Roose was a semi hero

[khal drogon]

3 hours ago, The Wolves said:

The only Lannister motivated by survival and vengeance is Tyrion and this was later in the books. 

Even Cersei whose children are in danger if they lost the war was not motivated by survival or vengeance it was greed, pride, power, self entitlement and straight cruelty. That's all the Lannisters have been about since the very beginning starting with pushing Bran. 

And let's not forget that the Lannisters bought everything on themselves. Let's not forget that Jaime and Cersei basically started TWot5Ks by having three inbreed bastards and recklessly continued their affair for all those years resulting in Bran coming upon them and others finding out. Let's not forget how Tywin started terrorizing the Riverlands because of his obsessive pride about his house. 

Just cause GRRM wrote the Lannisters as human as possible doesn't take away the fact that they are some very evil people. Yes, humans do evil things and they do have reasons some realistic but that doesn't excuse the fact that their actions are evil. 

No Cersei and Jaime are motivated by their need to survive too. Jaime didn't push Bran because he is evul but because that ensures his survival. Cersei did go far enough to claim her bastards as Robert's heirs because of her intense dislike for Robert and it is her way of getting back. It's more complicated. I don't deny any of what you said but I think you are busy painting them as evil guys only looking at their bad traits. Also it is not that the other side are saints. 

[The Wolves]

55 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

No Cersei and Jaime are motivated by their need to survive too. Jaime didn't push Bran because he is evul but because that ensures his survival. Cersei did go far enough to claim her bastards as Robert's heirs because of her intense dislike for Robert and it is her way of getting back. It's more complicated. I don't deny any of what you said but I think you are busy painting them as evil guys only looking at their bad traits. Also it is not that the other side are saints. 

Jaime pushed Bran because he thought that was what Cersei wanted. Jaime has NEVER cared about the incest being found out, he would actually welcome it and a war, he actually jokes with Cersei about this and thinks this while traveling through a war torn country. 

Of course I'm only looking at the Lannister bad traits, when have they ever shown me any of their good ones? And their bad traits have caused the worst war the country has ever seen plus weakened it for a ice zombie apocalypse. 

What other traits do the Lannisters have that shows that they aren't evil? We have had 5 books and throughout these books when have the Lannisters shown something else besides selfishness, cruelty, greed and every other evil human trait?

Also no the other side(I'm assuming you mean the Starks?)are no saints but they are good people who actually have understandable reasons for the things that they do.  

[ShadowCat Rivers]

17 hours ago, khal drogon said:

No Cersei and Jaime are motivated by their need to survive too. Jaime didn't push Bran because he is evul but because that ensures his survival. Cersei did go far enough to claim her bastards as Robert's heirs because of her intense dislike for Robert and it is her way of getting back. It's more complicated. I don't deny any of what you said but I think you are busy painting them as evil guys only looking at their bad traits. Also it is not that the other side are saints. 

If you happen to see me committing a crime, and I kill you so that you can't testify against me, my action is motivated by self-preservation. I won't be killing you for shit and giggles, nor for some psychopathic satisfaction that I get from killing, but for the very understandable reason that I don't want to go to jail. No one wants to... Did I also mention that if I get convicted my children will suffer a severe deterioration of their living standard? See, my action of killing you is motivated by reasons that anyone can understand. Understand, not justify. Because, you know, no justice system in the world would consider my reasons as mitigating factors. They'd consider my action as a murder in cold blood, and rightly so.

 

Bottom line: Convince yourself that your argument stands, if you must. But don't expect anyone in their right mind to take it seriously.

[sifth]

Yea, it was because of honor and justice that Rosse chose to kill Robb and end the war, lol

The man was an opportunist who sold out Robb because he was promised certain rewards from the Lannisters.

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

If you happen to see me committing a crime, and I kill you so that you can't testify against me, my action is motivated by self-preservation. I won't be killing you for shit and giggles, nor for some psychopathic satisfaction that I get from killing, but for the very understandable reason that I don't want to go to jail. No one wants to... Did I also mention that if I get convicted my children will suffer a severe deterioration of their living standard? See, my action of killing you is motivated by reasons that anyone can understand. Understand, not justify. Because, you know, no justice system in the world would consider my reasons as mitigating factors. They'd consider my action as a murder in cold blood, and rightly so.

 

Bottom line: Convince yourself that your argument stands, if you must. But don't expect anyone in their right mind to take it seriously.

Who justified it? I am pointing out the same you are trying to say. Is killing for self preservation evil? No? My point.

[khal drogon]

18 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Jaime pushed Bran because he thought that was what Cersei wanted. Jaime has NEVER cared about the incest being found out, he would actually welcome it and a war, he actually jokes with Cersei about this and thinks this while traveling through a war torn country. 

Of course I'm only looking at the Lannister bad traits, when have they ever shown me any of their good ones? And their bad traits have caused the worst war the country has ever seen plus weakened it for a ice zombie apocalypse. 

What other traits do the Lannisters have that shows that they aren't evil? We have had 5 books and throughout these books when have the Lannisters shown something else besides selfishness, cruelty, greed and every other evil human trait?

Also no the other side(I'm assuming you mean the Starks?)are no saints but they are good people who actually have understandable reasons for the things that they do.  

Don't you think Starks also have their part in the War or it is entirely the Lannisters is to blame? 

On their positives, Jaime pretty much saved the city of KL and he always wanted to be a great knight which he is striving to be. Tyrion is known to show compassion towards cripples, bastards and broken things. Tywin is pretty ruthless and cruel when it comes to his family but he is not known as a Tyrant during his administration. Kevan, Jenna and Daven are decent people by all accounts. Lancel has become a holy knight who would uphold Faiths morals. Only Cersei has almost no redeeming qualities. Almost everyone else are either decent people or mixed bags.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 hour ago, khal drogon said:

Who justified it? I am pointing out the same you are trying to say. Is killing for self preservation evil? No? My point.

Well, no, not your point. What I am saying is that it can be deeply immoral ("evil" is a word with heavy religious/metaphysical undertones and I avoid it when possible) and that the Jaime/Bran examble is one of those cases. I don't know why the only condemnable to "evil" actions are those that may be attributed to psychopathy - I'd say that the "rational" ones should be viewed as worse as they are taken on choice, thus bearing full responsibility.

[WSmith84]

1 hour ago, khal drogon said:

Who justified it? I am pointing out the same you are trying to say. Is killing for self preservation evil? No? My point.

The problem is that Jaime (and Cersei, obviously) repeatedly put themselves in situations where they will have to silence anyone who catches them. Killing out of self-preservation might not be evil, but I'd argue that constantly putting yourself in a position where you'll have to kill (potentially) innocent people who witness you is evil.

[khal drogon]

31 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Well, no, not your point. What I am saying is that it can be deeply immoral ("evil" is a word with heavy religious/metaphysical undertones and I avoid it when possible) and that the Jaime/Bran examble is one of those cases. I don't know why the only condemnable to "evil" actions are those that may be attributed to psychopathy - I'd say that the "rational" ones should be viewed as worse as they are taken on choice, thus bearing full responsibility.

The "immorality" and "injustice" you say is defined by what the culture and the law and the type of moral code people follow. These things are about what is acceptable or not in a society. "Is it a crime?" is defined by the type of society they live. But the "act of self preservation" is one of the most natural instinct of a human being.Not only that it is also a more primitive trait of any living being. The idea of "self preservation" is more and more associated with "self-importance" and seen with negativity only more recently in human history and probably because of the way religions promoted "self sacrifice" and that's what collectivist societies had codified. Before that it always meant "survival". Since we live in a collectivist society today and our moral code views that negatively it may be seen as immoral but the basic tendency to protect oneself is coded in our DNA. It's like the paradox of the donkey with two haystacks. If one wondered about what maybe acceptable and what not while their life is in a threatening situation they will be forced to die. By saying this I am not supporting lawlessness or anarchy but I believe every human has the "right to survive". You brought up the word "choice" here. The choice here is between life and death and you know what's the natural choice. For me the natural understanding of the behavior is more acceptable than how the society wants you to view it.   

[khal drogon]

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

The problem is that Jaime (and Cersei, obviously) repeatedly put themselves in situations where they will have to silence anyone who catches them. Killing out of self-preservation might not be evil, but I'd argue that constantly putting yourself in a position where you'll have to kill (potentially) innocent people who witness you is evil.

I don't think so. Their affair is very secret for these many years. Even in Winterfell they got caught by a child who climbed a pretty tall tower. Not so likely place to get caught. Is the secret affair wrong? Maybe because it is unacceptable in their society. They did love each other. Do they have to stop it because they are not supposed to? Is it evil to "love" because society they live forbids that kind of love(not an incest supporter because of scientific reasons..though)? Maybe it is wrong but not "malicious". So is the act of self preservation.

[WSmith84]

1 minute ago, khal drogon said:

I don't think so. Their affair is very secret for these many years. Even in Winterfell they got caught by a child who climbed a pretty tall tower. Not so likely place to get caught. Is the secret affair wrong? Maybe because it is unacceptable in their society. They did love each other. Do they have to stop it because they are not supposed to? Is it evil to "love" because society they live forbids that kind of love(not an incest supporter because of scientific reasons..though)? Maybe it is wrong but not "malicious". So is the act of self preservation.

It's evil because they'd have to murder pretty much anyone who catches them. If they want to fuck, they can flee Westeros with a big sack of daddy's gold and check out the delights of Essos. They had sex next to Robert's sleeping body, they had sex in Winterfell (a place that neither of them knew well enough to ensure safety), in Castle Darry (with a castle-full of strangers) and basically on top of their own son's corpse. And while you might be able to write off the Bran incident as them not really thinking it through, the fact that they continue to sleep together shows that they're prepared to kill innocents (including children) in order to do so. That, to me, is clearly an evil choice.

[khal drogon]

19 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

It's evil because they'd have to murder pretty much anyone who catches them. If they want to fuck, they can flee Westeros with a big sack of daddy's gold and check out the delights of Essos. They had sex next to Robert's sleeping body, they had sex in Winterfell (a place that neither of them knew well enough to ensure safety), in Castle Darry (with a castle-full of strangers) and basically on top of their own son's corpse. And while you might be able to write off the Bran incident as them not really thinking it through, the fact that they continue to sleep together shows that they're prepared to kill innocents (including children) in order to do so. That, to me, is clearly an evil choice.

I already accepted that it maybe wrong as it is unacceptable in their society but evil might be a strong word. But since we talk about the specific act of pushing Bran it is about survival and I support the right to survive. They are not without their faults thats why I called them shades of grey.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

59 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

... The choice here is between life and death and you know what's the natural choice. For me the natural understanding of the behavior is more acceptable than how the society wants you to view it.   

LOL no. You mix up instincts with societal norms and use whichever suits you each time.

The choice was between take the risk to get caught or not fuck. They took the risk. They chose to deal with potential consequences in the way they did. Since we are speaking of survival, humans are social animals, our survival is dependent on our inclusion in a group with other humans. That's basically the reason that "don't kill" is the number one rule and not because of some random divine command. Wich means that their choice is a straightforward antisocial choice, and since this entire thread is supposed to be debating what's good for the many, then, well, I expect you to understand the implication.

[khal drogon]

24 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

LOL no. You mix up instincts with societal norms and use whichever suits you each time.

The choice was between take the risk to get caught or not fuck. They took the risk. They chose to deal with potential consequences in the way they did. Since we are speaking of survival, humans are social animals, our survival is dependent on our inclusion in a group with other humans. That's basically the reason that "don't kill" is the number one rule and not because of some random divine command. Wich means that their choice is a straightforward antisocial choice, and since this entire thread is supposed to be debating what's good for the many, then, well, I expect you to understand the implication.

I thought you were talking about why rational choices like "self preservation" should be viewed as "immoral" in the same vein as psychopathy. My reply is to distinguish them because "self preservation" is more understandable and acceptable because its natural. Now you are using their 'choice to fuck' to prove your point and you are saying exactly what WSmith84 said. My reply is the same as to his.

Also since when did "self preservation" became anti-social"? I am seeing ridiculous ideas written here.

[The Wolves]

4 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Don't you think Starks also have their part in the War or it is entirely the Lannisters is to blame? 

On their positives, Jaime pretty much saved the city of KL and he always wanted to be a great knight which he is striving to be. Tyrion is known to show compassion towards cripples, bastards and broken things. Tywin is pretty ruthless and cruel when it comes to his family but he is not known as a Tyrant during his administration. Kevan, Jenna and Daven are decent people by all accounts. Lancel has become a holy knight who would uphold Faiths morals. Only Cersei has almost no redeeming qualities. Almost everyone else are either decent people or mixed bags.

I blame the Lannisters(Jaime and a Cersei plus Tywin) entirely with a side of Littlefinger. The Starks reacted to attacks made against them, they did not start the war. 

[khal drogon]

2 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

I blame the Lannisters(Jaime and a Cersei plus Tywin) entirely with a side of Littlefinger. The Starks reacted to attacks made against them, they did not start the war. 

What about Catelyn's capture of Tyrion without proof?

[ShadowCat Rivers]

12 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Also since when did "self preservation" became anti-social"? I am seeing ridiculous ideas written here.

Breaking the rules and then killing in order to not get caught is antisocial behaviour, no matter how one tries to twist it.

[The Wolves]

11 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

What about Catelyn's capture of Tyrion without proof?

What about it? She reacted to someone trying to murder her son again. 

 

[khal drogon]

Just now, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Breaking the rules and then killing in order to not get caught is antisocial behaviour, no matter how one tries to twist it.

You were talking only about the bolded first. I have already said them fucking around is unacceptable and wrong. 

[khal drogon]

Just now, The Wolves said:

What about it? She reacted to someone trying to murder her son again. 

 

Capturing without proof will be seen as aggression.