godunov]

f
m
b
s
l


The friend did what I would do--if I found out a friend of mine's S.o. had ****ed someone else and wasn't honest about it, damned right I'd tell my friend.

M was perfectly right in being furious. It wasn't like there was a threat of death or anything. He could have tried to be a little more understanding, but considering she wasn't up front with him, too bad for her.

B was being a jackass for doubling the fare, but it seems odd he would do so, since L has NO money anyway. He could have given her a freebie to get to M and then maybe gotten payment from M?

S is immoral for taking advantage of someone to get laid, but considering how willing the person is, I have a hard time faulting him too much.

L acted out of impatience. She rather casually ****s someone else to get the money (so she whores herself out) to go be with M. Did she try other means? Did she think twice about it? What a tart.

[Traianvs]

Nice, the most inaccurate and silliest test I've seen this year...

I don't get why I should find Business important just because I placed boatman number #2!! On the contrary I'm not concerned with it at all...

Besides how can you link complex issues with this simple story, I don't get it, maybe that's why it's on this humor page, and you can also vote on how funny you found this joke was!

[Felch]

Oh wow, a Belgian has no sense of humor. Everybody, quick, take a picture before this rare specimen disappears forever.

[Boris Godunov]

[Paul Hanson]

Originally posted by Felch X
Oh wow, a Belgian has no sense of humor. Everybody, quick, take a picture before this rare specimen disappears forever.

Is this something Belgians are reknowned for?

[Shi Huangdi]

MtG I think you have anger management issues.........

F- Did a good deed, risked incurring the wrath of his friend(M) to tell the truth.

M- Did nothing wrong

B- Did nothing wrong, about equivalent to M, although he could have done a good dead by helping L but didn't

S- Prostitution isn't the nicest thing, and was definitely opportunistic, but not quite as bad because he was not actually in a relationship..

L- Engaged in prostitution, cheated on M. should have found another way to get the money

[Ben Kenobi]

MBLFS

Several reasons.

M and B do nothing wrong in their actions. Both should have more compassion, but they have done nothing wrong. M ranks over B because B loses nothing by helping the woman cross the river, while M has to sacrifice his principles.

L
Should not have accepted the offer for prostitution, even if it meant seeing her true love sooner.

F
Gossips. Should have let L tell M the truth. Now she has no option to defend herself.

S
Exploits the situation for his own gain.

[Nubclear]

Re: 2nd Morality Test

Originally posted by red_jon
This one really is good - though perhaps more of a priorities test than a morality test.

http://www.thehumorarchives.com/humor/0000757.html

I put down

F
L
M
B
S

So I guess the 's' word ain't too high on my agenda?

M - Not a thing wrong at all.
L - Loved M enough to prostitute for him ( )

F, B, and S I rank all the same. F should have gone to L, B shouldn't have raised prices, and S shouldn't have taken advantage of L.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
MtG I think you have anger management issues.........

Nah, I just like to troll and see who bites.

[St Leo]

1) Love
2) Sex
3) Friends
4) Business
5) Morality

Crap, I can't believe I rated Love over Sex. Oh, well. At least my morality is where it belongs.

5) Uh, the guy is a complete and utter dolt.
4) Friggin' commie capitalist pig dog.
3) How was it any of M's business?
2) Heh.
1) Given the parameters of the problem, she did nothing wrong whatsoever.

[orange]

B - doubling his price shows he's a greedy bastard, but he's only indirectly responsible at most for anything else. Doubling the price is not irrelevant because she's broke, it aggravates the situation, by presenting her with an even greater barrier to getting across. Perhaps at the normal fare, she would have had another alternative.

As far as the story goes, there was no other alternative regardless of what the price is, so I don't see how him doubling the fare matters at all.

F - Facts are absolute, truth is not. If F knew the entire situation, F should have had the good sense to shut the **** up.

Why? I'd want to know. Telling the truth does not equal immorality, even if it has bad timing or cause problems.

It wasn't infidelity, it was exploitation and coercion.

No, she entered both contracts willingly! It was infidelity, because she didn't have to but chose to, even if it was to be with him. That's still a choice she made. Ends don't justify means.

If F did not know the entire situation, F might be alright in telling M, (though it's still not his business without knowing what was going on), but should have been very clear on what F knew and didn't know.

It doesn't say that F only told M that he was cheated on. You've inferred this. I don't think it's fair to make this assumption.

S - coercive little gob****e taking advantage of L's problem for his own game. Cut off his balls and feed them to him, then tie him up in the bottom of B's boat, so he'll get to drown after it sinks.

Technically, this is also inferred. You could just as easily make a case that S new nothing of the situation, and was simply offering money for sex...just so happens he was offering the price she needed. Even assuming that he did know, and offered the money for sex, it's his right to do so. He doesn't have to give his money away, and obviously she was willing so it was both a fair and equal trade, and he has done nothing wrong.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by orange
Why? I'd want to know. Telling the truth does not equal immorality, even if it has bad timing or cause problems.

I think that a one size fits all mentality. I can think of hundreds of situations where telling the truth is immoral. Insider trading, to deliberately cause embarrassment, stirring trouble, to gain advantage from the reaction of people to the truth etc..

No, she entered both contracts willingly! It was infidelity, because she didn't have to but chose to, even if it was to be with him. That's still a choice she made. Ends don't justify means.

If she was not able to get back, do you think it would be worth her or her man's while remaining celibate indefinitely, not knowing if she would ever be able to return?

[Sirotnikov]

L
F
M
B
S

L - was willing to sacrifice her body for her love
F - didn't know the whole story, but he did try to inform his friend of what he did knew
M - was stupid enough to leave L without thinking over her reasoning.
B - exploited L. bussiness is bussiness but that's greed.
S - exploted L even worse.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Felch X
Oh wow, a Belgian has no sense of humor. Everybody, quick, take a picture before this rare specimen disappears forever.

Not sure what you mean, maybe you should learn English better..

you mean: "Oh wow, a Belgian with no sense of humor. Everybody, quick, take a picture before this rare specimen disappears forever." ?

Aynway if this kind of bollox is the sense of humor of a Jew then

[orange]

I think that a one size fits all mentality. I can think of hundreds of situations where telling the truth is immoral. Insider trading, to deliberately cause embarrassment, stirring trouble, to gain advantage from the reaction of people to the truth etc...

Insider trading isn't 'honesty'. It's more than that. It's honesty to some, and dishonesty to many.

If she was not able to get back, do you think it would be worth her or her man's while remaining celibate indefinitely, not knowing if she would ever be able to return?

Where in the story does it specifically say that there are no other options?

A man (M) and a lady (L) who are very much in love, and devoted to one another are separated by a river with no way of getting across to the other side.

But obviously there is, because the very next line is...

On L's side of the river, there is a boatman (B) who is able to take her over to the other side of the river but refuses to do so unless she pays him a price of $100, twice his normal fare.

L has no money. Another man (S) then tells L that he will giver her $100 if she sleeps with him. L agrees to do so and on receiving the $100, pays B who takes her over to the other side of the river.

It never says that this is the only choice, or that she grudgingly goes along with it after exhausting all other options. I fear you've read a bit too much into the story in an effort to glorify the one who is acting immorally.