• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About teej6

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,393 profile views
  1. The only situation that "clearly unfolds" is that Robb asked his couselors to attest to his will, which we are told earlier in the very same chapter entails Robb naming Jon his heir, which Cat opposes. And in doing this Cat feels Robb has trapped her because she cannot raise any opposition in that setting. No need to twist into a pretzel or imagine things from thin air that have no textual basis to explain trapped in this situation. On the matter of naming Jon Robb's heir, Cat refuses to obey Robb and clearly states that to Robb. Well this is the exchange between Robb and Cat: Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice.” “I cannot,” she said. “In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this . . . this folly. Do not ask it.” “I don’t have to. I’m the king.” Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him. So Cat is refusing to support Robb to which Robb responds that he doesn't need her support in the matter. But Robb is still her son and inspite of releasing Jamie behind his back, Robb relies on his mother's counsel. Even in this case we see him asking her for advice. There's no other trap here plain and simple. Cat is against his decision to name Jon heir and Robb traps her by doing just that surrounded by his men so she is unable to raise any opposition. As to your theory that Robb named Cat his heir, there's no textual hints to back that, and as a poster above said it makes no narrative sense.
  2. Oh dear! We really need the next book to put an end to these tinfoil theories. If Robb's will is produced in the next books, there's no doubt in my mind that Jon was named his heir in case Jeyne did not give him a child. And the lengths people go to find a hidden meaning or clue in every little word is becoming down right rediculous. By trap, Cat meant that Robb put her in a position where she had no choice but to accept Robb's will in the matter, which was to name Jon his heir.
  3. Huh? Care to elaborate on the bolded section. Yes, there is a dislike for Dany in the fandom, just as there is for Jon or Cat or Sansa. You make it sound like Dany fans are being victimized for their support of Dany. I call that BS. From the time I spent on this forum, now that the Stannis fanbase has all but dissappeared, the Dany fans come across to me as the most rabid, and some of them constantly go on other threads, specially Jon-centric threads, to diminish or sideline his importance in the story. So forgive me if I don't feel for the Dany is always unjustly disliked crowd. I'm indifferent to Dany's storyline and her character always seemed entitled and power hungry to me. However, her chapters (even the ADWD ones) are, for me, definitely not the most boring in the series.
  4. Which war did Jon start? Up until ADWD, Jon hasn't started any war. If you are implying his response to the Pink Letter he was only rallying his men to defend the NW and his (the LC) person from a evil raving lunatic. Still no war was started, allhe did was rally his troops. Now if you are referring to Jon's tacit approval of Mel's plan to send Mance to rescue a girl on a horse fleeing and seen by a lake, I still see no textual basis for "Jon started a war". He did not kidnap Ramsay's bride from WF. He thought he was helping his sister who was half way to the wall of her own accord. Jon's choices in dealing with Stannis or letting Mel send Mance to help a fleeing girl he thought to be Arya, or rallying his men to answer Ramsay's challenge are by no means easy choices for him. And if you've read the books you'll know how Jon weighs his choices against his vows and how he makes every attempt not to break his vows.
  5. Well IMO she isn't. And I provided textual evidence to back my opinion, which you conveniently ignore.
  6. I was responding to this statement of yours "Besides, you may disagree but Cersei did what any responsible parent should do in that situation. If I have a son and for whatever reason he's going to be a king, and he's that young, it's my duty to rule in his stead until he comes of age. It's incredibly irresponsible for a child that age to lead." Cersei is neither a good mother to Tommen nor is she ruling in his stead as you claim. She is an abusive mother to Tommen and believes in her twisted mind that she has a right to rule. As to whether she has a conscience -- that is highly questionable? In the later books she is shown to have no empathy, sympathy, compassion or guilt, all essential traits in a person with a conscience.
  7. There are several examples in the books indicating that Cersei is a narcissist. The example @F The King provided was a good one that shows how Cersei views her children, which is not like a mother but rather tools to attain power for herself. This is the entire quote: "The rule was hers; Cersei did not mean to give it up until Tommen came of age. I waited, so can he. I waited half my life. She had played the dutiful daughter, the blushing bride, the pliant wife. She had suffered Robert’s drunken groping, Jaime’s jealousy, Renly’s mockery, Varys with his titters, Stannis endlessly grinding his teeth. She had contended with Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and her vile, treacherous, murderous dwarf brother, all the while promising herself that one day it would be her turn. If Margaery Tyrell thinks to cheat me of my hour in the sun, she had bloody well think again." Her intent is not to try and make Tommen a better ruler but to make him submissive to her, and to have the rule for herself, not in Tommen's stead but by her own right. Cersei is so twisted that she is disappointed that Tommen is not more like Joffrey, who any person in his/her right mind knows was a monster. She emotionally and physically abuses Tommen all because the kid (granted at the prodding of Margery) wants to play an active part in ruling. Cersei is such a monster that she has Tommen whip Pate (the whipping boy) till he bleeds and even threatens the poor kid that if he doesn't do as she commands she'll have Qyburn remove Pate's tongue. These are not the acts of a caring mother instructing her child in how to become a good ruler but that of a selfish narcissist who incorrectly thinks she has a right to rule Westeros and has deluded herself into thinking she is a competent ruler. Anyway, this wasn't the point of the thread and we digress.
  8. If you read my entire post carefully you would see that I was implying the sane and normal people in the current ASOIAF world. But even if you look at ASOIAF history, there's a reason why the rest of Westeros, nobility and common folk alike, did not adopt the practice of brother/sister sex/marriage. The Targs got away with it because they had dragons. And besides, who's contesting the fact that Targs thought incest was alright. If they didn't, they wouldn't be practicing it now would they? So your examples of Aegon or his sisters or Jaehaerys and Alysanne are moot. And FYI, Jaehaerys and Alysanne's parents weren't siblings and perhaps that's why they turned out normal. I don't know where you are getting that Aegon V was wrong about many things. If you are implying Summerhall, we don't have even enough information there to know what transpired. And what does competence have to do with judging if incest is harmful or not? And who mentioned sin? I definitely didn't in any of my posts. Humans I believe are capable of making the distinction between right and wrong without having to bring religion and sin into the picture.
  9. IMO, you don't need a direct quote from GRRM to understand how he views the practice of sibling sex or parent/child sex (I'm not including sex and marriage between cousins here). In the ASOIAF world, the Targs practice it to keep their bloodline pure just like the Ptolemys did in the real world. Like the Targs, they saw themselves as divine and superior, which we all know wasn't the case. In the current ASOIAF world, you have only the really depraved and messed up people practicing incest -- evil Craster, evil batshit crazy Cersei and her fucked up twin, and evil paedophile Euron. The author shows that normal and sane people in the ASOIAF world abhor the practice just like normal people in the real world do. I don't know of any society/culture in the civilized world that accepts sibling sex as normal behavior. I don't have the world book with me but IIRC, Aegon V was convinced that Targ incest was harmful and therefore arranged for his kids to marry other nobles although his plans went awry and Jaehaerys secretly wed his sister, Shaera, and we know what that union produced -- batshit crazy Aerys.
  10. Renly was not evil, just a douchebag who deluded himself into thinking he could be a good king because he had love struck Loras Tyrell on his side. He may not have initially known that Cersei's kids were illegitimate but once he found out this was his response to Stannis "You may well have the better claim, Stannis, but I still have the larger army," which to me makes him a usurper and self serving scumbag with no loyalty or integrity.
  11. There you go. This is the real reason some posters on this thread are defending the practice of incest (especially sibling sex). It's because their favorite Targs practice it and therefore it must be good. Rather than calling it what it is, abhorrent, they call it "God-like." You know who else in the real world practices incest? Animals. The proces of human beings' evolution is to move away from such baser animal instincts. As several posters above said GRRM, in his texts, mostly identifies incest as something that is responsible for the ills that befell the Targs not something that made those silver haired nuts superior. He has characters in the books call the act of siblings having sex, an abomination -- something that the rest of Westorosi culture did not try and emulate, and rightly so. Now inter-marrying between cousins, GRRM shows to be common in other Westerosi nobility as was the case among European royalty and I think GRRM writes this sort of relationship as normal and socially accepted, ergo Lysa arranging for SR to marry Sansa, a practice I find a bit icky also. Nevertheless, my point was that sibling sex is frowned on universally in the text for a reason and the only ones seen practising it in the recent history of Westeros are shown to be crazy or just plain evil (Craster). Some earlier posts on this thread provided examples of past Targ kings/queens who practiced sibling sex/marriage and came out sane. However, I doubt this implies that GRRM is condoning or promoting Targ incestual practices in anyway. He's just showing that the Targs were nuts who wanted to keep their fucked up gene pool pure and incorrectly saw and assumed themselves to be some sort of superior beings.
  12. In the Victoria example, the point is that had her descendants not practiced inter-marriage, the probabilty of their children being born with haemophilia would have been greatly reduced. I'll break it down for you. If x and y are from the same family/community and that family/community has a high rate of some genetic form of madness the likelihood of x and y's offspring having the disorder is greater than had x married z, who happens to be from a different community/family that does not have the disorder. It's as simple as that. This is why small isolated communities are known to have a higher incidence of genetically transmitted diseases. I do not have a wierd view of the world, I'm just giving you facts. Cousin marriages are common among many Hindus who btw are not backward. And FYI, in the U.S. cousin marriages were not uncommon in the 18th and early 19th centuries. I do not have an opinion on the morality of cousin marriages among two consenting adults. I wouldn't do it but I'm in no position to judge another person's customs or practices. You stated "I spoke about the exploration of your sexuality in the presence of and/or with the help of your siblings or other close kin. You don't have to love or feel attracted to your cousin or sister to touch her in an erotic or sexual manner." Now that is some weird shit. I mean seriously, you think this is common among kids? This is seriously abhorrant and aberrant behavior. I mean I don't even know what to say to you if you think this is perfectly normal and common. It is neither common nor normal. Normal siblings/cousins don't go around touching each other in an errotic or sexual manner.
  13. Fully agree with your post. It is a scientific fact that marriages between close relatives have a higher probabilty of producing children with genetic disorders than marriages between unrelated people. You find a higher prevalence of genetic disorders in small communities that inter-marry amongst themselves. Haemophilia was a genetic disorder commonly found among European royalty in the 19th century. It was passed down by Queen Victoria's descendants and was exacerbated by incestual weddings between the European royalty. I don't know where people get the notion that incestual behavior in kids is a common occurrence. Even in cultures where marriage between cousins (like Hindus or some muslims) is practiced, they certainly do not allow the kids to practice incestual behavior. And almost universally, sex between siblings is prohibited. To me, in most normal and functioning households, brothers and sisters see themselves as just siblings and are not prone to sexual attraction. There could be deviants from the norm, but that is definitely not a common occurance as your rightly pointed.
  14. Yes defining someone as evil is very subjective. What's the saying? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depends on one's viewpoint. I believe GRRM once said that even tyrants in history who've committed mass murder seldom see themselves as evil. People who commit evil acts don't go around claiming to be evil like Dr. Evil. They justify their acts in their minds and seldom see themselves as evil. GRRM in his books have very few people who commit evil acts without any sense of justification in their minds. I mentioned Drogo, but even he is a creature of his society and upbringing just as the Slavers are of theirs. Ramsay, Euron, and Gregor may fit the bill of people who commit evil acts for no particular rhyme or reason. But then again, we do not have POVs for these characters and we don't know what's going through their heads do we? As to your question about Lady Stoneheart, she is not human anymore and I don't know if you can apply our morality to a zombified character.
  15. Yes, beacause MMD said so and we have no reason to believe she is lying there. If you've read the text you'll see she applies the poultice which causes itching for Drogo (which to me tells the wound is healing) and therefore the moron removes it. MMD even tells Dany (see my quote above) that the poultice was burning and itching because there is healing power in fire. There is no indication here that she is lying. When Dany asks MMD to bring Drogo back again you find her warning Dany and saying that death is cleaner but Dany does not listen. IMO, the only thing MMD is guilty of is that she knew her spell would not fully heal Drogo and that he would become a vegetable and even so she went through with it. One could also argue that MMD may have known what her bloodmagic would cost Dany. Here again, she warned Dany but Dany didn't care to listen. As I said earlier, MMD's entire monologue after Drogo becoming brain dead and Rhaego being still born is her getting revenge and gloating. Even then, she does not admit she killed Drogo only that she knew he wouldn't heal the way Dany wanted him to with her spell and that she knew the spell would cost Dany her unborn child's life. Nowhere in the text does it say that MMD intentionally tried to kill Drogo. And MMD freely admits to her other crimes -- like knowing her spell wouldn't really bring Drogo back to life as Dany wanted or that she knew her spell would kill Rhaego. So why not admit to killing Drogo with poison poultice? Because she didn't do it. Even Dany doesn't accuse her of that. All that you've said above is just your assumptions that is not backed by textual evidence.