Protagoras

Members
  • Content count

    907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Protagoras

  • Rank
    Because justice is more important than basic human "rights"

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

1,839 profile views
  1. Bowen Marsh is an idiot (Spoilers)

    Bowen Marsh and Co are most certainly not going to survive the fallout from this. But "lack of survival" is not the same as "idiot". Bowem Marsh is more of an action hero who dies valiantly in the end in the struggle with the evil authoritarian. The movie Gladiator comes to mind. Sometimes dying are necessary. After hearing Jons clear betrayal of the Night´s watch in his shieldhall speech (Seriously, just think on whast impact those words must have on his sworn brothers - Yeah, I sort of backed Stannis who is now dead, And I also sent Mance, who btw is alive and well, to steal the bride of the Lord paramounts son, who just happens to be my sister I really, really shouldn´t care about as LC. So the Boltons, the legal authority in the North, want me extra dead. But I am going to fight the evil Boltons south of the wall with an army of wildlings and you black brothers will still do the incredible risky and suicidal Hardhome mission under the command of your enemy Tormund), Bowen knew he had to act fast. Otherwise two groups are going to leave to do two monumentally stupid missions that most likely even one of those groups 100% united could fix. So, in order to save the watch from what he saw as it imminent destruction, he was willing to most likely sacrifice himself and his men to end the madness. Because, if not the wildlings or Jon Snow's supporters take him, then some authority like Stannis, Daenerys or Aegon simply can´t let what Bowen did stand. And Bowen knows this. Yet still performs the action.
  2. Taxes

    You are not really choosing sides with your wallet since most taxes has nothing to do with the war. Or rather, not paying what you are supposed pisses off the side not getting taxes (obviously) but it doesn´t work as a benefit for the other side really. If I am fighting the crown and am angry at you for not sending troops, I am not going to accept the argument "I didn´t pay my wine tax this year, so the crown got less money - that is support". Sure, you didnt, but the reason you didn´t is because you are a cheapskate, not that you support me. Its not war-related. Likewise, paying taxes doesn´t mean support. That you do is sort of seen as a standard. The "Neutral position" would therefore mean no military assistance yet tax payments. Now, if you want to show support you need to either adhere my commands for direct military assistance or give me more than I have reason to suspect. So, yeah - if house Weakling give me one million gold dragons as a war contribution, I will acknowledge their support (and disrespect them plentily for their cowardly ways). If house Weakling instead pay their taxes to me (as usual) and claim that this should be seen as support, then I will certainly send and angry letter back - threatening with a less than pleasant visit after the war in order to "discuss" their oaths of fealty. And, of course, if you refuse to pay taxes - then you can´t been considered neutral. You have after all taken a symbolic economic action against me. So of course there will be punishment. In short, not paying taxes impresses no one and has no impact on the percieved loyalty apart from a negative from those not getting their normal stuff. So, you only do it if you are an active part in the conflict - not if you stay by the sidelines. Because no one is going to punish a house after Robert´s rebellion for paying taxes - aka what they were supposed to do. But if you are Robert, you sort of expect your allies in the war to not send Aerys money.
  3. Die permanently from the stabbing: 0% Becoming "total evil" (as in figthing for the Others, becoming like Darth Vader): 2-5% Becoming "darker" (As in caring less, more ruthless, gazing in the Abyss so to speak): 80-90% Remaining exactly the same as he was before he died with no negative effect whatsoever, ignoring the predecent by Beric and Catelyn: 0%
  4. Did Brandon Stark rape Ashara Dayne?

    As they say - what happens in Highgarden STAYS in Highgarden,
  5. Child of Ice and Fire: More harmful than helpful

    Not my strong suit. My mistake. Yeah, of course. My mistake. People that claim that the trait "jewish" or "muslim" settles who is virtous and who is not are equally horrible people. Since I live in Sweden, I am sort of assuming christiantiy as default - which I probably shouldn´t do, but it is hard to ignore your country´s tradition.
  6. Child of Ice and Fire: More harmful than helpful

    No, he wasn´t. He shouldn´t have offered them shit. Sure, they might kill them all, but if he was so faithful he should have trusted God to protect him. As for Lot as a "good person worth saving", that Lot is willing to give up his daughters to a mob say alot about christian morality and christians in general. But that´s what happens when you decide that the trait "christianity" settles who is virtous and who is not, regardless of all other traits.
  7. Child of Ice and Fire: More harmful than helpful

    First, Jon Snow has in no shape or form any legal right to interfere with the Boltons. They might have acted with war against the Starks, but his brothers and his loyalties should be with the watch. And the Boltons never (as far as we know) attacked or threatened or even hindered the Watch before Jon provoked them. Jon Snow are the Lord Commander of the Night´s Watch and the Night´s Watch is meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat. There is a working relation here. The watch is subservient to the throne and also slightly subservient to Winterfell/The lord paramount of the North. So, Ramsay (as the son to said paramount) have much more of a right to threaten and demand on the watch than the watch have a right to take action against him. Unfair? Sure, but one group is existing solely on the goodwill of another. In short, these restrictions exist for a reason - Make it work or get destroyed. Now, as Lord Commander there are some leeway, of course. Jon as well as other LC´s has the authority to make hard choices, even some changes in policy to adapt to a current situation (you could argue that the deal with the wildlings were in this realm due to the great need, you could also argue that the protection of Alys broke no rules since she came to their turf, their land and willingly sought shelter). However, it is not within those right to decide who is evil/who is a threat and then tries to "protect" the realm from it. The LC and the Watch are supposed to guard the realms of men from other sources than inside Westeros- just like CIA, they have no authority over domestic threats. Nor can he change the orginial purpose - his borders are clearly defined. Hence, it sounds very much as a personal ambition in spite of the original message and only possible as I see it by some creative rulebending. It also (gain) goes very much against the spirit of the institution, because let´s face it - rulebreaking or not, if you don´t stay out of westerosi conflicts you risk that the entire organization will be removed (and that is entirely the fault of a radical LC and not the Iron Throne). Also, the Watch is a gloryfied prison. One main intent is certainly that no one will never, ever leave. And I mean, seriously. It should be obvious that the LC can´t change the goal of the organization nor declare people and houses as evil and then try to defeat them in order to "protect the realm". Otherwise both those commanders that warred against each other in the past from different towers can claim the same, that they did their duty by "protecting the realms of men" from that other commander, who of course is an evil asshole. Because even if character X or house Y is as evil as you said it is, then it still doesn´t matter. Reasons don´t matter. What matter is that you broke your purpose and the rules that warrants your existence. And that can simply not stand. As for Mance, as I recall it, and here I quote the wiki - Melisandre offers to send "Rattleshirt" to retrieve his sister, but Jon refuses, not trusting the Lord of Bones. Melisandre reveals Mance's disguise to make Jon reconsider the offer (and Jon also certainly have a hostage in Mance´s son). The grey girl was presented to Jon as Arya, that she was Arys in the vision doesn´t change who and why Jon acted. Because he acted. On that Arya was in trouble. He even think so himself. A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north. “Young ones, and pretty,” Mance had said. The unburnt king supplied some names, and Dolorous Edd had done the rest, smuggling them from Mole’s Town. It seemed like madness now. He might have done better to strike down Mance the moment he revealed himself. Jon had a certain grudging admiration for the late King-Beyond-the-Wall, but the man was an oathbreaker and a turncloak. He had even less trust in Melisandre. Yet somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night’s Watch have no sisters. Here we clearly see Jon at work in his own thoughts! For any kind of defense, this must hurt. He more or less willingly admits that he tried to kidnap and retrieve Arya - where she is taken is not of significance, the important part is that the LC of the Night´s watch interferes and steals the bride of the lord paramounts son. If she had been fleeing by horse seeking shelter in Night´s watch he might have had a case, but that was certainly not what happened. Nor are Jon able to kidnap persons who need help, even if they would have liked that shelter. And this person is now the wife of Ramsay, as horrible as that is. As a moral argument, I think most people can understand Jon - but Jon is LC of the Night´s watch. He is not allowed to take moral stances. His task supersedes his person by far. So, the utilitarian argument is the one that should be adopted here. Arya might suffer, but his duty requires him to look past that and not start a war over the issue. You could argue that the Boltons shouldn´t start a war over the issue either, but not only did Jon strike first, he is also the one with oaths. Neither Roose nor Ramsay have sworn to "guard the realms of men". As for Jon not exactly knowing what Mance would do, sure that takes some blame away, but doesn´t really change the overlying responsibilty. If I tell you to "solve the situation" with the protesters outside my house and you kill someone, I think I am very much to blame. I guess that if the only accussation who was thrown was breach of Guest right, I guess Jon has a defence (Not that I, due to the Freys, think that should be enforced anyway), but he isn´t accused for guest breach only, but kidnapping. Certainly, Jon couldn´t know exactly what Mance would do, but there exist things like "reasonable conclusions" even in Westeros. As for Guest right and "who owns Winterfell", I find that discussion hypocritical and biased. First, Abel was indeed a guest. He was an entertainer there and followed with the Manderley group. He did no protests towards this and decided to eat the bread and salt that was served (singers and entertainers are as I recall protected as well, even if he somehow isn´t ok:ed as a part of Manderleys crew). That means that regardless of who "really" owns the castle Abel did, with his actions, accept the "hospitality" of the Boltons. This is very much true for the northern lords as well. By accepting Rooses invitation to the feast, they also gave an implied consent (As an aside, we really, really need the term implied consent back in modern lawyering) to that Roose was the host in position to invite them there in the first place. Second, Boltons are very much the hosts. It does not really matter that the Starks have a better claim for Winterfell. Roose is in Winterfell NOW and are at this moment holding this in his possession (due to the crowns legalization of Ramsays marriage with Arya - yes, it is a fake Arya, but from the eyes of the crown, they count as married - and the clear intent is to legally take/steal Winterfell). This possession has been verified by the current king in the exact same way as always when a noble family loses a castle in favor of someone else. And, most importantly - hadn´t there been a Stark girl, then they just would have given the Boltons the castle straight up, by royal decree (probably a mistake to not do that in the first place). The intent is clear. Therefore, as long as status quo are holding (most likely not very long) it is Roose and the Boltons castle, by proxy-ruling. The stark claim is stronger, but at this moment - they are not in a position at the moment to enforce that. Mance is indeed performing an act of aggression on the Boltons. If you disagree, well then - when can you really say a conquered castle becomes another family's? Because you don´t like the family so it can happen faster? No, just no. No one wants to lose their castle after all, yet many families have. Are the new owner then not legit for guest right? Who decides the line here? It does sound easier to assume that possession of said castle outside of a war (and on paper The North has submitted) is enough, regardless of the strength of your claim. Otherwise you undermine said guest right. After all, if I don´t feel that my claim to a seat is taken seriously enough and that people attack me in my home (!), then I certainly can´t see why I should follow those rules when it comes to others. For example - I believe that the Targaryen claim to the Iron Throne are much stronger that the Baratheon one. Yet I would never argue that Joffrey was not killed from a violation of guest right (he clearly was!) simply because "the true owner" was not there. I would also be shocked if Daenerys kills Tommen after being invited to King´s landing on the basis that the castle and the area is "hers". I agree, but that doesn´t give her the right to backstab the person inviting her. That person is still the host. And as for the Manderleys bringing the food: "The guest right is a sacred law of hospitality. When a guest, be he common born or noble, eats the food and drinks the drink off a host's table beneath the host's roof, the guest right is invoked. Bread and salt are the traditional provisions." Note that it doesn´t matter whose food it is, what matter is the table and the roof. How the noble got the food doesn´t matter (or it would be the butcher who might get the guest right instead). What matters is that the person seen as owner allows others to eat his food (all food in his castle is by default his). And again, nothing about whose castle it is affects the discussion, since the political implications by Jons choice are obvious. Jon is still provoking war with the Boltons regardless off where "Arya" is taken, working counter to his task as LC. His choices might be understandable, but he is still a very lousy LC. And I think Jon´s fans should man up and acknowledge this. If you want to fight against the evil Boltons because peace was never an option with them, fine! Sometimes there are enemies where peace are an impossibilty, like the slavers in Essos. But don´t claim at the same time that Jon did everything right and proper and was a great LC.
  8. Why did the loyalists yield when Rhegar died?

    Because it was over. All lords siding with the monarchy in the regions held by the usurper and his dogs were defeated, the dornish soldiers are more or less scattered as all other troops from the trident, Tywin was unaligned, but unlikely due to history, to support Aerys. The crownlands would be next to be conquered, with basically no chance of defending. And now suddenly the ironborn are attacking the Reach, the one main "loyalist" player still in the game. The only front going "well" is in the Stormlands, but the siege is going to fail after the trident. Nor will Roberts castle have the same significance. Aerys could have retreated south, but I am doubtful the Tyrell would go the extra mile to really save the monarchy (especially since Aerys leads it). And even if it did, it would be them alone - probably not more than 80000 troops at most (remember, they took losses), maybe some scattered soldiers and maybe, maybe some donishment vs a 40000 minus losses force, and untouched Westerlands in the middle of it all (with potential for 50-60000 soldiers) and 20000-30000 ironborn. Not only will the Reach be surrounded from all sides, Doran are unlikely to send further troops, but even if he did sent 5000-10000 more, due to the death of Elia, you simply guard the passes. Then it will be at least 100000 (maybe even as much as 120-130000) soldiers vs 80000 (at best) reachmen in a terrain not suitable for defense and surrounded, like a big bear attacked by wolves. At this point the usurper only have to stretch out to the reach houses and promise them things like land and a lord paramountship. Remember, this is an era where peaces after a while are common. The person who never surrenders is the person who fight alone.
  9. Short answer: Crab-mentality. Long answer: Well... First, the riverlands defences are lacking. You could in theory hold and use the ford against the invaders, but large parts are very easily to conquer. And if you meet the Ironborn, you have sort of lost your advantage from rivers instantly. Regardless what some might think, natural geography is huge. Secondly, they, like the Vale, they was one of the few kingdoms who got the full force of the Andals, and since they have few natural defences they were unable to hold. So their kingly dynasty was shattered. And when one dynasty had fallen, others can too. The Starks, Arryns and Lannisters have been around for a while, building up themselves as an institution, but if you have to rebuild the kingdom again and again and again its going to be hard to get the right legitimity. You need roots and tradition for effective control. This lack of central authority when you are in war is important. Just look at the (lack) of stormland resistance from Aegon and Golden company. Thirdly, we have these instances: The realm that Benedict the Bold had knitted together was torn asunder once again, and a hundred years of conflict saw petty kings from the Houses Blackwood, Bracken, Vance, Mallister, and Charlton contending with one another for supremacy. This led Raventree to rise against him, for the Blackwoods had never accepted the Seven. The Vances of Atranta and the Tullys of Riverrun joined them in rebellion. King Humfrey and his loyalists, supported by the Swords and Stars of the Faith Militant, were on the point of crushing them when Lord Roderick Blackwood sent to Storm's End for aid. His lordship was tied to House Durrandon by marriage, as King Arlan had taken one of Lord Roderick's daughters to wife, wedding her by the old rites beneath the great dead weirwood in Raventree's godswood. But when Lady Agnes advanced upon the ironborn, her belligerent neighbor Lord Lothar Bracken fell upon her rear with all his strength and put her men to flight. Lady Agnes herself and two of her sons were captured and delivered to King Harwyn, who forced the mother to watch as he strangled her boys with his bare hands. The Riverlords are disunited (maybe because of point 2) and have a tendency to fall into civil wars to solve their crises. In addition to this, they have no problem to side behind whatever invader that can help them from a short-term perspective (that riverlords were willing to so easility swear fealty to Robb as king, despite Tully being their overlord, is another example), ignoring the common logic that the stranger "helping" you might have hidden motives (who doesn´t "get" that House Durrendon or House Hoares might have plans on their own). The riverlords are in practice lords that lives close to water and have neighbors they don´t like. Calling them "The riverlords" present them with a false sense of unity. And we have several houses with ambitions - Bracken, Blackwood, Frey, Tully, Darry. Maybe even Vance and Mallister. And then Harrenhal, the greatest castle, can´t get a long-lived dynasty settling it. Fourth, they (because of the power-struggles above) think short-sighted when it comes to economy too. There has never been a city in the riverlands, strange as that might seem (though large market towns are common), likely because of the fractious history of the region and a tendency for the kings of the past to refuse the charters that might have given some Saltpans or Lord Harroway's Town or Fairmarket leave to expand. They see economic centras and developments as threats to their own power! This both hurt loyalty (why support someone who work against your expansion) and economy (Those neighbors will make those charters, gaining an economical advantage regionwise).
  10. Did Brandon Stark rape Ashara Dayne?

    How? Why? How did the video even...? Is there anything substantial who back this theory up? Anything at all? Or is it just random mumbling? Like somehow, Brandon talk to Ashara for Ned, think that he want her himself to fuck with Ned and then somehow this turns out to be a rape? And I don´t think that person in the video necessary has pegged Neds and Brandons relationship here. He just assumes relations brother to brother just must be in a certain way. Now, I am going to go write about my theory that Mace Tyrell kidnapped a fleeing Arthur Dayne, took him to Highgarden, tied him up in his sex dungeon and had him anally. I have some great evidence. Namely that I say the books should be interpreted that way. Its evidence, right?
  11. Let's talk about Tysha and Lannister soldiers

    Catelyn have illegally taken control of Tyrion and refused to give him proper justice. They have already decided guilt and were only looking for proof, not argument against. Indeed, she was (quite cleverly) distorting where they would take him, in order to avoid that people would try to free him. Certainly, she had good reasons to act as he did, but things escalated from a situation she created. If Lysa had executed Tyrion then both sisters had been responsible. Tyrion was placed in a position where he was closed to be killed in a process the Vale chooses to call justice. There is no way the king nor other nobles can accept this due to the signal it sends. Suddenly, any noble could get his son kidnapped and "held trial over" in another province. Just imagine, a Bracken could be kidnapped by a Blackwood and "held trial" over. An unauthoritized trial, with no legal authority, biased judges and punishments based on rivalry. This is what Lysa do here. Her trial is a sham. And becuase Catelyn transported him there, she is responsible for his eventual death too. This is a situation best solved by violence like the raiding Tywin did, or a straight out war. It was more or less seen by Robert as a covert war against Riverlands, and he didn´t exactly disapprove, so the message went home. I think people need to understand that a provocation of this magnitude is an excellent casis belli for war and I personally am 100% for letting innocents suffer as a response to a suffered injustice. Injustice should be met with injustice. Rules mean nothing if the other side doesn´t follow it. And if the authority of law exist, then it should clearly condemm Catelyn, not the lannisters. I find it baffling that people on one end want the law to interfere, yet said nothing when Tyrion was taken. Especially since striking back is an honourable action. Striking first is not. Now, Catelyn think that the lannisters struck first by killing Jon Arryn, but we as readers should know better. As for political response, other than "have the crown execute Lysa and Cat for murder and holding an unauthoritized trial" solution, I could see a sentencing, involving some public Stark shaming, shit-ton of money and/or resources for Tyrions compensation, increased Lannister influence at court (like forcing Robert to accept Tywin as hand for the next ten years) and a ward or two (Likely Arya and/or Rickon) sent to Casterly Rock to make sure of the Norths good behaviour. As you say yourself, the king´s justice would have been too late so in which way do you suggest that Catelyn, Lysa and the starks should be punished? Because what I hear is a desperate act in order to let the Starks go scot free in the name of all innocent civilians, conveniently forgetting that those innocent civilians was put at risk because of Catelyn, Lysa, Ned (who backs Catelyn) and rivermen who should know better. I think all those accusing Tywin for being a rotten PoS who raid the riverlands, rape the peasants and steals their shit forget this. There is an excellent need to brutalize smallfolk over this. Signals are needed to be sent and one of those are that principles of justice matter more than innocent human lives. You simply do not do what Catelyn did and people need to accept that or burn all bridges to any kind of peaceful solution. In general, I also think that if your grandmother have issues with the bombings, then she can take that up with Hitler and the germand high command, not the allies. They have a right to respond to past history. And if you commit terrible crimes in the east, they you only got yourself to blame when that country pays back in kind. Edit: It also should be pointed out that riverlands are not innocent in this. Tyrion was taken by riverlanders after all and Lord Hoster is the father to both Tully sisters. I have a hard time to believe that he would simply let the westerland army just pass in its way to liberate Tyrion and accept the just execution of his children. And this is another thing when it comes to war and suffering - if the riverlands doesn´t want their populace brutalized due to an act they are semi-responsible for. Ok, then they have the moral responsibilty to submit to Westerland demands. A crime have taken place and either you assist in getting justice or you protect the criminals with all the sufferings to smallfolk that follows. In short - Tywin makes to rules and Hoster obeys, or it is a justified war from Tywins side. To assume that Tywin just should ignore all this and allow the Starks have a field day, hiding between innocents is just hypocritical and biased.
  12. Will Jon marry Val?

    Yes, because something is happening right there right now. He did hear a shouting and a roar after all. And he has a responsibility over all on the wall. I might not like some of my co-workers, but if I hear a scream from their direction I will check on what goes on. That doesn´t mean something romantic. And Jon doesn´t really know that it will be "one of his last thoughts", so it doesn´t really have weight. If he, like Rhaegar, would whisper her name before he did you would have a point. I think you are grasping after romantic straws. He wanted Winterfell and a normal life, Val was just an added bonus. If he had REALLY wanted Val he would have accepted Stannis offer in a heartbeat regardless of his feeling about the whole thing, just so he could be with her. He didn´t. It was more important to him if Winterfell was Stannis to give, his other siblings that he didn´t want to bypass and to burn the godswood. Again, people seem to see romance where there is none. I get that things change, but all this seems to be based on very, very little. I know few women exist at the wall and that people want Jon to find a partner, but this Jon/Val foreshadowing seems to be very weak if all these very loose quotes is the best that exist. And in comparison to other ladies, we have (a pretty strong I would say) reason why Jon might not be romantically inclined. Apart from, I don´t know, that they have spent a lot of time together and very little sexual has happened or been hinted.
  13. Will Jon marry Val?

    And I can´t see this work with Jon at all. He is not that type. So if Val have this strategy in order to get Jon to her bed, she is not very efficient. It is at best a challenge that only fit a person of their culture, a culture Jon does not belong to. In addition, it didn´t work for Ygritte at all when she tried it - she was forced to be the one taking some real intiatives, instead of hoping that Jon would drive it (Jon in the first three books didn´t drive ANYTHING). And no, the beard between her legs is not a taunt. It is playful banter, with a slight sexual tone. Nothing that screams "I want to have sex with you", but more of a normal, slighty mature joke. This might comes as a shock, but friends of different genders can flirt and give sexual hints without meaning it as an sexual invite. And there is a reason why the "no means no debate" is slight more complicated in real life, because people believe in hints that were never there in the first place. Hints that Val in this case, if you are correct, hope Jon will notice. And if he does - what would it say about Jon? And tbh, I think all people here try to "read" too much into all this. It might be interesting from a Doylist perspective to speculate in a Jon-Val romance (and most certainly GRRM can write it later in a way so it works), but I have a hard time to see that Jon is confortable with this right now as it stands. Again, occams razor is very clear on how Jon should read her initial threat, and no the most logical conclusion is NOT that it means something else than what the words tell. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Certainly, other interpretations are theoretically possible. But regardless of how many euphemistic ways to think about this, the literal words should give pause. And if Jon later fins Val naked on his bed, those words should come back to him. In general, men and women can be friends as well - despite the rumors. So having some maybe sexual interpretable dialogue doesn´t mean that they have sexual feelings for eachother (and especially not that Jon have those feelings for Val - I could see it in the other direction though, maybe maybe). Again, the threat of castration should cut any reasonable person short (and I don´t see Jon having that strong feelings on Val in the first place). So if Val is trying to incite Jon into taking action, she is shooting herself hard in the foot as it stands now. You don´t give veiled threats and hope that your words will be interpretated in the rapiest ways possible when you deal with someone outside your culture. And tbh - if I were a wilding, I would not dare to gamble. She might mean it, she might not. And playing on the fickleness of women are a good way of losing more than you can afford so to speak, especially in this case.
  14. Will Jon marry Val?

    Yeah, if I was Jon Snow and you (as Val) are telling me later that "that" is what you meant, I am going to believe that you are nuts. Its like saying that KKK doesn´t hate black people, them just burning them up is just a euphemism for the sick society we all live, a cry for help. No one in their right mind will believe that. Most sane people will try to hold the distance here. After all, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Occhams razor should be very clear on what Jon think what Val said mean. And I don´t think its really that debatable tbh. You might interpret it one way as a reader because you hope for a certain solution, but this CLEARLY breaks suspension of disbelief, at least for me. Certainly, but why would he make a different decision after this threat? Because as I see it, Val has some explaining to do here. And I am sure that there are many other ladies for Jon here that are not hinting on that his gear need to go.
  15. The more I read fan theories, the less I want them to be true. But if I have to pick one, I think I am morally willing to accept that Tywin was poisoned by Oberyn. It is not as harmful as many of the others. And this is in addition to the "obvious" ones, like that Sandor lives (dooh), that Theon was castrated, frey pies and so forth.