HaeSuse

Members
  • Content count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HaeSuse

  • Rank
    Squire

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southeast USA
  1. Here's the funny part. The folks defending Jon, here (whom, I will reiterate for the 1000th time, I adore), say that keeping Mance alive was the right thing to do. So... was it the wrong thing to do, to allow Mel to burn Mance? Because that was what Jon did originally. Completely support the burning alive of Mance Rayder. Not even beheading him. Not executing him. Not "swinging the sword because he gave the sentence". But, allowing a foreigner to burn him alive. Sure, it turned out to be Rattleshirt. Maybe you're all claiming he knew all along in his golden heart of hearts that it wasn't Mance! Or maybe it's yet another long winded, bending over backwards to pat your own back, dodging of the issue. But, Jon has both sentenced Mance to death, and allowed him to live, to serve his non-NW realm concerns. If you approve of one, you can't approve of the other. If you think letting him live to go do side-quests to level up in the realm is the right thing, then letting a witch burn him alive is the wrong thing. And vice versa. I think both were inherently wrong. But allowing him to live was the one that gave his brothers in the NW just cause to remove him from office. If you're gonna sentence him to death, swing the sword, Jon. And, if you're gonna let him live, then resign as LC of the NW, and go about your life as a deserter.
  2. Cool. I haven't read much SSM. Just the books a couple times over.
  3. You miss the point. I have agreed, and did from the start about that point. It is logically valid to say that.... 1) realms of men should include wildlings, when actually presented with the "real" threat of the Others. 2) During other times, when the "freefolk" are actively campaigning to do the "realms of men" harm by grouping up with a "king beyond the wall", it is just as reasonable to consider them "enemies". 3) It makes no sense to allow "men" and "women" into a realm bound under the law of a throne defined by serfism and feudalism, when those "men" and "women" refuse to do the "rightful king" leal service. 4) tradition plays a huge part in what the LC is expected to do 5) tradition, beyond the recollection of any living human being, says "wildlings are an enemy" 5) Mance was aiming to do the "realms of men" harm, and believed he could bring the wall down, and intended to posssibly do so, with the horn. But the key point in all of those, is point 2. Let us presume that Jeor Mormont allowed wildlings to pass. Would he have been campaigned against by the brothers? Uh, yup. No doubt. Would he have been assassinated by his brothers? Who knows, but highly likely. Would the Iron Throne have kicked him out of there, alive or dead? You know they would have. It might not even have been the IT. Maybe Ned Stark would've, when 50k wildlings (who had been raping and pillaging his cities as long as he'd been alive) showed up. Would you be saying, in that case, "Nope. Jeor did the right thing, allowing Mance and his men through the wall?" Or would you be saying "wildlings are enemies?" Laugh and mock me all you want, you've made a habit of it, now. That's fine. Take the white side, or the black side. You've done that consistently, as well. This one is as gray as any of them. And no matter whether it's light gray, or dark gray, he still refused to take Mance's head, and sent Mance to save his "sister", both of which are the breaking of oaths.
  4. We shall see. I imagine it will be less fun than you are imagining. I hope not, but so it goes.
  5. Again, we're arguing a point we agree about. For the 10th time this thread: I agree the wall wasn't intended to keep wildings out. I agree the wall was intended to stop the Others. I'm just saying that precedent goes a long way. And all precedent GRRM cared to share with us, pointed toward a neverending history of wildlings being a threat to the realms of man. Kings beyond the wall never said "Let us be the 8th kingdom!". They said "WE WILL NOT BEND THE KNEE, WE WILL CONQUER BY FORCE". Right? I mean, can you at least agree to that? And now there's another king beyond the wall doing the same thing. And he might even have a frikkin magical horn that will reduce the wall to rubble. And he's.... wait.... not the enemy? I'm not saying he's more of an enemy than frozen zombie magic kings of cold, and all that jazz. But.... come on.... really?
  6. 1) Not just giving Stannis advice, but doing so while at the same time sending the Lannister lackeys a note saying "we aren't collaborating with the Stannis host!". Not just meddling in the affairs of the realm, but doing so on one side, while trying to play the other side! Sweet holy Drowned God, how much more clear can it be? "Go out into the mountains, the clansmen will rally to you!" ??? 2) No, she just glamoured 2 key freefolk, burned the one who didn't need to burn, saved the other, and was attempting to use Kingsmen, Queensmen, NW, and Freefolk to accomplish her meddling BS goals, as usual. Is deceiving the LC of the NW, deliberately and completely lying to him, burning a man alive (who wasn't sentenced to death), and saving a man (who was sentenced to death) nothing to you? What about influencing and manipulating Jon into the whole Abel/Spearwives/Arya plot? 3) Yeah it is. And how many of these offenses do you need in order to agree with the OP title? 4) No! I mean, if every lord in the 7 kingdoms says "NO"! and you only exists at the pleasure of the 7 kingdoms, then how/why can you justify this? Morally, I agree. But as LC? How? Are you saying the NW draws its power and autonomy from somewhere other than the Iron Throne? If the 7 kingdoms stopped sending men and money, it would cease to exist... IT would be like saying.... If President Trump ordered an absolute end to immigration, and got it approved by congress, and the Supreme Court... Then the Marines helping needy/starving/homeless/wartorn/refugee people immigrate.... Saying "that's justifiable by law!" No, it would not be! I'd still support it MORALLY, but there is no LEGAL defense of it. Same here. 5) The issue with women fighting isn't an issue with women fighting. I support a system where women can be soldiers, in our modern world. If they want a gun, and prove they can use, give it to them. The issue is putting women around men sworn to celibacy in combat situations (or at all).
  7. Even if so... It does not change the fact that just short of 1000 Lord Commanders have considered Wildlings a threat. Why call them wildlings if not? Why have "kings beyond the wall" build armies to forcefully invade the 7 kingdoms? Be it right or wrong (and look, I've admitted in this very thread that I agree that the wall was built to keep Others out, not wildlings), it is absolutely going against what the NW has done for thousands of years. There is no arguing that point. And, to boot, the other offenses. Not taking Mance's head. Letting Mance loose south of the wall, to do non-NW work. There were more than enough oaths broken, and rules unfollowed, to where, even if Jon is 100% right in his approach to the freefolk, he still abused/misused his powers as LC of the NW. So, bickering over this one thing becomes a moot point, regardless.
  8. Am I missing something? Has Arya ever "warged" as Nym? She has the dreams, sure. But actual warging? If Nymeria DID realize that, why didn't she make her presence known to Arya? A thousand times over she had the chance, before Arya left for Bravos. Why not?
  9. It's not. You are right. But there is a clear understanding (be it right or wrong) from several thousand years of black brothers, that it meant the realms south of the wall. There is even textual evidence to support that it was built for just that purpose. They clearly did not have Slaver's Bay in mind, when they built the wall. Let's say you're right. It means all (wo)men. Generic. Why build a wall? And if it was meant only to defend against the undead menace north of the wall, then why didn't all previous Lord Commanders allow any/all wildlings to pass south? Wouldn't wildlings have always been welcome? Wouldn't there have been a precedent for that, somewhere, somehow? And if it had been meant to save Essos as well as Westeros, wouldn't there be some lineage, some evidence, some precedent, some proof of that, as well? Look, I agree. The white walkers and their ilk are the true menace. And I agree, wildlings are just (wo)men. However, the wall, the Night's Watch, and everything that goes with them, were built by, and funded by, and manned by, men from the 7 kingdoms. I haven't heard of any Myrish black brothers. And maybe a wildling or two has taken the black in the past, but if so, it's few and far between. And, the fact that, what is it, 5 "kings beyond the wall" have made it their goal to take the North (as in the realm of the Starks) by force, upending and unsettling the northmen who live(d) there, I believe makes it perfectly justifiable for the last 997 Lord Commanders to consider wildlings, in general, their foes, not friends. It makes perfect sense. When the wights are active, wildlings and men of the "realm" band together to fight a common cause. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were. But when that threat is dormant, an enemy is just an enemy. And a giant group of people (people though they are) who proclaim "I WILL NOT BEND MY KNEE" have no place in a medieval feudal society, and therefore belong north of the wall. I have no doubt that if some wildlings had escaped over the wall, in the millennia between the previous era of white walker activity and this current one, and had come to the current Stark in Winterfell, saying "I'll bend the knee, I just want a home and some land to farm", that Lord would've said "by all means, go grow me some potatoes, friend".
  10. Nah, the TV show aside, I think Nym is too wild. And I don't think she will remember fondly the girl who pelted her with rocks and made her leave.I foresee a reunion, but not a good one. Maybe even one in which Arya dies.
  11. Well put! Informative, detailed, and fact laden rebuttal! Sigh.... I think it makes a lot of sense, and I thought the same thing myself. The amount of evidence we have for forced marriages (or unforced) during times of conflict, to bring realms and houses together, is enormous. It happened in real life, during the middle ages, as well, and we know GRRM loosely based the Stark/Lannister conflict on the York/Lancaster War of the Roses. It makes a ton of sense for some ancient war/rebellion to have gone awry, and for a Stark to marry off a distant cousin to some Greyjoy or another, thereby ending the conflict, and possibly purchasing a few centuries of peace, through the brokered marriage. The location makes sense too.
  12. Oh, so in your definition, he's also sworn to protect New Ghis, Lys, Mereen? That's a good stretch of purple prose interpretation right there.
  13. I like Jon. He's a good dude. Stuck in between a hundred loyalties, oaths, honors, families, and vows. What's a man to do? Regardless of the love/hate thing going on here, and in the previous thread, I believe that the brothers who wanted him gone, had every reason to want him gone. While Jon's actions may have been the right things for him to do, they were not the right things for the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to do. I don't condone his murder. I don't appreciate or like his killers and their conspirators. I love Jon. I want him to do well, and end up on top at the end of these novels. But, the case against him as the LC is pretty strong. Taking part in the realm's concerns (20 times over): from fArya, to Stannis, to the Boltons Allowing a Red Witch to do her Red things, in her Red manners, which is an affront to all of the sworn brothers of the Night's Watch. Not killing Mance, after taking Janos's head (which I applaud, by the way. Stupid frog man Lannister lickspittle). Letting the Wildlings through. Which morally was the right thing to do. But, as LCotNW? Arming wildlings (Even women) and allowing them to fight with the Brothers (a different thing entirely if they take the black).
  14. If anyone claims he's black or white, then they missed the boat. He's clearly gray as gray can be. I agree. To your second point I'd say, he equally makes sexual jokes to/about men. It's not sexism, then, just crassness. Right? And is being crass so bad, when placed in the moral cosmic scales? Nah. I tend to actually like it. Probably because I myself am crass. I see that. I'm not blind to it. And, in your eyes, is it sexual harassment when he makes equally crude jokes about men? Or is it only so when it's the opposite sex? What if he was gay? Would it only be sexual harassment then, if it was towards men? This also is as gray as gray comes. If I make a joke about your religion, is is religious harassment? About your worldview is it worldview harassment? Quoting the great Salman Rushdie: “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Same goes here. If such crude jokes offend you, and someone says them, don't be around them. Easy as pie. And in places where you CAN'T avoid them (like work) there are almost always protections in place. And when being improperly imprisoned for something you didn't do, I think we can cut someone some slack for taking an "offensive" tact toward their captor/abuser/torturer/accuser.
  15. I agree, wholeheartedly! However, let's say that it gets down to "Oh. Em. Gee. So-and-so made a rude comment to such-and-such!" and some people find that very thing repulsive, utterly repugnant, and despicable. And some people say "Wut? How is that bad?" Then, I find it interesting the demographics and background of the people who side one way, or side the other. No different than politics. Some people think it's impossible to understand why someone would want to pay more taxes, in order to give more people health care. Some other people think it's morally repugnant to NOT want to do so. Is there a moral prerogative there? I think there is, personally. But guess what, the people on the other side of the fence do, too. No one on either side of that battle thinks "I'm a terrible person for believing what I believe". If anything, they think that about the OTHER side. But it's still interesting to note specific demographic features of either side of that argument. Why would it not be? And, if it wasn't interesting, then the 7 trillion articles, tweets, podcasts, news reels, etc wouldn't exist. Is it the be all end all to say... "the education level of side A is X, and the education of level of side B is Y"? Nope. But is it interesting? You betcha!