Yes

Yes.

Attached: 332223.jpg (960x720, 172K)

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/Are-guitar-luthiers-good-guitar-players-themselves
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I'd take the flute for myself. Might makes right.

B you dumbass

I would stuff the flute deep in my fat hairy ass and tell who ever dares to pull it out gets to keep it

Make them fight in an all out battle, where the only survivor will get the flute (and the skulls of the fallen).

In all seriousness: Child B should get the flute they made, and determine the price for it after discussing it with Child A&C.

Attached: anus duck.jpg (665x466, 47K)

It isn't mine to give unless I first steal it from B and I'm not a thief, so B gets to keep it

Lel

Just like Excalibur. I like you.
"He who can pull thy flute from mine arse will be the new shit king!"

fuck, marry, kill

Attached: talkingHeads1.jpg (489x352, 19K)

Child A. Their argument is sound. They are the only one who can actually play a flute the way it was meant to be used. You don't give the +5 Holy Avenger sword to the Wizard; you give it to the Paladin.

B, obv.

Then you should give me all your money, because i'm smarter than you and can better put that money to its intended use.

Option 1: "if you keep fighting, nobody gets the flute"
Option 2: let them compete, the child that can give the best blowjob wins

B

Obviously child A should trade something of theirs that child B finds valuable for the flute. Then both could maybe give a little food to child C since he doesn't need a fucking godamn flute. Maybe Child B could teach child C to make flutes so he could sell them to other child A's or some shit. This is so reductionist and stupid it makes no fucking sense who the fuck thought this was a good idea.

B should have the flute so they can sell it to A for a profit, and then since A and B have some cash to burn they should donate a little bit to C so he can GET HIS FUCKING LIFE TOGETHER, C.

GOD.

Why the fuck did you just write this all down? How autistic do you have to be to go so in-depth into a simple A, B or C question.
Read the fucking question: "WHO WOULD YOU GIVE IT TO?", not "WHY, HOW AND WHATEVER WOULD YOU DO OTHERWISE FAGGOT?"

Jesus christ, people like you are the reason why modern day society is so fucked up. You see so much more value in a 1$ coin than 1$.
No one cares, nothing changed and no ones life has been improved by your over-analytical turd of a opinion.

his post was better than yours

Questions like this convince brainlets into stupid opinions by oversimplifying reality

"Who would you give the flute to?" Is a retarded question.
I can't walk into your house with a poor friend of mine, point to your silverware and say "I'm a chef, I can use those better than you, give them to me; or if not, give them to my poor friend cause he doesnt have any."
Because your response would be, "Who the fuck are you and why are you in my house? These are my utensils, why the fuck would anyone else get them?"

How are child A or C even in this equation, where did they come from? Child B made a flute, are you just literally taking it from them? Cause thats stealing... wtf is this nonsense.

Fuck off commie. B made it, B gets it. Paladins don’t get shit free, they or the church pays for that shit somehow - whether they got a skilled sword smith layperson working for them, or they order it on commission, or they suck their god’s dick enough to be given one.
Everyone works for it, cunt.

Child A already knows how to play the flute but doesn't own one?
And they aren't poor but they can't just go out and buy one?
Wat?

They’re a liberal Democrat - always wanting free shit, claiming some special snowflake status.

>Who would you give it to?
I'm not going to give it to anyone, since it's not my flute.
And i'm not an entitled greedy little faggot like child A and C.

>the child that can give the best blowjob wins
a pedo blowjob contest
how about you provide the award instead of one of the competitors?

hmmm
A actually doesnt have a good argument for ownership. A's argument is good for right to use the flute however. So i would say B owns the flute but should probably be reasonable and let A use the flute (potentially for a fee but if so less of a fee than C) although since they own it they naturally have a right to decide.

Obv. B

Anything else is socialist/fascist/communist

Break it into thirds and give each kid a piece.

Undercooked toast

Commies get bombies

2 was not enough

I'll do you one better.

Attached: Decide.jpg (1440x1080, 281K)

Calm down Solomon

I wouldn't go that far, though power sure feels too good to resist.

Who the fuck says child B can't play a flute? It's logical to assume that someone capable of producing a flute from raw materials with their own hands would be able to play it.

>"i'm the only one here who can play the flute."

The inventor of Fender guitars had no idea how to play one.

Try again.

child A

You got the analogy wrong. Person B is supposed to have made the flute, not just been nice to it.

Switch Person B to be the girls father; and then obviously he should get to rape her.

/thread

> Then both could maybe give a little food to child C since he doesn't need a fucking godamn flute.

Yeah, cause god forbid a poor child should want joy in their life right?
No, if youre poor worry only about food and shelter and nothing else ever.
You get no fun, you are poor.
Art? Forget it.
You want to enjoy music?
Fuck you.

This dilemma needs more info
- Who provided/owns the materials the flute was made?
- How long will child C be happy about having the flute?
- Does child A own other flutes (presumably, because she can play it)

Child B and C can learn to play the flute fucking capitalist

Break the flute, music is for gays

I get what you're going for here, but the specific questions you went with are kinda retarded.

>Who provided/owns the materials the flute was made?
It specifically says child B

>How long will child C be happy about having the flute?
How long will anyone be happy with anything? This isn't a question that has an answer. Its irrelevant to the point. It is established that child C will get more happiness from it than the other two.

>Does child A own other flutes (presumably, because she can play it)
It is heavily implied child A does not own a flute; why would they be asking for a second flute?
They learned how to play in school with the school's flute or some shit.

As long as c doesn't get it I don't really care.

You're in the middle class aren't you?

Have b created two more flutes, make a teach b and c learn how to play the flute, make c gather the materials for b.

Problem solved

And when B says "No" wtf you going to do?
People dont just have to help others because you want them to >_>

I can make a flute in about an hour in my wood shop. I have no idea how to play one, and would have to get someone who could play one to test it for me.
I can also make guitars, violins, and any other wooden instrument. Because wood working isn't hard.

Assuming he doesn’t respond to reason (he can’t get a flute without gathering the materials). Peer pressure, if that fails then threat of force, then if that fails euthanize. Fascism is the best way user.

If you're poor, the main problem is: not enough money
Stealing a flute from another child, is not a reasonable solution to that problem

Woodworking is enjoyable and being able to trade your craftsmanship to a skilled musician for lessons sounds like a great trade. And since you don't have to pay for resources with child C gathering your wood, it all seems very equitable.

I'm not arguing that C should get the flute (B should)
All I'm saying is this specific line is retarded:

>child C doesn't need a fucking godamn flute.

Child C wants to enjoy life just as much as anyone else. They 'need' that flute just as much (if not more) than the other two.
Needing something does not mean you get it, I'm not saying give it to them. All I'm saying is dont act like just because they are poor they dont want to enjoy things.

>make c gather the materials for b
kid C is poor and won't be able to buy anything

also i think this is a shitty deal. this deal assumes that the materials for two flutes, the labour of making 2 flutes and flute lessons are worth the same

Kill the children who refuse to do free labor for others, great plan user >_>

Ok. You are right about that.

You're making unfair assumptions.
Maybe B hates woodworking and put the time into it because they wanted to learn how to play the flute?
Just because someone did something once does not mean they enjoy it, they might actively dislike it.

this was a reply to

B. She made it, she shouldn't have to make a sacrifice to learn some gay lesson at a young age. Then she'll correlate charity with sadness or theft.

Child A can likely get a flute herself since her parents probably buy lessons. If not, she can borrow from who she learned from.

Child C I'd ask what she likes to do and help her follow her passions and/or strengths. She deserves assistance, but not at the expense of someone else unwilling.

Oh wow, most people dont admit when they are wrong on the internet, good on you man.
*thumbs up*

It’s not free, he gets a flute and lessons in exchange for his labor, the only thing he can offer. A child that doesn’t respond to reason or force, doesn’t wish to help himself or others, doesn’t belong in the band.

B. Long live the free market and private property.

B

I would berry that flute so far up B's ass that whoever could pull it out would be crowned King Arhtur

you won't get resources from a poor kid
you won't get lessons from a skilled musician, since there's not much for in this deal for kid A

Strange lolis lying in bed farting flutes is no basis for a system of government!

By gather I mean gather, go into the forest young child, it’s free.

Shit deal? Everyone’s lot is improved, no lot is worsened, give me a better answer.

IN MORTAL KOMBAT

Attached: EGbZzuvWoAIskda.jpg (1080x1620, 132K)

To make a flute, you would need to be a skilled wood worker with hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of equipment in your shop, or have spent hundreds of hours in practice to be able to work it with hand tools. People don't do that if they don't enjoy it.

Regardless of your stance on the value or enjoyment of woodworking or music, child B obviously gets the flute because they spent the resources, time, and labor in order to craft it. This is how capitalism functions.

If I had grown up in a region where socialism was prevalent, I would say A deserves it. If I had grown up in a region where communism was prevalent, I would say C deserves it.

Loaded question.

It implies I took the flute, hence me "giving" it to someone. Why would I take the flute when I have no reason to?

Getting a unique, handmade flute is a great value for a few hours of music lessons.

The three children were all pulling on it when you walked into the room, you took it, to figure out what was going on and keep them from breaking it.

Happy user?

First of all why the fuck would I steal the flute from the girl who made it and second of all if they want the flute that badly I'll let them fight over it

I'd give it to c as a bribe while I rape the lolis

Attached: 1570333545635.jpg (1000x1000, 101K)

The monarch
The degenerate
The Marxist
The pedo
The social democrat
The capitalist
The conservative
The facist

cringe

Sell the girls into slavery and teach the boy how to play my skin flute

Kek.

I have no authority or right to decide who should get the flute, and I have nothing to do with the flute, so I don't see why I'm being asked or why my opinion would count for anything.
I don't see why the discussion is even taking place. B already has the flute by default. Unless B made the flute by means provided for by A or C, I don't see how A or C could have any claim on it.
On the other hand, B can't make flutes out of thin air, or without a socio-economic system which A and C are presumably also part of. The precise relationship that A and C's socio-economic roles have with the creation of the flute by B might be of relevance here. This will be different depending on the structure of their society and the historical period.
More context is required.

better question OP, Why the fuck is B making a flute if they don't know how to play one?

Attached: 63351-full.png (272x204, 74K)

You think everyone who makes pianos knows how to play the piano?

The fag

I would take flute from child B, and sell it, while I would give $5 to child B. Child A and Child C won't get a fuck, because no work no money

Says that b provided the materials, it's likely they could do it again

The answer is child B.

To hell with child C, he can pull himself up by the bootstraps and earn something by his own merit.

Child A; good for you on knowing how to play it. Why don't you either make a reasonable offer to buy it from child B or go get the one you learned how to play on.

But if you're the kind of pussy where you need to make all three happy, have child A teach child B how to play the flute so both of them get to use it. Explain to child C that he gets to enjoy the music at no cost and that alone is an improvement in his supposedly miserable life.

how would they test the piano to see how it works user?

Attached: 74f146c90d0a1197cba5cd9de3e61f1b.png (600x600, 138K)

fixed

Attached: child_$.png (1469x720, 382K)

by hiring someone to test it........?

Because hitting keys to make sure they work is the same as playing it? Just think a little user.

"provided the materials" is still vague.
Do they mean Primitive Technology-style, where she went to a forest, found some broken tree branches, found a rock, tied them together with dried up foliage, made a stone axe, chopped down a tree, then cut a flute from it with a stone knife made by bashing a rock with a large rock, all while finding her own food and water with no extra tools?
Or do they mean "provided materials", as in paying for them using cash within the territory and legislative authority of a nation state with a tax and healthcare system?

Does either of those premises really change the outcome of the solution? Presumably some previous effort went to acquiring the materials. Unless it was a gift.

>why yes I manufacture pianos, in fact I have been manufacturing pianos and musical instruments all of my life... can I PLAY any of them!?!?! oh now don't be silly, do you think a man whose constantly surrounded by pianos and piano parts would pick up anything about music, now that's just silly! hell half of these things are probably out of tune because I refuse to learn proper tuning myself

Attached: retarded.png (351x289, 96K)

prolly bait but you are still fuckin retarded
different keys have different sounds C cant sound like E or F cause then there is no point of a piano

Before you embarrass yourself further and post any more pictures of chickens with stupid looks on their faces, let's put this to rest:
quora.com/Are-guitar-luthiers-good-guitar-players-themselves

Many people who make instruments, do play instruments themselves.
However, some people who make instruments don't play any instruments at all.

>"As a former owner of a guitar store, I have met all the people you refer to in your question. The answer is no. For example, Chris Martin IV, CEO of Martin Guitars, doesn’t play at all. I was pretty stunned to find that out. When guitar builders get together their conversations have nothing to do with music or the instruments they make. It’s all about cool tools and processes. I suppose that makes sense, but I was a little bit surprised by that too. There are of course builders who are excellent players, but some of the most successful builders I know can’t play a note."

>"While not exactly a guitar luthier, George Orthey, master builder of Autoharps and dulcimers, doesn't play any instrument himself but his wares command the highest prices on the market and they are highly prized by their owners."

>"Some are and some aren’t. I know some very good luthiers who are fantastic guitarist and others who can barely play."

rekt

>No one cares, nothing changed and no ones life has been improved by your over-analytical turd of a opinion.

Maybe take a leaf out of your own book then? You fucking mong cunt. Keep your shitty opinions to yourself, the guy was just joining in. You're out here acting like a nigger. Neck yourself already

>Does either of those premises really change the outcome of the solution?

It depends on what framework you're using to answer the question. Those premises imply different societal structures.
For some people making this decision, the structure of the society in question plays a role in determining the outcome. For example, if you live in a very collectivist community, where many of your needs are provided for by other people by default, free of charge, you may be expected to reciprocate by sharing the fruits of your labour with the rest of the community also free of charge.
Many pre-modern societies were based on the principle of reciprocity.
On the other hand, if you live by yourself in the woods and provide for yourself entirely by your own efforts, then of course there will be no one around to demand anything from you.