Aere

Remember, Louise is the sister of Zephiel's mother. And I think Pent's position is earned by skill, not blood, because Erk was asked to succeed him.

Just wondering, why would Nephenee be below Gatrie? Both are similar, stat wise, but is Sentinel inferior to Marshal? Luna and Impale are similar, but I guess Luna may be better... I propose they swap places. This argument may have been posted before, I haven't looked through all too much. EDIT:: Non-Transfer.

Bonfire in my pants

You guys are getting really worked up over this... haha, I had no idea this question would spark such a discussion.

HOPLY CRAP WHO ELSE SAW THAT EPISODE

Phoenix, you put the question best, so far. In real life, there would be the variables Celice suggests, but this isn't real life. Those variables are null.

Tang, you did EXACTLY what you were supposed to do. I'm fully aware the question is asked wrong (This has been made clear to me multiple times), but you understand the point to some degree, and give an answer. Furet, but you didn't save the baby's life. I'm playing the other side to all and any responses, so... humor me.

Bryan, I only gave three options. 'Option D', while it may theoretically exist because I allowed it to, is not a suitable answer. Logically, of course you would try to shoot the shooter, but this isn't really a question of logic.

Maybe they'll find her mangled body and we can get on with the damn show already :D How is she finding food anyway, I don't think she can shoot down squirrels.

Bryan, your experiment is irrelevant. There is an actual correct answer to that problem, while mine is a matter of opinion. Your experiment isn't thinking outside of the box, it's how the problem is MEANT to be solved. Mine is a matter of opinion. There is no correct answer, and trying to make one means nothing. I don't care if you find a 'solution' to the problem. THAT MEANS NOTHING. Because you clearly understand the problem, but are all caught up in the wording because you're trying to prove something, pick one of the three people to die. The 'problem' was merely a mean to an end, of valuing one life over another. There isn't any hidden meaning that I haven't expressed, and you aren't going anywhere by attempting to make this a 'thinking outside of the box' problem. Because it isn't. This scenario isn't meant to be realistic,

Why can't you kill the baby?

The question does require thought; Pick one of the three victims to die, and justify your choice. It doesn't require you to think outside of the box, though, this is not some sort of critical analysis experiment.

Celice, I'm sure you aren't the only one who sees the flaws in the question I asked. However, you even stated yourself, that you knew what I meant/what the question basically entailed. Most other people would, too. Most people formulate opinions while reading, then reflect and justify them at the end. There's no way to create a hypothetical situation that ISN'T full of holes, or it'd just be ridiculous. That being said, why didn't you answer the question, in any case? You've clearly shown that there are flaws and such, but you still know what the question asks, and would rather point out the flaws than give an answer to the actual question.

Phoenix, the 'disarming the shooter' was meant for Celice. Sorry if the tone made it seem towards you. I'm not searching for any specific answer, I just want to see what people put higher on the scale. I think what Obviam said deserves to get re-quoted, because that's exactly what I mean: Also, the situation you're placed in (In this case, the shooter) is just a representation of any scenario where one of the chosen has to die. It's meant to be in-escapable.

I'm not asking for long, drawn out thought. Really, it doesn't take that much time to come up with an answer. Getting around the question isn't proving anything, it's not like I'm judging you all based on your choices. Celice, take a guess. Phoenix, are you sure about that answer? If you were actually about to be shot (I'm using this as just a typical example of an about-to-die scenario, don't pull crap saying you'll disarm the gunman), would you just stand there and take it? Or have another take the blow?

Because, if I gave the option to kill the shooter, probably 99% of the people who answered the question would pick it. Doesn't show all that much in terms of one's mind, that's just common sense. OH GOD, sorry guys, I messed up slightly on the wording. But, the question you (Bryan) state is another interesting one. I'm not in a position to answer, because I have NO idea how having a child makes the parent feel, and what they would do to protect that child.

Lol that black lady did absolutely nothing. I knew she would be gone before season 1 ended. Eh, Shane's sprained ankle isn't really changing much now, it only had much of an impact in the Otis episodes. And it was used to show his other side. Personally, I would have been more surprised if both of the men made it out perfectly OK. The lost girl is annoying though. Her mom is, too. I don't even know/care about the mom's name anymore. Daryl falling off the horse was just something that was cool, and it showcased how much of a BAMF he really is. Didn't really have much relevance to the story.

Celice, the question is about taking the chance with 'if', and if you're willing to take the chance. Stop trying to smartass around it, it's not like I actually put time and effort into thinking this up. Just sorta came together.

THAT'S THE POINT. The whole situation is evaluating one's mindset on 'if' or 'maybe'. Let me rephrase the question. One of the three people will die. Not the killer. Who shall die? @ Furetchen, that's how one is supposed to answer the question. I'm sure the baby means a lot to his mother. What about the affect on your conscience that you selected a baby for death, rather that some random, normal man? I'm just playing the other side.

Obviam, I guess if you want to take the question to the bare minimum. But that still leaves out what comes next. What if that baby had grown up to cure Cancer? The normal guy will NOT amount to ANYTHING, good or bad. The only reason I can see for somebody shooting themselves is their own emotional or psychological beliefs, or how a baby's life is more valuable than an elder person. No, you cannot tell the shooter to kill himself -.- Kam, the baby may or may not affect the lives of many. The kid has the chance to do SOMETHING in his life, whether for good or bad is yet to be determined. If he becomes the next Hitler, killing him would have few downsides. But if he becomes the next Einstein?

I wanna join, but I just know I'll be crushed mercilessly.

American Dad >>> Family Guy > The Simpsons, imo.

There is no personal motive for the gunman. You can't read 'into' this problem. The gunman has no opinion, he will shoot EXACTLY who you tell him to. Kam, the question is as it's stated. Would you sacrifice yourself to save others? Is a baby valued higher than another man, but not as high as yourself? Some think the death of a baby is possibly the worst thing in the world, while others don't mind. What about you?

The graphic novels are SOOOOO GOOOD. Guy, watch the episode 'Chupracabra'. It just shows how amazingly badass Daryl is. And that's all ya need ta know :D Yay Tang :D

No, you cannot alter the gunman or his mindset in any way. One of the 3 on front of him WILL die. Part 2 of this question, to justify. Why would you pick to shoot the average joe over yourself and the baby? Why is saving a baby more important than saving a man? Or, why would you pick yourself to be shot?