Follow TV Tropes

Following

History MortonsFork / RealLife

Go To



* The medieval and early colonial practice of "dunking" those accused of witchcraft could very easily become this. The accused would have a rope tied to her waist and get thrown into a body of water. If she floated, pull her out and, depending on the region and era, either imprison, hang, or [[BurnTheWitch burn her at the stake]]. If she sank, pull her out and let her go... and if she happened to drown, at least she died innocent. This was actually mocked in one episode of ''WesternAnimation/TheFairlyOddParents'', where Timmy undergoes it but when he survives and is accused of being a witch, he retorts "Or a kid who can swim!"

to:

* The medieval and early colonial practice of "dunking" those accused of witchcraft could very easily become this. The accused would have a rope tied to her their waist and get thrown into a body of water. If she they floated, pull her them out and, depending on the region and era, either imprison, hang, or [[BurnTheWitch burn her them at the stake]]. If she they sank, pull her them out and let her them go... and if she they happened to drown, at least she they died innocent. This was actually mocked in one episode of ''WesternAnimation/TheFairlyOddParents'', where Timmy undergoes it but when he survives and is accused of being a witch, he retorts "Or a kid who can swim!"


** She was asked if she believed she was "in God's Grace." If she said yes, her overconfidence would brand her as a dangerous fanatic since no one but God is supposed to know who's in his grace or not. If she said no, however, then it would mean she had been masquerading as a religious figure for trivial ends. Joan, however, figured out the trap quickly enough to answer: ''[[TakeAThirdOption "If I'm not, may God put me in it; If I am, may God keep me there."]]'' The wording was considered both humble and pious. Centuries later, this witty reply was actually considered as an argument in favor of her canonization.

to:

** She was asked if she believed she was "in God's Grace." Grace". If she said yes, her overconfidence would brand her as a dangerous fanatic since no one but God is supposed to know who's in his grace or not. If she said no, however, then it would mean she had been masquerading as a religious figure for trivial ends. Joan, however, figured out the trap quickly enough to answer: ''[[TakeAThirdOption "If I'm not, may God put me in it; If I am, may God keep me there."]]'' The wording was considered both humble and pious. Centuries later, this witty reply was actually considered as an argument in favor of her canonization.

Added DiffLines:

** A bully will dare you to do something extremely dangerous. If you don't do it, you get bullied for being "chicken". If you do it, you get bullied for being a moron or crazy for doing something so dangerous and stupid.


* In wake of the Covid19 pandemic and the deployment of vaccines in closing month of 2020; politicians, religious figures, minority group leaders, business men, and leaders in general have faced one on whether to take the first wave of vaccines or wait with everyone else. With mistrust in medicine rearing its ugly head throughout the whole pandemic, many have chosen to have been filmed receiving the vaccine to prove it's safe. Cue accusations of elitism and a lack of concern for the common man. If they decide to wait with everyone else, anti-vaxxers will question why none of the elite are taking the vaccine if it's safe or they might be accused of ''being'' an anti-vaxxer themselves.

to:

* In wake of the Covid19 pandemic UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic and the deployment of vaccines in closing month of 2020; politicians, religious figures, minority group leaders, business men, and leaders in general have faced one on whether to take the first wave of vaccines or wait with everyone else. With mistrust in medicine rearing its ugly head throughout the whole pandemic, many have chosen to have been filmed receiving the vaccine to prove it's safe. Cue accusations of elitism and a lack of concern for the common man. If they decide to wait with everyone else, anti-vaxxers will question why none of the elite are taking the vaccine if it's safe or they might be accused of ''being'' an anti-vaxxer themselves.


* Some international lawyers have been appealing the [[JustFollowingOrders Nuremberg defense]] on the grounds that its rejection places soldiers in a Morton's Fork situation: either follow the orders and be thrown in prison and possibly executed for war crimes by the other side later, or refuse to follow the orders and be thrown in prison and probably executed for insubordination by your own superiors now. That's why nowadays there is a clause that allows the Nuremberg defence if the defendant did not have a moral choice. The Nuremberg Defence is named after the trials after [=WWII=]. In the German army at the time soldiers had the right (but not duty) to refuse to carry out any illegal orders. There were German soldiers who refused to carry out such orders with little consequences, which was why the Nuremberg Trials were as harsh as they were; if those men had the ability to refuse orders, then those trying to claim they were just following orders had the same ability to refuse orders and chose not to.

to:

* Some international lawyers have been appealing the [[JustFollowingOrders Nuremberg defense]] on the grounds that its rejection places soldiers in a Morton's Fork situation: either follow the orders and be thrown in prison and possibly executed for war crimes by the other side later, or refuse to follow the orders and be thrown in prison and probably executed for insubordination by your own superiors now. That's why nowadays there is a clause that allows the Nuremberg defence if they had no real option to refuse or if the defendant did not have a moral choice. The consequence of refusal would be extreme.[[note]]The Nuremberg Defence is named after the trials after [=WWII=]. In the German army at the time time, soldiers had the right (but not duty) to refuse to carry out any illegal orders. There orders, and there were German soldiers who refused to carry out such orders with little consequences, consequence, which was why the Nuremberg Trials were as harsh as they were; if those men had the ability to refuse orders, orders without facing major consequences, then those trying to claim they were just following orders had the same ability to refuse orders and chose not to. to.[[/note]]

Added DiffLines:

* Monster movies such as those featuring {{Kaiju}} often get flak for either of two reasons: [[JustHereForGodzilla focusing on the human drama instead of the cool monster action]], or [[SpotlightStealingSquad focusing too much on the monsters and shafting the human characters in the process]]. For example, critics reacted positively to the human drama in ''Film/Godzilla2014'', but audiences were less pleased due to the very limited screentime of the titular monster; fast forward to ''Film/GodzillaKingOfTheMonsters2019'' and while audiences loved the kaiju battles they signed up for, critics complained about the lack of focus given to the human side of the story. Even balancing the monster and human elements (which is admittedly ''extremely hard'' to do anyway) isn't an option either at times - because complaints will come in from some source or another that [[FailureIsTheOnlyOption too little was done with BOTH of them]].

Added DiffLines:

* The statement, "Denial is the first sign of a problem." Thus, if you say you don't have a particular problem -- such as a drug addiction -- then you're just in denial about it; if you say you do, then, well, you just confessed to being a drug addict.
* As the Website/{{Chuck Norris Fact|s}} goes, if you can see [[MemeticBadass Chuck Norris]], then he can see you, and thus potentially kill you, but if you can't see Creator/ChuckNorris, then you may be only seconds away from death.




Added DiffLines:

* There's a well-known story that the Caliph Omar whose army sacked the Library of Alexandria said of its books that either they contradicted the Koran and thus were heretical and should be burned, or they agreed with the Koran and thus were superfluous and should be burned. Either way, they wound up on the bonfire. Though [[ArtisticLicenseHistory almost certainly false]], this legend can be traced back [[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3517 at least]] to the 13th century.
* There's a classic JewishMother joke that works like this: She gives her son two nice ties for his birthday. Next week he goes to dinner at her house wearing one of them. The mother says, "What's the matter, you didn't like the other one?" Some versions go further. On the following week the son brings the other tie, and the mother remarks, "You used to like the other, why don't you like it anymore?". A week later, the son tries to play smart, wearing no tie (or both at once) to the desperation of the mother: "Why I raised a son that can't dress himself properly!?".
* A classic joke, which is told in many variations, is that two men are captured by a primitive tribe. The chief gives them a choice: death, or a mysterious punishment with a gibberish name (''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'' uses, for example, "Snoo-Snoo"). The first man chooses the mysterious punishment, which turns out to be some horrific torture (often involving BlackComedyRape), but survives. The second man decides he'd rather die than undergo that treatment, so he chooses death. The chief proclaims, "Death... by Snoo-Snoo!"
* A classic StockLateralThinkingPuzzle is built around this idea. A man is to be executed, based on whatever he says next. If it is true, he will be shot. If it is false, he will be hanged. The trick is for him to TakeAThirdOption and say "I will be hanged" (or alternatively "This statement is a lie").[[note]]Be careful with this answer, though; it just might end in you either getting ''both'' punishments for triggering both requirements, or subjecting you to some other punishment to compensate.[[/note]]
* Some examples used in grade school or junior high, usually [[ItAmusedMe (but not necessarily)]] by bullies:
** Are you a homo? If yes, you are a homosexual; if no, you're not human (a member of species ''Homo sapiens'').
** Are you PT? If you say yes, you are a pregnant teenager; if no, you aren't potty-trained.
** Are you a PLP? If so, you're a public leaning post (the bully promptly barges into you). If not, you aren't a proper looking person.
** (For a male target) "Are you a lesbian trapped inside a man's body?" If he says yes, he is transgender; if no, he doesn't like girls (i.e. is gay). The easiest way around this [[InsultBackfire is to be one of the two]], but in that case you’re [[PoliticallyIncorrectVillain probably gonna get bullied anyway]].
** "Would you suck my cock if it was clean?" If yes, then you're a 'cocksucker'. If no, you're a '''dirty'' cocksucker'. The way around this is to say "Sorry, I don't swing that way," "Are you hitting on me?" or "I didn't know you HAD a cock!" (Be careful with that last one, though. [[AppealToForce The bully might assault you for saying that.]])
** Do your parents know you're gay? If yes, then you're gay and your parents know it already; if no, then you're gay and you haven't told your parents yet.[[note]]The way around this one is to ask "Old-style gay or new-style gay?" The term 'gay' only became synonymous with 'homosexual' in the 1960s; [[HaveAGayOldTime for centuries before that]], 'gay' meant 'happy', ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’. Note that just saying “I’m not gay,” will ''not'' work, since [[HaveIMentionedIAmHeterosexualToday you’ll be assumed to be lying]].[[/note]]
** Someone will give you something unpleasant to eat, eg chilli chocolate or a Black Death (a sweet so sour it burns the skin off the roof of your mouth). If you eat it, you are ridiculed for being gullible, if you don’t eat it, you are ridiculed for a) being a bad sport and/or b) not trusting the person who gave it to you. The way out is to eat it, and then ask for another one, until you have eaten all of their Black Deaths/chilli chocolate etc. That way you are a good sport, trusting, proved you weren’t gullible, got one over whoever gave it to you, and most importantly have ensured nobody else will fall victim for this fork for the rest of the day. Be careful when doing this though, particularly with Black Deaths, since your mouth will hurt for ''days'' afterwards.
** "Do you have HIV?" No. "Are you positive?" If you say yes, you're "positive" in the sense of being "HIV positive"; if you say no, you're "not positive" in the sense of "not positive that you don't have HIV". The way around this one is to say, “I am positive that I don’t have HIV.”[[note]]If you actually are HIV positive, then this would be an InsultBackfire, though.[[/note]]
* Some classic examples of "loaded questions" are:
** "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you say no, then you beat your wife. If you say yes, then you admit to having beaten your wife. The only way to escape is to say that you have never beaten your wife (or that you aren’t married).
** "Do you fancy my sister?" If yes, you get beaten up for having designs on her and so dishonoring her. If no, you get beaten up for thinking there's something wrong with her. Unlike the above, you can’t TakeAThirdOption and get out of this one.
*** Actually you can: "Not in that way" and "Only as a friend".
*** 'I didn't know you had a sister.' 'I'm married/in a committed relationship and faithful to my significant other.' In the case of a man, 'I'm gay.' In the case of a woman, 'I'm straight.' Still might not work as he could claim you're lying, assume one or the other, and ''still'' beat you. Chavs wanting to pick a fight often use a question like this to guarantee an excuse: either you're ogling her, you think she's ugly, or you're ''lying'' about one of the two.
** "Are you a [derogatory noun] in a cage?" If yes, it's admitting to be one. If not, then the response you get is "[Derogatory noun] on the loose!" InsultBackfire is probably the best defense: take the term with ''pride'' and turn it into a compliment.
** "Are you embarrassed that you soiled your pants today?" If yes, you admit to soiling your pants. If no, you admit to soiling your pants, ''and'' you're a weirdo who doesn't see anything embarrassing about that. You can also replace "pants" with "diaper" to add the extra embarrassment of not being toilet-trained. Possible counter: Say no because you do ''dirty'' work ("Hey, ''someone's'' gotta do it").
* There is a joke about a man who goes to Hell and must spend eternity in one of three rooms. The first room contains a room full of people standing on their heads on wood, the second room contains people doing the same on concrete, and the third contains people drinking coffee while standing in feces. The man chooses the third because it doesn't seem as bad as the first two. The Devil announces that break time is over, and the people have to go back to standing on their heads. A variation used to make the punchline less obvious is to have the other two rooms contain punishments that don't involve standing on your head.
* This is the SciFiGhetto is a nutshell; snobs, TrueArt critics, and executives look down on genre fiction (science fiction, fantasy, comics, video games, etc.) claiming they're childish and lowbrow, while at the same time accusing them of being [[{{Hypocrite}} too dense and complicated]] for general audiences.
* According to one anecdote told about [[WordOfGod and verified by]] chronic {{Malaproper}} and CloudCuckoolander Yogi Berra, when he was giving directions how to get from point A to point B there was a fork in the road. Since either direction would get the person to his destination Berra simply said, "when you get to a fork in the road, take it."
* Trying to prove the existence of the supernatural by science can result in this. If science cannot prove it, then it doesn't exist. But if science can prove it, then it is just a natural phenomenon as science is about reproducibility and something that is readily reproduced is hardly ''super''[[note]]Above, beyond [[/note]] natural.
* Two of Murphy's Laws of Combat state "No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection" and "No inspection-ready unit has ever passed combat."
* The typical would-be child predator who gets caught in a sting operation by the ''Creep Catchers'' or ''Predator Poachers'' does have the option to simply walk away and not talk to the Catchers. But the penalty for that is usually his chatlog and face (caught on video) goes directly to the police. That is the typical threat presented to entice the predator to agree to be filmed while answering the Catchers'/Poachers' questions, thus incriminating himself. However, this leads to the full video and excerpts of the chatlogs being put online for all to see, including the police. So either way, the would be predator (who has already committed two felonies by soliciting a minor online and actually showing up in an attempt to to engage in sexual activity with said hypothetical minor) is equally exposed and could expect a possible visit from law enforcement depending on how seriously they take the non-professional sting operation.


** When Britain leaves the European Union then the British economy is at risk and thousands are at risk of losing their jobs. If the government changes its mind and stays in the EU, then they have to abide by EU regulations and will not be able to return to the way they had it before. The government also betrays years of democracy by going against the public vote.

to:

** When Britain leaves the European Union then the British economy is at risk and thousands are at risk of losing their jobs. If the government changes its mind and stays in the EU, then they have to abide by EU regulations and will not be able to return to the way they had it before. The government also betrays years of democracy risks looking like it has "betrayed democracy" by going against the public vote.vote, due to a heavily-biased media over-hyping the nationalist propaganda of Brexit while ignoring that the 2016 Referendum was non-binding and has actually been ruled fraudulent in the High Court; and the only reason that the High Court didn't strike down the result of the Referendum was because it was non-binding.


* In wake of the Covid19 pandemic and the deployment of vaccines in closing month of 2020; politicians, religious figures, minority group leaders, business men, and leaders in general have faced one on whether to take the first wave of vaccines or wait with everyone else. With mistrust in medicine rearing its ugly head throughout the whole pandemic, many have chosen to have been filmed receiving the vaccine to prove it's safe. Cue accusations of elitism and a lack of concern for the common man. If they decide to wait with everyone else, anti-vaxxers will question why none of the elite are taking the vaccine if it's safe or they might be accused of ''being'' an anti-vaxxer themselves.

to:

* In wake of the Covid19 pandemic and the deployment of vaccines in closing month of 2020; politicians, religious figures, minority group leaders, business men, and leaders in general have faced one on whether to take the first wave of vaccines or wait with everyone else. With mistrust in medicine rearing its ugly head throughout the whole pandemic, many have chosen to have been filmed receiving the vaccine to prove it's safe. Cue accusations of elitism and a lack of concern for the common man. If they decide to wait with everyone else, anti-vaxxers will question why none of the elite are taking the vaccine if it's safe or they might be accused of ''being'' an anti-vaxxer themselves.themselves.
----


* In wake of the Covid19 pandemic and the deployment of of vaccines in closing month of 2020; politicians, religious figures, minority group leaders, business men, and leaders in general have faced one on whether to take the first wave of vaccines or wait with everyone else. With mistrust in medicine rearing its ugly head throughout the whole pandemic, many have chosen to have been filmed receiving the vaccine to prove it's safe. Cue accusations of elitism and a lack of concern for the common man. If they decide to wait with everyone else, anti-vaxxers will question why none of the elite are taking the vaccine if it's safe or they might be accused of ''being'' an anti-vaxxer themselves.

to:

* In wake of the Covid19 pandemic and the deployment of of vaccines in closing month of 2020; politicians, religious figures, minority group leaders, business men, and leaders in general have faced one on whether to take the first wave of vaccines or wait with everyone else. With mistrust in medicine rearing its ugly head throughout the whole pandemic, many have chosen to have been filmed receiving the vaccine to prove it's safe. Cue accusations of elitism and a lack of concern for the common man. If they decide to wait with everyone else, anti-vaxxers will question why none of the elite are taking the vaccine if it's safe or they might be accused of ''being'' an anti-vaxxer themselves.


* Creator/TwentiethCenturyFox found themselves in this situation regarding the ''ComicBook/FantasticFour'' film rights: the main reason why they produced [[Film/FantasticFour2015 the 2015 film]] was to [[AshcanCopy prevent the character rights]] from reverting back to Creator/MarvelStudios. When the movie came out, it [[BoxOfficeBomb flopped critically and commercially]], [[StillbornFranchise effectively killing off the possibility of a sequel or another reboot]], leaving Fox with the only option of giving back the rights to Marvel. Here was where this trope came into play: if Fox churns out another ''Fantastic Four'' movie within the next few years, they would likely lose money on it, forcing them to give up the rights. Had they sat on the rights for too long, they would have lose the rights (and any money as a result). In the end, [[ShaggyDogStory the whole thing was rendered moot]] in 2018, when Creator/{{Disney}} [[note]]Who bought Marvel in 2009[[/note]] bought Fox's film and TV assets, thus acquiring the Fantastic Four rights, meaning they can now be placed back into Marvel Studios.[[note]]Besides the Fantastic Four, the acquisition also merges Deadpool and the X-Men back into Marvel Studios.[[/note]]

to:

* Creator/TwentiethCenturyFox found themselves in this situation regarding the ''ComicBook/FantasticFour'' film rights: the main reason why they produced [[Film/FantasticFour2015 the 2015 film]] was to [[AshcanCopy prevent the character rights]] from reverting back to Creator/MarvelStudios. When the movie came out, it [[BoxOfficeBomb flopped critically and commercially]], [[StillbornFranchise effectively killing off the possibility of a sequel or another reboot]], leaving Fox with the only option of giving back the rights to Marvel. Here was where this trope came into play: if Fox churns out another ''Fantastic Four'' movie within the next few years, they would likely lose money on it, forcing them to give up the rights. Had they sat on the rights for too long, they would have lose the rights (and any money as a result). In the end, [[ShaggyDogStory the whole thing was rendered moot]] in 2018, when Creator/{{Disney}} [[note]]Who Creator/{{Disney}}[[note]]Who bought Marvel in 2009[[/note]] 2009.[[/note]] bought Fox's film and TV assets, thus acquiring the Fantastic Four rights, meaning they can now be placed back into Marvel Studios.[[note]]Besides the Fantastic Four, the acquisition also merges Deadpool and the X-Men back into Marvel Studios.[[/note]]


* Creator/RobertZemeckis and Bob Gale faced this in the early 80s as they tried to pitch ''Film/BackToTheFuture'' to various studios. Creator/{{Disney}} turned them down because they thought the film was too risque for them (primarily, the subplot with Lorraine becoming infatuated with Marty); other studios turned them down because they thought ''it wasn't risque enough'', since, at the time, the most popular movies were raunchy teen-sex comedies (e.g. ''Film/{{Porkys}}'' and ''Film/RevengeOfTheNerds''). And even after being made, [[NeverTrustATrailer many trailers used the line "Are you telling me that my mom has got the hots for me!?" as a selling point]].

to:

* Creator/RobertZemeckis and Bob Gale faced this in the early 80s as they tried to pitch ''Film/BackToTheFuture'' to various studios. Creator/{{Disney}} turned them down because they thought the film was too risque for them (primarily, the subplot with Lorraine becoming infatuated with Marty); other studios turned them down because they thought ''it wasn't risque enough'', since, at the time, the most popular movies were raunchy teen-sex comedies (e.g. ''Film/{{Porkys}}'' and ''Film/RevengeOfTheNerds''). And even Even after being made, [[NeverTrustATrailer many trailers used the line "Are you telling me that my mom has got the hots for me!?" as a selling point]].



* Voting literacy tests were (and are) notorious for this, as they were designed to be vague and entirely up to the examiner whether the answer was correct, who could then proceed to pass or fail it entirely [[HangingJudge based on their opinion of the person taking the test]] (i.e. if they were black, failing them). For instance, one test might offer the question "draw a line around the shortest word in this line." If a person drew a line around "a", the examiner could fail them for [[ExactWords not drawing one around]] "the shortest word in this line", or declaring that "a" is a letter and not a word, and they should have drawn one around "in." Conversely, if they ''did'' do either of the above, the examiner could fail them for [[MovingTheGoalposts not drawing one around "a."]] If they [[TakeAThirdOption circled all three,]] the examiner could fail them for trying to give three wrong answers. The examiner could also declare that, [[LoopholeAbuse since they drew a circle and not a line]], they failed the question (of course, never elaborating what else they were supposed to draw). And if they asked the examiner for clarification, then they were wasting precious time (the tests were usually thirty questions in ten minutes) and were bound to fail at least two more questions even if the examiner ''did'' give a good answer. This is why voting eligibility tests have been banned in the United States under the Voting Rights Act (which uses the 24th Amendment's ban on poll taxes as its basis).

to:

* Voting literacy tests were (and are) notorious for this, as they were designed to be vague and entirely up to the examiner whether the answer was correct, who could then proceed to pass or fail it entirely [[HangingJudge based on their opinion of the person taking the test]] (i.e. if they were black, failing them). For instance, one test might offer the question "draw a line around the shortest word in this line." If a person drew a line around "a", the examiner could fail them for [[ExactWords not drawing one around]] "the shortest word in this line", or declaring that "a" is a letter and not a word, and they should have drawn one around "in." Conversely, if they ''did'' do either of the above, the examiner could fail them for [[MovingTheGoalposts not drawing one around "a."]] If they [[TakeAThirdOption circled all three,]] the examiner could fail them for trying to give three wrong answers. The examiner could also declare that, [[LoopholeAbuse since they drew a circle and not a line]], they failed the question (of course, never elaborating what else they were supposed to draw). And if If they asked the examiner for clarification, then they were wasting precious time (the tests were usually thirty questions in ten minutes) and were bound to fail at least two more questions even if the examiner ''did'' give a good answer. This is why voting eligibility tests have been banned in the United States under the Voting Rights Act (which uses the 24th Amendment's ban on poll taxes as its basis).


* UsefulNotes/ErwinRommel, Field Marshal of UsefulNotes/NaziGermany, was faced with one of these upon being implicated as a supporter of the 20 July plot to assassinate UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler. Rommel was given the option of committing suicide, and receiving [[DueToTheDead a hero's state funeral]][[note]]the official explanation for his death being that he succumbed to wounds sustained in an Allied strafing run[[/note]], or choosing to stand trial and be executed anyway. In the latter case, [[MisplacedRetribution his family would have been included in being punished as well.]] Logically, he chose the former, killing himself with a CyanidePill.

to:

* UsefulNotes/ErwinRommel, Field Marshal of UsefulNotes/NaziGermany, was faced with one of these upon being implicated as a supporter of the 20 July plot to assassinate UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler. Rommel was given the option of committing suicide, and receiving [[DueToTheDead a hero's state funeral]][[note]]the funeral]],[[note]]The official explanation for his death being that he succumbed to wounds sustained in an Allied strafing run[[/note]], run.[[/note]] or choosing to stand trial and be executed anyway. In the latter case, [[MisplacedRetribution his family would have been included in being punished as well.]] Logically, he chose the former, killing himself with a CyanidePill.



* R. D. Laing, as a member of the "anti-psychiatry" movement within psychology, proposed a hypothesis [[note]]not a theory [[/note]]that schizophrenia is, rather than a mental disorder, a form of Morton's Fork. The schizophrenic attempts to reject an unlivable condition or else face the pain of that unlivable condition. This is not accepted by the current psychiatric community. [[note]]Specifically, a critical idea for him was his belief that schizophrenia had no genetic cause. Laing died approximately 30 years before multiple landmark studies established the genetic link of schizophrenia - though the penetration of the genes even in identical twins is not 100%, suggesting other factors are in play. As a result, we have confirmatory evidence he was wrong, but he did not live to either modify his ideas in light of new evidence or else change them.[[/note]]

to:

* R. D. Laing, as a member of the "anti-psychiatry" movement within psychology, proposed a hypothesis [[note]]not hypothesis[[note]]Not a theory [[/note]]that theory.[[/note]] that schizophrenia is, rather than a mental disorder, a form of Morton's Fork. The schizophrenic attempts to reject an unlivable condition or else face the pain of that unlivable condition. This is not accepted by the current psychiatric community. [[note]]Specifically, a critical idea for him was his belief that schizophrenia had no genetic cause. Laing died approximately 30 years before multiple landmark studies established the genetic link of schizophrenia - though the penetration of the genes even in identical twins is not 100%, suggesting other factors are in play. As a result, we have confirmatory evidence he was wrong, but he did not live to either modify his ideas in light of new evidence or else change them.[[/note]]


* Some international lawyers have been appealing the [[JustFollowingOrders Nuremberg defense]] on the grounds that its rejection places soldiers in a Morton's Fork situation: either follow the orders and be thrown in prison and possibly executed for war crimes by the other side later, or refuse to follow the orders and be thrown in prison and probably executed for insubordination by your own superiors now. That's why nowadays there is a clause that allows the Nuremberg defence if the defendant did not have a moral choice. The Nuremberg Defence is named after the trials after [=WWII=]. In the German army at the time soldiers had the right (but not duty) to refuse to carry out any illegal orders. There were German soldiers who refused to carry out such orders with little consequences, which was why the Nuremberg Trial was as harsh as they were; if those men had the ability to refuse orders, then those trying to claim they were just following orders had the same ability to refuse orders and chose not to.

to:

* Some international lawyers have been appealing the [[JustFollowingOrders Nuremberg defense]] on the grounds that its rejection places soldiers in a Morton's Fork situation: either follow the orders and be thrown in prison and possibly executed for war crimes by the other side later, or refuse to follow the orders and be thrown in prison and probably executed for insubordination by your own superiors now. That's why nowadays there is a clause that allows the Nuremberg defence if the defendant did not have a moral choice. The Nuremberg Defence is named after the trials after [=WWII=]. In the German army at the time soldiers had the right (but not duty) to refuse to carry out any illegal orders. There were German soldiers who refused to carry out such orders with little consequences, which was why the Nuremberg Trial was Trials were as harsh as they were; if those men had the ability to refuse orders, then those trying to claim they were just following orders had the same ability to refuse orders and chose not to.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 144

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report