Knight Of Winter

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Knight Of Winter

  • Rank
    Northern Bound
  • Birthday 01/05/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,614 profile views
  1. As for US police, in addition to what BFC has said, how about a mandatory psychological test when applying for a police job? Here, for example, we have obligatory test for anyone wishing to obtain permit to own a gun. This wouldn't help solve the problem by itself, of course, but at least it would root out some of more trigger-happy or sadistic individuals (or at least restrict them to a desk job).
  2. But you just proposed that. Namely, you suggested Jaime should have either distracted Aerys and stand aside when Lanniser soldiers came or knocked him down himself. Both go strongly against safety of the king Jaime is supposed to serve. It's either: 1) Jaime is a proper KG without free will, obeying and protecting Aerys unconditionally. If Aerys issues a command (like: help burn the city), Jaime must obey. If Tywin send his men after Aerys, Jaime must protect him to death. 2) Jaime has free will, and he's free to stop Aerys's plan, fail to protect him, or kill him if he decides that's the best thing to do. What you propose is some weird mixture of the two: 3) Jaime has arbitrary amount of free will. He can exercise it when deciding whether to help Aerys burn the city or protecting him when Lannister soldiers come; but he can't when deciding whether to kill Aerys personally.
  3. That's quite a lot of oathbreaking for someone sworn to defend and protect the king at all costs (standing aside or even knocking out the king). Just recently you affirmed that KG's basically have no free will, and yet your hypothetical Jaime shows quite a lot of it in your example.
  4. By "rules" - yes, Elia's Aegon comes before Lyanna's Jon. But the problem is, Lyanna may not care for the "rules" at all. She may become ambitious and push Rhaegar to name Jon as his heir. Her father, Lord of the North, may back her up. His allies, Lords of Stormlands, Vale and Riverlands may support him in this. Martells will naturally oppose this and start gathering their allies around them. And soon, you could have two powerful factions forming on the court. At best, they can learn to coexist - but in history, things often turn out not in the best way - and then you're stuck with civil war. And it doesn't matter if Lyanna and Elia hate each other or not - as long as they have mutually contradictory goals, they can easily become enemies. It's mostly Rheagar's responsibility for even creating a scenario where two houses both yearn for their scion to be the next heir. Stuff such as this was avoided by generations for a reason. In fact, even if both women come from the same house, such as Rhaenys and Visenya, thier children (half-brothers) may start a war against each other.
  5. Though one can say there's an indisputable evidence that Ned and Robert are gay
  6. I do believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna were indeed in love with each other, and that Lyanna went willingly to the TOJ, but the way that the both of them handled their affair is just monumentally dumb. To put it short: Rhaegar had already done one (I'll be very mild and say) controversial decision to disregard societal norms and crown Lyanna as QOLAB in quite a public manner. This provoked a reaction from lot of powerful people: Robert and Martells were unhappy, "all the smiles died" and Brandon had to be restrained from physically confronting Rhaegar. WIth that in mind, Rheagar chooses to act even much more "controversially" and elope with Lyanna to a hidden location (aka TOJ). Now, even if R and L couldn't foresee that their elopement will lead to a civil war, they must have known that some kind of massive political shitstorm is bound to happen. And yet they choose to put themselves in a position where's they're basically out of the loop and unable to react to whatever important events will happen. In a few months he was away, Rhaegar apparently didn't concern himself with such a trifling matter as mending the rift between powerful angry nobles and his mad father, he instead dedicated himself to 3HD prophecy (which ironically failed because of war that R chose to ignore). That's not just uncaring for the realm, that's also stupid and irresponsible, especially for a crown prince. And let's even assume best case scenario: R and L marry, Dorne is for some reason ok with that and little Jon is raised alongside Aegon and Rhaenys. Hmm, I wonder where have we seen a situation like this before. Oh, I know, with Viserys I and so called "Dance of the Dragons", where the war half-brother and half-sister desolated the realm. But, Rheagar was noted as a fine scholar - so surely he would not have been so stupid to recreate the same circumstances? Surely?
  7. I've seen this theory before, and always the main question was: would even LF be so callous and outright vile to plan the death of his own son? Because, if SR is indeed LF's child, there's no doubt in my mind that Lysa would joyously inform LF about that.
  8. Eh, not the most logical argument. First you establish an arbitrary analogy, and then proceed it to treat as absolute certainty where there'e no basis for that. Begging the question, the fallacy is called. Moving on, you disregard evidence which points to the contrary - like Barristan saying Rheagar loved Lyanna. And he's not even the only one to assert so - Cersei and Kevan tell us pretty much the same in ADWD. Any "theory" can be founded on such a flimsy analogies. For example: Aegon IV - jovial brother; Dragonknight - serious brother. Thus, Renly had hundreds of mistresses, unlike Stannis. Quiet bookish type (Rhaegar) has a gay friend (JonCon). Thus, Jon is in love with Sam. Dragonknight died protecting his sister's husband. Thus, Loras will die protecting Tommen.
  9. You can't have it both ways. If you argue that Jaime could and should have stopped the wildfire plot, you're saying that Jaime should have listened to his own moral judgement instead of vows, vows which tell him to obey king's commands (and king's command was: help with the wildfire plot). However, you also argue that Jaime should have tried to save or champion Aerys, a guy whom Jaime (rightfully) considers to be an omnicidal madman. Ergo, he should have disregarded his own judgement and uphold his vows - an opposite view. So Jaime either: a ) disregards his vows and listens to his moral judgement. He prevent wildfire plot and does what he wants with Aerys. OR b ) disregards his moral judgement and honours his oath to Aerys. He unconditionally protects Aerys and listens to his every command without question (including the one to help with the wildfire plot)
  10. Oh, yeah, and what's somehow forgotten is the fact that by obeying Aerys Jaime would also be an oathbreaker. When he took his knighty vows, Jaime swore to: In the name of the Warrior I charge you to be brave. In the name of the Father I charge you to be just [allowing KL to perish is not just]. In the name of the Mother I charge you to defend the young and innocent [from monsters such as Aerys. In the name of the Maid I charge you to protect all women [including those in KL]... Matter of conflicting oaths, really. Jaime was right to jape how they made him swear vow after vow, and sooner or later he was bound to break one or the other. And while most of his society believes he should have given priority to his KG's vows, I don't think that anyone here can fault him for making a different choice (at a great personal cost - his reputation plummeted) and preferring to kill the madman who was planning to kill thousands of people.
  11. No, why should she? Prime Minister resigns if she somehow massively screws up (and public learns about it) - and while this burning is a terrible tragedy on many levels, it's none of PM's fault.
  12. Jaime's first and foremost vow is to protect the king, the second being to obey him. Knocking our or arresting Aerys would be a direct contradiction of these two. Jaime would be an oathbreaker still. Besides, can one really make a moral difference between watching the "dirty" deed happen calmly (handing Aerys to Lannister soldiers) and doing the deed yourself (personally killing Aerys)? I think there is none. If the deed is good, needed or necessary, then it must be done by someone (so why not Jaime?). If the deed is bad, it should be stopped instead of allowing it to happen. As to what Jaime should have done, I believe situation to be quite clear. Saving bazillion of lives is infinitely more important than obeying a madman, oath or not? Marya the baker, Jon the smith, Lemmy the orphan boy and countless others owe their lives to the fact that one knight had the courage to do the right thing despite the price it cost him. What possible oath is worth that? In fact, entire situation just serves to highlight the flawed concept of Westerosi honour, where flawlessly obeying random guy (who happens to have a crown on his head) is seen as highest form of virtue. Despite the fact that said guy might be corrupt, insane or outright vile.
  13. While not going into an in-depth analysis, these stories I've heard over a last couple of years lead me to believe that US police basically has a license to murder anyone they wish with complete impunity. Being unarmed, complying with police instructions or even being a kid are not guarantees you'll survive the encounter with trigger-happy officers. Afterwards, they'll use some ridiculous justifications, usually in lines of "following the procedure", "we maybe thought (s)he was armed" or "resisting the arrest" and walk away scot-free, most of the times not even losing their job, rarely going to trial and even more rarely actually getting convicted on said trial. We scoff at the historical times, where one class (usually nobles) could freely humiliate or sometimes even kill ordinary folk with impunity, but I don't see how situation nowdays is any better.
  14. Not just government, but society in general should be the one to promptly react to this. If members of a society are suffering undeserved and lasting pain, it's not only oppressed or oppressor group's problem which they should sort put between themselves, but the problem that deserves everyone's attention. I find this a good principle in general, and especially true when the victims are someones so vulnerable and easily damaged as children. So, yes, society should create a framework where bullying is seen as wrong and not acceptable, and react quickly when it happens. The better and more interesting question is - how? It seems that many people here (myself included) have some experience with being bullied (and suffering horrific consequences), so I'd be interested in hearing ideas on how to combat it. If you were a victim, what action from an environment (peers, parents, teachers etc.) would have helped you the most? If you were the bully, which action would have made you reconsider and stop? I really believe bullying in general is a huge issue, but there has to be some kinds of tried and effective methods that work against it.
  15. That's not how feudal monarchy works. Majority of state's army is controlled by nobles, so king's power is very much dependent of them. Most of the times they'll acknowledge their king and respect him as sovereign, but if he alienates too many of them - he'll get a rebellion or a civil war. Contrast this to absolute monarchy (most famous example being Louis XIV), where king is indeed all-powerful and nobles can't to anything other then bow down in obedience. And who exactly cares that Robert's "claim" is worse? Not Westerosi themselves, not foreign powers, not anyone important in ASOIAF-verse. Pretty much everyone is ok with Robert as new king and recognizes him as such. In fact, the only one that cares here is you, speaking about how for some reason (apparently unknown to Westerosi) Robert isn't the rightful king. Wait a second, whose opinion is relevant then? If not subjects and foreign powers, then who are ones whose opinion matters? Who exactly gives or denies one's "claim" ?? Come on, really? Sorry, but this sentence outright contradicts itself. Anyhow, a brief look through European medieval and renaissance history (and not just English) reveals significant amount of ruler-overthrowing and dynasties-changing. For example: Byzantine Empire, 9th century: Macedonian peasant befriended the king and become "keeper of the emperor's chamber" (formal title, signifying high degree of trust form the emperor). Later he murdered the emperor and crowned himself, establishing one the longest dynasties of Byzantine history. Croatia, 11th century: after the old king died, powerful people had to choose between quiet and scholary king's nephew and bold distant cousin. Guess who ended up on the throne and who ended up in monastery. Sicily, 13th century: after being conquered by French king's brother Charles, Sicilians were unhappy with his rule and staged an uprising which killed every last Frenchman on Sicily. It didn't help Charles that his claim was as divine as it could be - he had pope's explicit support. Byzantine (Nicean) Empire, 13th century: basically a powerful and popular noble named himself a regent of an underage emperor. Later he blinded the kid and crowned himself, and noone really reacted. He went on to establish dynasty which would reign for 2 centuries. Hungary, 14th century: long series of power struggles and wars between supporters of son-in-law and cousin of previous ruler. Russia, 15th century: I like this example most, because of its clear correlation with Westerosi situation. Before 13th century, people of Russia were organized into several different states and princedoms (like 7 Kingdoms). Then foreign invaders came and conquered all of them (Mongols - Targaryens). However, in 15th century one of vassal dukes (like Robert) grew powerful enough to challenge the Mongols and slowly start gaining other dukes' support for him becoming Russia's ruler. To this day, noone claims that Mongols (Targs) were the rightful rulers of Russia. France, 16th century: one long civil war spanning three decades between Catholics and Huguenots, each pushing their own candidate as king. Etc, etc. Not no mention numerous examples of failed coups, lost civil wars and compromises, as well as even more numerous cases that I don't know of. But the point should be clear. Civil wars happened, kings were killed, dynasties were overthrown, and medieval people accepted it without much thought. Yes, concept of divine right existed and yes, it was important - but if king alienated too many powerful nobles he usually fared no different than any other person who gets powerful enemies - that is to say poorly. Divine right or not. Actually, going back to this: This isn't how rebellions work. Going by pure common sense, why in the seven hells would rebels fight dangerous war to overthrow the old king only to put his son (or heir in general) on throne? Son, who will have every possible motive to hate them wish them ill and fear he'll end the deposed like his dad, leading to decades of mistrust and intirgues (if not another civil war) between king and nobles? Who in their right mind would wish that? Indeed, real life history teaches us that deposing a king means deposing his entire dynasty and establishing a new one, not putting king's heir on the throne (barring obvious exceptions where heir is part of the rebellion). See above for multitude of examples - apparently it was not that difficult to justify. That is not to say that deposed king (or queen, as in Mary's case) can have powerful supporters who will be unhappy with his execution. But in such regard, Elizabeth is no different then any other modern politician who faces an unpopular and potentially dangerous decision. One wages advantages and disadvantages of such an action, and apparently "divine right" fell on the short end of the stick. No, Starks are the rightful rulers because Northmen see them as such, not because of any divine right. If, for any reason, Umbers, Manderlys, Karstarks, Glovers, Mormonts etc. become amenable to Bolton rule and accept them as their sovereigns, Stark claims suddenly evaporates like a snow in summer.