Whose fault is it?

[Sandro]

I did this thing in my English class not too long ago (yes my English class if you can believe it) and it sparked some pretty good discussions/debates. I wanted to know what you all thought so here it goes:

There is a river with a bridge over it, and a Baron and Baroness live in a castle on one side. The Baroness has a lover who lives on the other side of the river, and the only way to get from one side of the river to the other is to walk acrtoss the bridge or ask the nearby boatman to take her.

One day, the Baron tells his wife that he has to be gone all night to handle some business with a friend in a faraway town. The Baroness pleads with him to take her because she knows if he doesn't she will be unfaithful to him. The Baron absolutely refuses to take her because she will be in the way of his important business.

So the Baron goes alone. The hours pass, the young Baroness grows lonely and she decides to visit her lover.

The night passes, and it is not yet daylight when the Baroness leaves her lover's house because she must get back to the castle before her husband returns home. She starts to cross the bridge but sees that it is blocked by an assassin. She knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her.

In terror, she runs up the side of the river and asks the boatman to take her across the river, but he wants 10 shillings (this class is on British Literature if you didn't catch it by now). She has no money, and he refuses to take her.

Fearing for her life, the Baroness returns to her lover and asks him for the 10 shillings to pay the boatman. The lover refuses telling her it's her own fault for getting into the situation.

As dawn approaches, the woman is nearly out of her mind and decides to dash across the bridge. When she comes face to face with the assassin, he stabs her and she dies.

Put these six characters in order of responsibilty for the Baroness's death (1 being most and 6 being least).

My class had some argument over number 1. Half of the class was saying that it was the Baroness's own fault because she left the castle and the other half said it was the assassin's fault, for obvious reasons.

[gtracer72]

Its the wife's fault. The assassain is just doing his job. The boater is a typical worker who wants to get paid for providing his services. The lover is just that, a lover. The husband has important business to do.

So to give my order:
1) Baroness
2) Assassain
3) Boater
4) Lover
5) Baron

[Calhoun07]

1-6?? The person responsible here is clearly the Baroness. It's her fault and her fault alone she got killed. As if she couldn't hold her honry hormones until the following night when her husband was home? Sounds like she was the recepient of the Darwin Award.

Kind of reminds me of a news story I saw this after noon of a woman in Lawrence, Kansas who was shot and killed in her home. What happened? She answered the door at 2:30 am and two men were there to assult her and rob her and she got killed. Uh, can we say Darwin Award?

[Psycho Fox]

1)Assassain
Come on he did kill her.

2)Lover
Come on he boinks her and won't even give her 10 shillings so she can go home without getting killed. What kind of idoit is he, if she is dead he can't boink her no more and if he is so cheap why didn't he escort her arcoss the bridge?

3)Boater
He could have done it in good faith that she'd pay him the money the next time she'd go and cheap on her hubby.

6)Baroness
Not too smart, should have stayed with her lover and contacted the police from there.

?)Baron
Not enough is known, yes he could have droven his wife to find love else where but we really don't know.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Calhoun07
1-6?? The person responsible here is clearly the Baroness. It's her fault and her fault alone she got killed. As if she couldn't hold her honry hormones until the following night when her husband was home? Sounds like she was the recepient of the Darwin Award.
Hold up. Her honry hormones didn't get her killed, they got her on the wrong side of a bridge blocked by a cold blooded killer. Your saying if she was on the other side for another reason it would be different?

I think it is a tragedy of errors.

Error #1
She wasn't armed when going out at night in dangerous times.

Error #2
She didn't bring money

Error #3
The boat guy wouln't take her. Think about it if the Queen or anyone else you know is rich asked you that it is a life and death matter they you take her across the river would you ask for money? Well she is a Baroness meaning she has title and money. He can get the money from her when she gets to the other side.

Error #4
Her lover didn't care enough about her to make sure she got home safe when she told him about the killer.

Error #5
Her lover won't even arm her

Error #6
She picked a loser for a lover

Error #7
She didn't use her title to clear a path.
Come on with a title like that a message to the army and they'd esort her plus they'd back her up that there was a cold blooder killer blocking her path thus why she wasn't there to greet him.

If they were able to pump him full of lead the sight might make him forget to ask why she was on the other side.

[Barb Gordon]

She's a flip. Why couldn't she be faithful?Anyhoo :p Baroness' problem all the way. She's the one with the lover, she's the one being unfaithful, she got herself into the mess, it's her problem if she couldn't get out of it. But that's just me. And the assassin was just doing his job!

1) Baroness
2) Lover
3) Boatman
4) Baron
5) Assassin

~Barb

[czyznyck99]

Many argue that the assassin was doing his job. Ummm, what what was his job, to kill people who crossed the bridge? Better yet, who hired him? Maybe it was the Baron who suspected the lover and the Baroness were with each other? Maybe he knew the Baroness and the lover had no money, so there was no way out. Maybe the lover was an enemy of the Baron's, so he seduced the Baroness into this situation (assuming he paid the assassin to guard the bridge)? Maybe the Baroness is a little...out of control? Maybe the Boatman and the assassin are working together to make money, pay the boatman, or die?

(That's me thinking waaaaay too hard :p .)

Later.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
She's a flip. Why couldn't she be faithful?Anyhoo :p Baroness' problem all the way. She's the one with the lover, she's the one being unfaithful, she got herself into the mess, it's her problem if she couldn't get out of it. But that's just me. And the assassin was just doing his job!
Hold up. If you where the hubby what would piss you off more.

#1 Your wife was sleeping with some guy.

#2 Your wife was sleeping with some guy that was such a jerk he didn't care about the welfare of your wife after yiffing her.

Me I'd kill the SOB not for sleeping with my wife but becouse afterwards when my wife went to him for a life and death situation he didn't care.

Lets put it another way. Say you were sleeping with someone elses wife in a small town and there is only one bridge that she can take back home and a boat yard that will ferry people across for money. After sleeping with her and she leaves for her home she returns shortly some time later saying a manaic is killing people on the bridge. Now would you help her? You did sleep with her and odds are high she'd die if you don't help her?

I don't get why people blame the Baroness just becouse she sleeped around. Yes she did wrong but she didn't deserve to die over it..

[Cyber E.]

First off it is just a story, none of the accounts are actually based on a true happenings so it doesn't have to make complete sense. It isn't the Baron's fault because he needed to go on business and she WOULD have gotten in the way. ofcourse this "business trip" could be him meeting his lover therefore taking out the Baroness by hiring a assassin but that is to odd. The Boatman is paid for services and if he doesn't get paid, he doesn't have to do the service. That leaves us up to the Baroness, the Assassin & the Lover. The Lover did not help the Baroness for reasons unknown yet if the Baroness hd just been faithful she wouldn't have been in the mess. Whatever the assassins purpose it wasn't his fault.


I am just confused so I don't now who's fault it is but I know one thing, this would be better if it had a poll.

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Calhoun07
1-6?? The person responsible here is clearly the Baroness. It's her fault and her fault alone she got killed. As if she couldn't hold her honry hormones until the following night when her husband was home? Sounds like she was the recepient of the Darwin Award.

Kind of reminds me of a news story I saw this after noon of a woman in Lawrence, Kansas who was shot and killed in her home. What happened? She answered the door at 2:30 am and two men were there to assult her and rob her and she got killed. Uh, can we say Darwin Award? Real sensitive.

1. Baroness -- It is mostly her fault. NOT because she went out in the first place. She could just as easily have left the house to go buy ice cream. It's her fault because she tried to cross the bridge knowing there was an assassin there. She chose to risk death over her husband discovering her infidelity.
2. Lover -- I'm assuming the Baroness told him there was an assassin on the bridge. Because if she didn't, then the lover can't really be held responsible. But if she did, then this guy is a real ******bag (because she was there to see him).
3. Assassin -- He is not as responsible as the Baroness and her lover because they knew she was risking death (again, assuming the lover knew about the assassin). But he is more responsible than the boatman and the Baron because it was his decision to kill the Baroness.
4. Boatman -- It probably wouldn't have taken much effort to just give the Baroness a ride and charge her later, but he never forced her to run across the bridge.
5. Baron -- No one told him his wife was going to be in danger.

-Terminatah

[gtracer72]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Hold up. If you where the hubby what would piss you off more.

#1 Your wife was sleeping with some guy.

#2 Your wife was sleeping with some guy that was such a jerk he didn't care about the welfare of your wife after yiffing her.



If the wife had stayed faithful, she would never have left the castle. Second, the lover is just that, a LOVER. All he cares about is getting ;) . It's obvious that he only wanted ;) . If he really loved her, he would have given her the shillings. Since he didn't, he only wanted ;) .

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
If the wife had stayed faithful, she would never have left the castle.We don't know that. Even if she was faithful she could have still gotten lonely and decided to cross the bridge to stay at a girlfreinds or get piss drunk at the pub. She would have still gotten killed tring to get back home in the morning.

[Failure]

Originally posted by Calhoun07
Kind of reminds me of a news story I saw this after noon of a woman in Lawrence, Kansas who was shot and killed in her home. What happened? She answered the door at 2:30 am and two men were there to assult her and rob her and she got killed. Uh, can we say Darwin Award?

How is that deserving of a Darwin award?

[Jedigreedo]

So how do we know the Baron or Lover didn't send the assassin? Afterall, it is an assassin, they don't really kill for no reason, that's just plain murder. So the question is who wanted her assassinated. I think the person who hired the assassin would've been at fault because the assassin would've eventually gotten her anyways.

[Nightflower]

Originally posted by Failure
How is that deserving of a Darwin award?
Yeah... I'd have to agree.

Heh, maybe I'll take the soccer mom approach and blame knife-makers...or...bridge-builders!

I'm kidding. :p

[Calico]

C'mon people, blaming the victim went out with the poodle skirt. Welcome to the 21st century, take off your coat and stay awhile. I'm sure you all believe that a woman who wears a skirt that's just a little too short is also at fault if she gets raped. :rolleyes:

First and foremost the person at blame is the Assassin. Unless defending himself, his possessions, or his family, a man who kills, even for money, is a murderer. End of story.

Next comes the Boatman, who is nothing but a greedy coward. Take this example from an episode of the new Twilight Zone: a white man is driving at night and stops at a red light. A black man runs over and starts banging on his window and begging for help. The white man distrusts the black man and drives off, leaving him to be killed by an angry mob. So according to most of you, he was in his right to just drive off without helping, because hey it's every man for himself right? Wrong! Anyone who does not assist someone in need is at fault.

Finally is the Lover. I love how most of you condemn the woman for her indiscretion, however it does take two to commit adultery, but that's not really the point. As stated above he is also a coward for not assiting her.

The Baronness did make some poor choices, but unless she has perfect foresight, there was no way she could have known the results of her choices.

And finally the Baron, unless he hired the Assassin, was not directly involved therefore he is inconsequential.

[Outlander00]

1) Baroness
2) Baron
3) Lover
4) Boatman
5) Assassin

[Sandro]

So how do we know the Baron or Lover didn't send the assassin? Afterall, it is an assassin, they don't really kill for no reason, that's just plain murder. So the question is who wanted her assassinated. I think the person who hired the assassin would've been at fault because the assassin would've eventually gotten her anyways.

We don't really. I typed this up exactly as it was on the paper so you basically know what's there and will have to guess or whatever on anything else.

We don't know that. Even if she was faithful she could have still gotten lonely and decided to cross the bridge to stay at a girlfreinds or get piss drunk at the pub. She would have still gotten killed tring to get back home in the morning.

Still, if she hadn't left the safety of the castle, she probably wouldn't have gotten killed, lover or no lover.

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Calico
Next comes the Boatman, who is nothing but a greedy coward. Take this example from an episode of the new Twilight Zone: a white man is driving at night and stops at a red light. A black man runs over and starts banging on his window and begging for help. The white man distrusts the black man and drives off, leaving him to be killed by an angry mob. So according to most of you, he was in his right to just drive off without helping, because hey it's every man for himself right? Wrong! Anyone who does not assist someone in need is at fault.If the assassin is at fault in the Baroness' case, then the mob is at fault in that Twlight Zone case -- not the white man. The white man wasn't even acting out of greed; he was preserving his own safety from the black man, who may or may not have been dangerous.

Originally posted by Calico
The Baronness did make some poor choices, but unless she has perfect foresight, there was no way she could have known the results of her choices. She knew there was an assassin on the bridge. That's why she tried so desperately to take the boat. The reason it's her fault is because she crossed the bridge anyway.

-Terminatah

[Anyone00]

I would have to say the person/persons most responsible is/are the party that hired the assassin.

[Calico]

Originally posted by Terminatah
If the assassin is at fault in the Baroness' case, then the mob is at fault in that Twlight Zone case -- not the white man. The white man wasn't even acting out of greed; he was preserving his own safety from the black man, who may or may not have been dangerous.

I never said he was alone in being at fault, I was simply pointing out that in not doing anything you can be just as culpable as those that do. Obviously like the assassin, the mob is the most responsible

She knew there was an assassin on the bridge. That's why she tried so desperately to take the boat. The reason it's her fault is because she crossed the bridge anyway.

-Terminatah

Well that's a lovely defense. 'Your Honor, the victim obviously knew she was going to die, therefore you should acquit my client of all charges. It's not his fault he committed a heinous crime, it was hers just for being there.' Lawyers all across the country are going to be all over that. :rolleyes:

[gtracer72]

Here's what I say, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." :) That answers everything. :p

[Jade_GL]

What is the Baron *said* he was off on business, but was really out having an affair with his lover....... And he hired an assassin because he knew she was going to get some loving, and if she got killed, he would be free to have his mistress, and blame it all on her anyway! HAHAHAHAHHAHA!

I love just making stuff up, but now on to the talky talky.

The reason that she died is because she couldn't get on the boat because she didn't have money. I find her at fault for not having thought out an alternative if an emergency did occur. It's not her fault for sleeping with another man. From what I gather, she must have felt neglected by the Baron and his pushing her aside for work. So, I find it's her fault for not covering all of her bases, not because she decided to have an affair.

Still, her lover is a real jerkwad anyway for not helping her out, and the assassin is the *assassin* so he's not a very nice guy either.

Of course, the cause of her death is the wounds inlficted by the assassin.

Can we blame the weapon? hehehe

Anyway, I think everyone here has a small part in all of this, except for the boat driver. I think he's just doing business and doesn't really have a part in all of this. He's like the potted plant of this story... :D

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sandro885

Still, if she hadn't left the safety of the castle, she probably wouldn't have gotten killed, lover or no lover. That's stupid. It is like if I leave my house and get killed it is my falt becouse I left my house. She has the right to leave the house at her own will. How was she suppose to know her route would be blocked comming back?

Anyway, I think everyone here has a small part in all of this, except for the boat driver. I think he's just doing business and doesn't really have a part in all of this. He's like the potted plant of this story.Have to kinda agree but if she explained her situation to the boat man he could have put it on her tab.

[Singin' Stray Cat]

Forget the boatman and the bridge... I'm wondering why the Baroness couldn't just swim or wade across the river and change clothes when she got back to the castle - unless it was really cold that night or she was wearing something made of heavy fabric. :D

...sorry. I'm a nutcase :p Not to mention it's clearly stated that the bridge and the boatman are the only ways across the river. I'll try to answer seriously. But I'll have to give it some thought first, because right now I've got lots of conflicting thoughts on who's responsible for what.

I mean, let's take the Baroness by herself as an example. One could say that she is the most responsible for her own death, because she made the initial mistake of leaving the castle AND crossing the river in the first place.

(When I say "crossing the river," I mean the first time she crosses the river, to get TO the lover, as opposed to the fatal second time, when she's coming FROM the lover's abode. Here I am assuming that, had the baroness simply gone outside the castle to walk around the perimeter or something, and stayed away from the river, that she would still be alive. Unless there were bears in the woods that night, but they're not mentioned, so...I'd best get back to the subject. ;) )

Anyway, she left the castle; if she hadn't, the boatman wouldn't have to argue, the lover wouldn't have refused to loan her money (cheap...grumble grumble), and the assassin wouldn't have killed her. Least, not that night.

BUT...when she left the castle, she didn't know she'd be killed. It's not like she planned to see the assassin at the bridge, or planned to not be carrying enough money with her. ("Oh my, might be an assassin out tonight - better bring some bus fare. And maybe this can of mace." :D ) Also, if you're an old-fashioned type gal like me, having an extra lover when you're married is a bad idea anyway (and if she didn't have her lover, that would have prevented this problem and probably a host of others ;) ). But is poor planning and poor decision making the same as being responsible?

And these are just thoughts on one character. See what a mess I am? :p

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Singin' Stray Cat
Forget the boatman and the bridge... I'm wondering why the Baroness couldn't just swim or wade across the river and change clothes when she got back to the castle - unless it was really cold that night or she was wearing something made of heavy fabric. :DWell we don't know if she can swim or how deep the river is or how wide.


Also, if you're an old-fashioned type gal like me, having an extra lover when you're married is a bad idea anywayWell her having a lover didn't get her killed. It got her stranded on the wrong side of the river but didn't kill her.

(and if she didn't have her lover, that would have prevented this problem and probably a host of others ;) ).But like you said she didn't know about the assassin. Plus we don't know the lay of the town. Everything could be on the otherside of the river, night clubs, pubs, Entertianment,ect. Meaning even without her lover she could have simply crossed the river to go on a night on the town and still end up in the same problem but worse. Now even if she took money she could have spent it all in town, plus the lover doesn't know her so why would he lend a stranger money when he wouldn't lend her money when she was his lover.

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Calico
Well that's a lovely defense. 'Your Honor, the victim obviously knew she was going to die, therefore you should acquit my client of all charges. It's not his fault he committed a heinous crime, it was hers just for being there.' Lawyers all across the country are going to be all over that. :rolleyes: The question was, whose fault is it that the Baroness died? The Baroness knew the assassin was going to kill her if she crossed the bridge, but she crossed anyway. It's not like she was jumped out of nowhere. She chose to risk her life rather than get caught cheating. So not only is she to blame for her own death, she's also a big fat idiot.

-Terminatah

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Terminatah
The question was, whose fault is it that the Baroness died? The Baroness knew the assassin was going to kill her if she crossed the bridge, but she crossed anyway. It's not like she was jumped out of nowhere. She chose to risk her life rather than get caught cheating. So not only is she to blame for her own death, she's also a big fat idiot.

-Terminatah But you forget she is stranded, she doesn't have many options.

- her lover is a big dumb jerk he probably try and boink her again if she waits out at his place and when her hubby comes looking for her it is not a good idea being there. But if she can keep his hands off of her it might be a good idea

- She could wait at the edge of the bridge for the assassin to move but what if he moves towards her.

- She could try and wait for her hubby to come look for her in a pub or something but then her hubby might get killed by the assassin when he tries to cross the bridge. What if her hubby isn't that smart and doesn't look in the pubs.

- She chould seduce the boat guy, down side is she might have to sleep with him or he is not intrested and she still be stuck.

- Get help if she can find help

[Krayenhoff]

The baronness got herself into the mess and she couldn't get herself out of it. Tough luck, Ms. Baronness, but it's all your fault.

Anyone who tries to argue differently is simply denying that someone can be responsible for their own actions. Sorry, that's not how society works. If you can't be held accountable for your own actions then there's no point in things like law and morality and justice.

[zimbach]

The Baronness died because of God's will.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by zimbach
The Baronness died because of God's will.

Isnt that a little TOO profound? :D

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Calico
Take this example from an episode of the new Twilight Zone: a white man is driving at night and stops at a red light. A black man runs over and starts banging on his window and begging for help. The white man distrusts the black man and drives off, leaving him to be killed by an angry mob. So according to most of you, he was in his right to just drive off without helping, because hey it's every man for himself right? Wrong! Anyone who does not assist someone in need is at fault. Whoa whoa whoa! I haven't seen this episode, so I might be missing some of the setup, but if someone comes banging on my window at a stoplight in the middle of the night, I know I'm going to be distrustful... the degree of my mistrust is going to depend on the appearance of the person banging on my window.

That would be like the woman Calhoun spoke of who opened her door to a couple of strangers at 2:30 in the morning. It could be a life-or-death decision that you're making.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
The baronness got herself into the mess and she couldn't get herself out of it. Tough luck, Ms. Baronness, but it's all your fault.

Anyone who tries to argue differently is simply denying that someone can be responsible for their own actions. Sorry, that's not how society works. If you can't be held accountable for your own actions then there's no point in things like law and morality and justice. Hold up. It is more the assassin falt then Baronness. Baronness could have been stranded on the wrong side of the river for any number of reasons. The fact that she desided on decided across the bridge doesn't make her more responsible then the assassin. All the assassin had to do was not kill her, while the Baronness had to come up with a stratagy to get to the other side.

So she came up with a bad plan to get across.

Really even the police are more at falt then her since they failed to provide a safe enviorment?

[Digu Volz]

I'd say the assassin ranks first. Sure, she crossed the bridge, but ultimately he killed her.

Next would be the baroness, for lots of reasons, and it could be argued that she brought this on herself, but she didn't kill herself, someone else did. Sure, the guy was a assassin but that doesn't make it anymore right than if a random villager had done it.

The lover wasn't being much of a lover, so he goes third.

The baron and boatman didn't do anything directly, but given the situation the boatman could have given her a free ride, so those are five and four respectively.

[Calico]

Originally posted by Terminatah
The question was, whose fault is it that the Baroness died? The Baroness knew the assassin was going to kill her if she crossed the bridge, but she crossed anyway. It's not like she was jumped out of nowhere. She chose to risk her life rather than get caught cheating. So not only is she to blame for her own death, she's also a big fat idiot.

-Terminatah

So the assassin had no choice but to kill her? He was compelled by some unforseen force that he had no control of to kill her? The last I heard we have free will, so he, of his own free will, murdered her.

She was obviously desperate to get back accross and had pleaded with not one, but TWO people to help her, neither of which did, so she was compelled to take her only other option. Does she have no right to take that bridge back to her home, was she committing some crime punishable by death? No. And what if there was an emergency and someone else's life was at stake, would that still make her a 'big fat idiot', or would it be a heroic sacrifice?

Whoa whoa whoa! I haven't seen this episode, so I might be missing some of the setup, but if someone comes banging on my window at a stoplight in the middle of the night, I know I'm going to be distrustful... the degree of my mistrust is going to depend on the appearance of the person banging on my window.

That would be like the woman Calhoun spoke of who opened her door to a couple of strangers at 2:30 in the morning. It could be a life-or-death decision that you're making.

A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once.

As far as the episode went, he was bleeding from a scalp wound and begging for help. And it wasn't really the middle of the night, more like late evening. Later on in the episode, the driver admits that he would have helped him if he'd been white.

[gtracer72]

Originally posted by Calico
So the assassin had no choice but to kill her? He was compelled by some unforseen force that he had no control of to kill her? The last I heard we have free will, so he, of his own free will, murdered her.



He didn't murder her on his freewill. Last time I checked, assassin's don't work for free. The assassin is doing the job he was payed for.

[Anyone00]

He didn't murder her on his freewill.

In a thick German accent: "...but I was only following orders."

:rolleyes:

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
He didn't murder her on his freewill. Last time I checked, assassin's don't work for free. The assassin is doing the job he was payed for. Yes he did, he still had freewill actully go through with it or not.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Calico
A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once.But who's going to smell worse in a week: the coward or the brave man? ;)

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Calico
So the assassin had no choice but to kill her? He was compelled by some unforseen force that he had no control of to kill her? The last I heard we have free will, so he, of his own free will, murdered her.

She was obviously desperate to get back accross and had pleaded with not one, but TWO people to help her, neither of which did, so she was compelled to take her only other option. Does she have no right to take that bridge back to her home, was she committing some crime punishable by death? No. And what if there was an emergency and someone else's life was at stake, would that still make her a 'big fat idiot', or would it be a heroic sacrifice?What if there was an emergency? Who cares? There is only one scenario; the one in the first post of the thread. That's what we're talking about. The lady could have stayed on the other side and gotten caught by her husband, or run across the bridge where the psycho with the knife was waiting for her. Common sense dictates that she's putting her life on the line for the sake of saving face. Clearly, self-preservation was not on the top of her priorities list.

Did she know there was an assassin on the bridge? Yes. Did she choose to run across anyway? Yes. Who took the risk? She did. This is what is known as a death wish.

-Terminatah

[The Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But you forget she is stranded, she doesn't have many options.

- her lover is a big dumb jerk he probably try and boink her again if she waits out at his place and when her hubby comes looking for her it is not a good idea being there. But if she can keep his hands off of her it might be a good idea

- She could wait at the edge of the bridge for the assassin to move but what if he moves towards her.

- She could try and wait for her hubby to come look for her in a pub or something but then her hubby might get killed by the assassin when he tries to cross the bridge. What if her hubby isn't that smart and doesn't look in the pubs.

- She chould seduce the boat guy, down side is she might have to sleep with him or he is not intrested and she still be stuck.

- Get help if she can find help These are all possibilities which could affect the outcome, but you're really just reading too much into the problem. The situation presented in the first post doesn't mention that she couldn't wait near the bridge or at her lover's house, all it says is that she's currently at one end of the bridge and to get home she needs to cross it. Whether there's an assasin on the bridge or a giant bear trap doesn't really change what will happen if she attempts to cross it. There's no question that she would die. She might as well have just gone to Dr. Kevorkian himself. Just because she's not the one to do the deed doesn't mean she's not the one chiefly responsible.

[Lucky Bob]

It's the baroness. Sin brings consequence.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight
These are all possibilities which could affect the outcome, but you're really just reading too much into the problem. The situation presented in the first post doesn't mention that she couldn't wait near the bridge or at her lover's house, all it says is that she's currently at one end of the bridge and to get home she needs to cross it. Whether there's an assasin on the bridge or a giant bear trap doesn't really change what will happen if she attempts to cross it. There's no question that she would die. She might as well have just gone to Dr. Kevorkian himself. Just because she's not the one to do the deed doesn't mean she's not the one chiefly responsible. But if it was a bear trap then it would be different as the assasin has free will. The assassin decided to kill her so it is primaraly his falt. Plus you forget she ran across meaning she was thinking she had some what of a chance to dart by him before he could kill her so if she was more quick and nimble she might have succeded in getting past the assassin alive.

It's the baroness. Sin brings consequence.What sin? Bad judgment is a SIN? Her sleeping around just made her cross the bridge the first time it has nothing to do with the bridge being blocked the second.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox


What sin? Bad judgment is a SIN? Her sleeping around just made her cross the bridge the first time it has nothing to do with the bridge being blocked the second.

Sleeping around is sin in the first place. I think that the death was a consequence.

[Psycho Fox]

I don't belive noone noticed this before.....

None of you guys would make good detective.

Think about it for a moment. If the assassin was hired by the Baron there would be no way for the assassin to know the lover would not give her money to use the boat and if the lover hired the assassin there is no way he'd know that she didn't have any money for the boat or that the boat guy would give her a ride anyway or that she would risk her life tring to cross.

But the most startling fact is she can tell he is an assassin from a fair distance, before she can even see his face. So how does she know? not like there is a big neon sign above him saying assassin. I think the assassin had his weapon drawn and hidden from view from people comming the other way meaning he had no intrest on anyone on that side of the river.

Now if anyone trying to cross the bridge from the lovers side to the castle side could see him, odds are he knew approximately when his target would cross and it would have been soon since he can't sit there all day or he'd get caught. Well the Baron was comming back around that time. The Baron could be riding past the catle and across the bridge before returning home. Bring in goods or the freind that was mentioned. Thus odds are high the assassin didn't care about her and was going to ambush the Barons ride either to kill the Baron or someone ridding with him.

Yes it says she left her lovers becouse she wanted to be home when her hubby did but when she saw the assassin she really wanted to get across. Could it be she wanted to warn her hubby not to cross? If so it is not her falt at all, any hero would risk their own neck to protect another. If not it is still not her falt and totaly the assassin. The assassin was not paid to kill her, that was not why he was waiting on the bridge so it is his falt for being seen before the ambush and his falt for kill her.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Sleeping around is sin in the first place. I think that the death was a consequence. No it wasn't, I don't think the assassin was even there to kill her plus any number of things could have made her cross the bridge in the first place.

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
I don't belive noone noticed this before.....

None of you guys would make good detective.If making up a bunch of arbitrary scenarios to solve a nonexistent mystery involving a simple situation with universal applications makes you a good detective, then I guess you're right.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Think about it for a moment. If the assassin was hired by the Baron there would be no way for the assassin to know the lover would not give her money to use the boat and if the lover hired the assassin there is no way he'd know that she didn't have any money for the boat or that the boat guy would give her a ride anyway or that she would risk her life tring to cross.

But the most startling fact is she can tell he is an assassin from a fair distance, before she can even see his face. So how does she know? not like there is a big neon sign above him saying assassin. I think the assassin had his weapon drawn and hidden from view from people comming the other way meaning he had no intrest on anyone on that side of the river.

Now if anyone trying to cross the bridge from the lovers side to the castle side could see him, odds are he knew approximately when his target would cross and it would have been soon since he can't sit there all day or he'd get caught. Well the Baron was comming back around that time. The Baron could be riding past the catle and across the bridge before returning home. Bring in goods or the freind that was mentioned. Thus odds are high the assassin didn't care about her and was going to ambush the Barons ride either to kill the Baron or someone ridding with him.

Yes it says she left her lovers becouse she wanted to be home when her hubby did but when she say the assassin she really wanted to get across. Could it be she wanted to warn her hubby not to cross? If so it is not her falt at all, any hero would risk their own neck to protect another. If not it is still not her falt and totaly the assassin. The assassin was not paid to kill her, that was not why he was waiting on the bridge so it is his falt for being seen before the ambush and his falt for kill her. The story was very clear and question was really simple. This is all irrelevant.

-Terminatah

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Terminatah
The story was very clear and question was really simple. This is all irrelevant.
No it wasn't. The story never said why the assassin was there or who the assassin was going to kill.

If the assassin was trying to kill her he should find a new profession.

Yet if the assassin was tring to kill someone else then it is totaly his falt for allowing her to see him. Just like if a hit man is seen by a little old lady passing by and she scream for help it is the hit mans falt for being sloppy.

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The story never said why the assassin was there or who the assassin was going to kill.That's why your speculations are irrelevant. We could theorize forever about the psychology of the assassin, but the whole point of the question is to assemble an answer based solely on the information given in the story.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to arrive at any conclusion. Because once you apply one theory, a million other theories can be used to contradict it.

-Terminatah

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Terminatah
That's why your speculations are irrelevant. We could theorize forever about the psychology of the assassin, but the whole point of the question is to assemble an answer based solely on the information given in the story.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to arrive at any conclusion. Because once you apply one theory, a million other theories can be used to contradict it.

-Terminatah But only using the information of the story we can not come to any conclusion since the story leaves too many questions. We know the assassin is guilty of killing her yet we have no idea if he killed her for fun,money, she spoked him or he didn't want her ruining his ambush. We also don't know why the she ran. did she think she can get by him without getting hurt? If so she is less at falt. Did she realize this was a ambush or her hubby if so it is totally not her falt at all.

Thus either the writter was a high school drop out or purposely left unanswered question to spark debate. I ran into a number of these before. Stories that where designed to test out of the box thinking.

[EinBebop]

I blame George Bush for not doing more about internal defense.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But if it was a bear trap then it would be different as the assasin has free will. The assassin decided to kill her so it is primaraly his falt. Plus you forget she ran across meaning she was thinking she had some what of a chance to dart by him before he could kill her so if she was more quick and nimble she might have succeded in getting past the assassin alive.And if she was really quick and nimble she could have avoided the bear trap. There's a slim chance you could survive jumping off a 10-story building, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The point is that running across the bridge didn't make her death a certainty, nothing is ever certain, but the thought of her escaping the assassin is ridiculous. She was aware that crossing the bridge would lead to her death. The assassin may have had free will, but she confronted him, not the other way around. The assassin would have been content to just stay on that bridge all night not killing anyone.
But only using the information of the story we can not come to any conclusion since the story leaves too many questions. We know the assassin is guilty of killing her yet we have no idea if he killed her for fun,money, she spoked him or he didn't want her ruining his ambush. We also don't know why the she ran. did she think she can get by him without getting hurt? If so she is less at falt. Did she realize this was a ambush or her hubby if so it is totally not her falt at all.You're asking too many questions. Keep it simple.

[Calico]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight
And if she was really quick and nimble she could have avoided the bear trap. There's a slim chance you could survive jumping off a 10-story building, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The point is that running across the bridge didn't make her death a certainty, nothing is ever certain, but the thought of her escaping the assassin is ridiculous. She was aware that crossing the bridge would lead to her death. The assassin may have had free will, but she confronted him, not the other way around. The assassin would have been content to just stay on that bridge all night not killing anyone.

Poor assassin, if she hadn't bugged him he wouldn't have had to kill her, right? Why does everyone just think it's okay, he was just doing his job, no big deal? This is murder after all. Saying that he's only going to kill people on the bridge does not lessen the severity.

She confronted him? No, he was blocking the path to her home, which she has every right to use. The odds may have been against her, but she had a perfectly valid reason - to her at least - for going across. Just because you don't agree with her reasons do not negate them. And again I stress this wasn't her first choice. She did try something else.

We don't know how wide the bridge was. Maybe she did have a reasonable expectation that she could get past him. Or maybe she there was a possibility that he wasn't even after her at all. It was a risk she took, but simply taking the risk does not make her more at fault than the person who actually took her life. HE is the one who killed her, HE is the most at fault.

[Dark Vicious]

First off how do we know she would have been safe crossing the river with the boat?

The assassin could have shot the boater and the baroness from the bridge easy so the boater really isn't at fault.

Neither is the lover surely you all have had a bit of trouble with being broke.

The baron isn't at fault either because he wasn't even there.

I don't think the baroness is at fault because she was being unfaithjful but no person deserves to die for any reason

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight
And if she was really quick and nimble she could have avoided the bear trap. There's a slim chance you could survive jumping off a 10-story building, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The point is that running across the bridge didn't make her death a certainty, nothing is ever certain, but the thought of her escaping the assassin is ridiculous. She was aware that crossing the bridge would lead to her death. The assassin may have had free will, but she confronted him, not the other way around. The assassin would have been content to just stay on that bridge all night not killing anyone.
You're asking too many questions. Keep it simple. Still we, don't have a motive for the assassin nor a motive for her to dart across. Why did she have to get home before her hubby?Was he abusive? Did she hire the assassin the kill him and was having second thoughs about it? or maybe she hired him and wated to get home for an alibi. Maybe her hubby is bringing back this freinds and this freind is the Baron's secret lover and she wants to send her across the bridge without the Baron.

There is just too many varablies to come to any solid conclusion.
You're asking too many questions. Keep simple.My ethic teacher said you can never ask too many questions and you shouldn't draw conclusions if you know you are missing vital information which we are in this story.

[Sandro]

That's stupid. It is like if I leave my house and get killed it is my falt becouse I left my house. She has the right to leave the house at her own will.

Yes that's true; she does have the right to leave her house at her own will but where did she go? To her lover's place, a bad choice from the start.

How was she suppose to know her route would be blocked comming back?

She didn't but she still chose to confront him.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sandro885
To her lover's place, a bad choice from the start. We have insufficient information to prove that. She could have gone on a regular basis. So to her a trip to her lover's place could have been like a trip to the corner store. We also don't know how her relationship with her hubby was. Remember this could be way back when women could not get a divorce.

She didn't but she still chose to confront him. She didn't want to, he was in the way and she really wanted to get home for a reason not clear.

[cross blues]

I've heard something like this before, but a little different I think. Isn't it actually a way to judge what you value, or something to that effect? ok anyway I haven't seen this opinion yet I have no idea why but...

why did the assassin kill the baroness? she was trying to cross the bridge. why was she trying to cross the bridge? to get back to the castle. why was she away from the castle? she was with her lover. why was she with her lover? the baron refused to take her with him, even after she pleaded. I think it all leads back to the man who was supposed to be her lover in the first place. his absence triggered the entire chain.

1. Baron (everything started when he left)
2. Assassin (obvious)
3. Boatman (why wouldn't he take her for free?)
4. Baroness (wouldn't have gone if the Baron was with her)
5. Lover (Baroness went to him, he has no obligation to help)

a lot of you are missing the point... why didn't she steal money from her lover or push the boatman out of his boat? because it's not in the story, that's why. you are supposed to make choices based only on the info given, that's the idea

[EinBebop]

I was just watching CourtTV... seems the family of the Baroness is suing the town for not placing better lighting and more guards on the bridge, the store that sold the dagger to the assassin, and the blacksmith that made the dagger.

Guess we left a few people off the list.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by prozzak
a lot of you are missing the point... why didn't she steal money from her lover or push the boatman out of his boat? because it's not in the story, that's why. you are supposed to make choices based only on the info given, that's the idea If your not suppose to question the story why didn't they write it better.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Calico
Poor assassin, if she hadn't bugged him he wouldn't have had to kill her, right? Why does everyone just think it's okay, he was just doing his job, no big deal? This is murder after all. Saying that he's only going to kill people on the bridge does not lessen the severity.I never said that what the assassin did was ok because there just isn't enough information to determine if anyone's actions were right or wrong. Luckily, the question in the first post doesn't ask us to make that determination, it only asks who was at fault.We don't know how wide the bridge was. Maybe she did have a reasonable expectation that she could get past him. Or maybe she there was a possibility that he wasn't even after her at all. It was a risk she took, but simply taking the risk does not make her more at fault than the person who actually took her life. HE is the one who killed her, HE is the most at fault. The story clearly states:
"She knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her."
The width of the bridge is irrelevant. She knows that crossing the bridge will lead to her death. Did anyone force her to cross it? No, she chose to do so. She is the cause of her own death, despite whatever reasons she had to cross it.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight
"She knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her."
The width of the bridge is irrelevant. She knows that crossing the bridge will lead to her death. Did anyone force her to cross it? No, she chose to do so. She is the cause of her own death, despite whatever reasons she had to cross it. This leads to more questions. How does she know, Or just thinks she knows? How can she tell? Does she know the assassin? Does she knows he will try to kill her, or also succeed in doing so?

This story is really poorly written if you are just suppose to think the way it wants you too since there is just too many questions it leaves unanswered.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
This leads to more questions. How does she know, Or just thinks she knows? How can she tell? Does she know the assassin? Does she knows he will try to kill her, or also succeed in doing so?

This story is really poorly written if you are just suppose to think the way it wants you too since there is just too many questions it leaves unanswered.

1. You totally missed the point of the story. You can only go by the facts you are given. Asking questions is pointless since the story is over and no more facts will be provided for you.

2. There is such a thing as asking too many questions, especially questions that can't be answered at all. How is anyone supposed to know what she's thinking? You can't. So just drop it.

3. There is no conspiracy and no trick to the baroness's death. She died because she made a poor decision. You can blame it on the assassin all you want, but we're asking whose fault it is, not who did it. If some guy walks into a lion pit, it may be the lions doing the mauling, but it's his fault for getting into that situation in the first place.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
1. You totally missed the point of the story. You can only go by the facts you are given. Asking questions is pointless since the story is over and no more facts will be provided for you.

2. There is such a thing as asking too many questions, especially questions that can't be answered at all. How is anyone supposed to know what she's thinking? You can't. So just drop it.

3. There is no conspiracy and no trick to the baroness's death. She died because she made a poor decision. You can blame it on the assassin all you want, but we're asking whose fault it is, not who did it. If some guy walks into a lion pit, it may be the lions doing the mauling, but it's his fault for getting into that situation in the first place. Ahh but either this is a trick story in which there is no such thing as asking too many questions or this story was written by a crappy writter. If the writter didn't want questions to be asked he or she should have written it better.

So it is the writters falt

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Ahh but either this is a trick story in which there is no such thing as asking too many questions or this story was written by a crappy writter. If the writter didn't want questions to be asked he or she should have written it better.

So it is the writters falt

No it's not. This isn't supposed to be an omnipotent retelling of an event, this is a summary of events presented without the benefit of knowing what everyone was thinking. When police file reports about murders, they're not faulted if they don't include what the victim may have been thinking because there is no way of knowing. You are asking for the impossible, and in doing so are wasting everyone's time trying to tell you that this situation is what it is. The writer intentionally left out those things and forces you to react on the evidence that is presented.

By asking so many questions in this situation, you are not coming off as smart, you're coming off as someone who can't make up her mind. If you're always going to be asking questions then you're never going to find answer, WHICH DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Calling this the writer's fault is asinine. Name one police report that has ever been filed where the police knew every last detail of what happened. There is none. Witnesses are fallible, the evidence is incomplete, there may be multiple motives, etc. I know you may be used to having things presented to you like in textbooks where all the events are neatly outlined and explained for, but that's not the case when you're dealing with on-the-spot decisions. A detective isn't faulted for not having every last speck of evidence. His only job is to take the facts he's presented with, I repeat, THE FACTS HE'S PRESENTED WITH, and make a judgment from there. If everyone took your route, no crime would ever be solved because there'd be a never-ending search for every last little thing. It's people like you who come up with crackpot conspiracy theories based on no evidence at all simply because you're not satisfied with the outcome. Well tough.

It was a simple question: who's fault is it? And this is the result: confusion. Man oh man.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
No it's not. This isn't supposed to be an omnipotent retelling of an event, this is a summary of events presented without the benefit of knowing what everyone was thinking. When police file reports about murders, they're not faulted if they don't include what the victim may have been thinking because there is no way of knowing. You are asking for the impossible, and in doing so are wasting everyone's time trying to tell you that this situation is what it is. The writer intentionally left out those things and forces you to react on the evidence that is presented.

By asking so many questions in this situation, you are not coming off as smart, you're coming off as someone who can't make up her mind. If you're always going to be asking questions then you're never going to find answer, WHICH DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.


It was a simple question: who's fault is it? And this is the result: confusion. Man oh man. I'm not expecting it to leave no unanswered questions but this one leaves far too many.

You want my Answer?

Well for

#1 Baron If he hired assassin, Lover if he hired assassin, Baroness if she did. If she wasn't the assassin's target the assassin is totaly responsable and nothing would be after #1.

Else Assassin #1.

#2 Lover unless he is #1. If lover has no money or she didn't tell him he is not at falt.

#3 Baroness unless #1. For not carring money and not thinking her plan out.

#4 Boat guy for not taking her across unless he was working with the assassin then he'd be #2. Baron if he was abusive which would knock the boat guy to #5

That's the problem. The story leaves too many questions unanswered that effect the outcome of the answer. And if you ingore them the story has plot holes and can't happen in reality. The assassin would have to become a mugger or killer for it to work.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff

Calling this the writer's fault is asinine. Name one police report that has ever been filed where the police knew every last detail of what happened. There is none. Witnesses are fallible, the evidence is incomplete, there may be multiple motives, etc. I know you may be used to having things presented to you like in textbooks where all the events are neatly outlined and explained for, but that's not the case when you're dealing with on-the-spot decisions. A detective isn't faulted for not having every last speck of evidence. His only job is to take the facts he's presented with, I repeat, THE FACTS HE'S PRESENTED WITH, and make a judgment from there. If everyone took your route, no crime would ever be solved because there'd be a never-ending search for every last little thing. It's people like you who come up with crackpot conspiracy theories based on no evidence at all simply because you're not satisfied with the outcome. Well tough.
Hold up unless your talking LAPD no police force on the planet would close the case without finding out what the assassin was up to and it is unethical to make a call without having enough information to atleast have a faint idea of what happened. In this story we don't, we only have a small fraction of what happened.

[Sandro]

#3 Baroness unless #1. For not carring money and not thinking her plan out.

This sort of sounds like you're defending adultery.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sandro885
This sort of sounds like you're defending adultery. The problem is we don't know enough to totaly say either way.

The Baron might have been abusive.
She might not be able to get a divorce.
It might have been an aranged marriage.
Her adultery might be the only thing keeping her from killing her self.
We don't even know if the Baron is doing the same thing.

we just don't know and more importantly it is completely irrelevant there is not enough to link her death to her adultery. The main character is the assassin, he is the key to the whole mystery. If she was the target (which we don't know) who ever hired him is primarily at falt her adultry is a side note. Next would be the assassin him self since he had a choice to kill her or not. Next would be the lover for not caring then would be the Baroness for crossing when she knew he was on the bridge.

Yes she committed adultery but it is a mater between the Baron, Baroness and the lover. No one else. So unless one of those three hired the assassin her adultry is a non issue.

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The assassin would have to become a mugger or killer for it to work. That's exactly what he is. Just an anonymous criminal -- nothing more.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The problem is we don't know enough to totaly say either way.

The Baron might have been abusive.
She might not be able to get a divorce.
It might have been an aranged marriage.
Her adultery might be the only thing keeping her from killing her self.
We don't even know if the Baron is doing the same thing.

we just don't know and more importantly it is completely irrelevant there is not enough to link her death to her adultery. The main character is the assassin, he is the key to the whole mystery. If she was the target (which we don't know) who ever hired him is primarily at falt her adultry is a side note. Next would be the assassin him self since he had a choice to kill her or not. Next would be the lover for not caring then would be the Baroness for crossing when she knew he was on the bridge.

Yes she committed adultery but it is a mater between the Baron, Baroness and the lover. No one else. So unless one of those three hired the assassin her adultry is a non issue. You're not supposed to divine arbitrary details about the condition of the Baroness' marriage, or the size of the bridge, or anything else not specifically mentioned in the story. The "unanswered questions" you're bringing up are moot. If the story doesn't say someone hired the assassin, then he was definitely not hired by anyone. You're supposed to accept the details as they are presented within the reality of the story, and consider nothing else about the Baroness' life that might pop into your head. I don't know how else to put this, as we've been reiterating it for the last 50 posts. It's not a mystery, it's not a lateral thinking puzzle; it's just a philosophical question based on a simple hypothetical situation.

-Terminatah

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Terminatah
That's exactly what he is. Just an anonymous criminal -- nothing more.
Ummm an assassin is a professional hitman and assassins wouldn't waste their time just killing anyone. If he was just anonymous criminal the story shoundn't have declared him as an assassin. It basicly comes off that he is there for money.

Here look at this from the dictonary:

1. n. a hired murderer

Well if the story is going by this definition then someone must have hired him

2.n.One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.

Well he didn't do a suprise attack on her, she saw it comming leaving either his target wasn't her or there was a plot.

So take your pick he was either he was hired, she wasn't the target or plot.

[zimbach]

The only person responsible for the death of the Baronness is the writer of this stupid story.

Unless you beleive that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; in which case it is God's will that the writer wrote the story as he did.

Willful intent = at fault.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Terminatah

You're not supposed to divine arbitrary details about the condition of the Baroness' marriage, or the size of the bridge, or anything else not specifically mentioned in the story. The "unanswered questions" you're bringing up are moot. If the story doesn't say someone hired the assassin, then he was definitely not hired by anyone. You're supposed to accept the details as they are presented within the reality of the story, and consider nothing else about the Baroness' life that might pop into your head. I don't know how else to put this, as we've been reiterating it for the last 50 posts. It's not a mystery, it's not a lateral thinking puzzle; it's just a philosophical question based on a simple hypothetical situation.



While I see where you're coming from, I don't necessarily agree. Its the old "Don't judge a book by its cover" idea. Some are quick to judge based only on the facts at hand, others require more of the big picture before their decision is made. I think most of Psycho Fox's questions and points are rather valid ones.


Originally posted by zimbach
The only person responsible for the death of the Baronness is the writer of this stupid story.

Unless you beleive that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; in which case it is God's will that the writer wrote the story as he did.

Willful intent = at fault.


LOL! Great point zimbach!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Clayface

While I see where you're coming from, I don't necessarily agree. Its the old "Don't judge a book by its cover" idea. Some are quick to judge based only on the facts at hand, others require more of the big picture before their decision is made. I think most of Psycho Fox's questions and points are rather valid ones.

Right and I think that if the writter wanted us to only judge by the facts of hands the writter wouldn't have called the assassin an assassin, instead a mugger or something. That way everything could be easily expained and the reader can concentrate on just the fact provided. Yet as an assassin it become hard to do that becouse the writter defined him as more then just a simple killer yet treated him as just a simple killer. So I'm not even sure if the writter knew how to write properly and was aware of that having an assassin instead of a killer completly changes how the reader understands the story.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Clayface
[B]
While I see where you're coming from, I don't necessarily agree. Its the old "Don't judge a book by its cover" idea. Some are quick to judge based only on the facts at hand, others require more of the big picture before their decision is made. I think most of Psycho Fox's questions and points are rather valid ones.


Actually, it's not. This is a hypothetical situation, not a real-life event, so what happens in the story is not up for debate unless the writer said it could be. Even if it was, it's pointless to ask what may or may not be going on since there's no way that can be answered.

Right and I think that if the writter wanted us to only judge by the facts of hands the writter wouldn't have called the assassin an assassin, instead a mugger or something. That way everything could be easily expained and the reader can concentrate on just the fact provided. Yet as an assassin it become hard to do that becouse the writter defined him as more then just a simple killer yet treated him as just a simple killer. So I'm not even sure if the writter knew how to write properly and was aware of that having an assassin instead of a killer completly changes how the reader understands the story.

It doesn't matter if an assassin killed her, a mugger killed her, a hyena mauled her, Tuberculosis struck her down, or if a German destroyer floated down the river and blew the bridge out as she was crossing it, it states plainly that she knew she was risking danger by going out that night and did it anyway. Simply put, if she had stayed in the castle, she would not have died. Therefore it's her fault.

If you disagree, then that means you also believe that anyone who gambles should get their money back anyway.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Actually, it's not. This is a hypothetical situation, not a real-life event, so what happens in the story is not up for debate unless the writer said it could be. Even if it was, it's pointless to ask what may or may not be going on since there's no way that can be answered.

It's okay to ask questions about fiction. Just ask any Star Wars or Star Trek nut :cool:

It doesn't matter if an assassin killed her, a mugger killed her, a hyena mauled her, Tuberculosis struck her down, or if a German destroyer floated down the river and blew the bridge out as she was crossing it,An Assassin means there is a plot behind him being on the bridge meaning those behind the plot are responsable for her death.

it states plainly that she knew she was risking danger by going out that night and did it anyway. Simply put, if she had stayed in the castle, she would not have died. Therefore it's her fault.

If you disagree, then that means you also believe that anyone who gambles should get their money back anyway. With that logic Batman parents were at falt for their own death by going to the theater and if only Batman parnets never left their home they'd still be alive ummm unless they die of boredom.

She didn't know there was any danger when she crossed the bridge the first time!!!! thus she got stranded on her lovers side of the river. So her leaving the castle had nothing to do with her death. If I leave my house and get mugged is it my falt for leaving my home? Am I never suppose to leave it? I think not!!

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
It's okay to ask questions about fiction. Just ask any Star Wars or Star Trek nut :cool:

Yes, you can ask questions if you want. But I wouldn't expect any real answers.

An Assassin means there is a plot behind him being on the bridge meaning those behind the plot are responsable for her death.

True, it does imply a plot, but since there is none mentioned, I don't think it's relevant who sent him and what for. All we know is that he's going to killer her if she tries to cross the bridge and she knows it, and as far as I'm concerned, she may have been killed by slipping on a banana peel. It's her knowledge of the consequences that is at the crux of the debate.

With that logic Batman parents were at falt for their own death by going to the theater and if only Batman parnets never left their home they'd still be alive ummm unless they die of boredom.

No, because Batman's parents weren't counting on being killed. The baroness knew she took a very high risk in leaving the castle and luck didn't bail her out. Same thing as gambling. You don't play blackjack to lose, but you have to admit that it's likely that you will.

She didn't know there was any danger when she crossed the bridge the first time!!!! thus she got stranded on her lovers side of the river. So her leaving the castle had nothing to do with her death. If I leave my house and get mugged is it my falt for leaving my home? Am I never suppose to leave it? I think not!!

Still, though, if she had stayed in the castle she would have been fine. There is no arguing that. She knew that there was going to be a great deal of danger in going out that night, she knew what she was getting into, so I think she deserves the blame for getting herself into that mess.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff

True, it does imply a plot, but since there is none mentioned, I don't think it's relevant who sent him and what for. All we know is that he's going to killer her if she tries to cross the bridge and she knows it, and as far as I'm concerned, she may have been killed by slipping on a banana peel. It's her knowledge of the consequences that is at the crux of the debate.Why did the writter imply a plot if it is not relevant?

No, because Batman's parents weren't counting on being killed. The baroness knew she took a very high risk in leaving the castle and luck didn't bail her out. Same thing as gambling. You don't play blackjack to lose, but you have to admit that it's likely that you will.
She didn't know till she was on the other side read it There is a river with a bridge over it, and a Baron and Baroness live in a castle on one side. The Baroness has a lover who lives on the other side of the river, and the only way to get from one side of the river to the other is to walk acrtoss the bridge or ask the nearby boatman to take her.

One day, the Baron tells his wife that he has to be gone all night to handle some business with a friend in a faraway town. The Baroness pleads with him to take her because she knows if he doesn't she will be unfaithful to him. The Baron absolutely refuses to take her because she will be in the way of his important business.

So the Baron goes alone. The hours pass, the young Baroness grows lonely and she decides to visit her lover.I don't see anything there that says she knew she was in danger leaving the castle.

[James]

Sorry PF, but it seems that this is moving way into the hypothetical. You are given the details, you can make no further assumptions.

1. The guy who hired the assassin (to have a assassin defines his existence).
2. Baroness
3. Assassin
4. Boatguy
5. Lover
6. Baron
7. Freddie Pr Jr

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by SJJ
Sorry PF, but it seems that this is moving way into the hypothetical. You are given the details, you can make no further assumptions.
Well I persume you are making some assumptions.

Like that she was the target. The story didn't say either way and in fact left clues that she might not have been. And if the assassin was after someone else then you really can't put as much blame on the person the hired the assassin.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by SJJ
Sorry PF, but it seems that this is moving way into the hypothetical. You are given the details, you can make no further assumptions.

1. The guy who hired the assassin (to have a assassin defines his existence).
2. Baroness
3. Assassin
4. Boatguy
5. Lover
6. Baron
7. Freddie Pr Jr

Y'know, there always was something suspicious about that Prinze guy...

Like that she was the target. The story didn't say either way and in fact left clues that she might not have been. And if the assassin was after someone else then you really can't put as much blame on the person the hired the assassin.

Well, I think it comes down to this, PF. Can you prove that the assassin was after someone else? Can you prove who hired the assassin? That's what you need to consider when you try to reason this situation out. We need hard evidence, not speculation.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff

Well, I think it comes down to this, PF. Can you prove that the assassin was after someone else? Can you prove who hired the assassin? That's what you need to consider when you try to reason this situation out. We need hard evidence, not speculation.


I think you've both got good points here. On the one hand, there's only so much we can reasonably assume based on the information we were given. But, on the other hand, in my experience, whenever one of these types of questions was brought up in an english/debate class, its always been the case that the backstory was left with some ambiguities, to introduce more "what ifs" and variables that could come up in making the decision. If I had to guess, I'd say the author purposefully put in the fact that it was an assasin that did the killing (making the suggestion that someone hired the killer in the first place) while leaving the question of who did the hiring unanswered, so that the debate could take some interesting twists and turns. I think the point of this all is, there isn't really any one specific right or wrong answer here - the vagueness of the question is intended to make people probe deeper and ask questions like PsychoFox's. Unfortunately, there's no reasonable answer to many of these questions based on the info we have.