Canon Claude

Spare one of these villains from execution and explain why

133 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

[I think you mean concede, not contend] But no, not with the limited information provided. I've already agreed that it's entirely possible, but until/if we get more clarification on the matter, I see no reason to assume such.

And I don't contend that he is a very intelligent man, and most likely, substantially more so than the average maester.

He is literally seen as having the same level of understanding and deep of knowledge of the human body to the recognized greatest medical minds in the continent if not the world.  The institution that is Westeroes' intellectual bedrock the institution  that prides itself on its preserveation and search for knowledge  is only going  to pick the ones who've shown to be the most intellectually gifted to be the ones to replace their ArchMaestors when the time comes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

<snipped>

It seems that my magnanimous nature has gotten the better of me again. Nothing in your response is accurate, or worthy of a response.

And here, you seem to be in need of this:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Phrasing a straw man argument as a question, doesn't make it any more acceptable, or a valid point; It's just a cheap tactic used for the purpose of denying one's fallacy.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

It seems that my magnanimous nature has gotten the better of me again. Nothing in your response is accurate, or worthy of a response.

And yet you responded. If something is not worthy of a response then you don't respond, you don't actually respond telling the person that you are not going to respond. 

The Cambridge definition of the word Genius. 

very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this

The Oxford dictionary definition of the word Genius

An exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity.

Can you explain how Qyburn does not qualify as  genius considering he does have exceptional skills in his particular area of activity?

Since you have edited your post I will also reply

 

Quote

 

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Phrasing a straw man argument as a question, doesn't make it any more acceptable, or a valid point; It's just a cheap tactic used for the purpose of denying one's fallacy.

 

You constantly deflect with this. You spend more time labelling others as strawmen then you do supporting your own argument. At this point it is not subtle, your lack of a comeback, the ability to support your own opinion on any given subject usually has you, often wrongly, labelling others as strawmen. 

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And yet you responded. If something is not worthy of a response then you don't respond, you don't actually respond telling the person that you are not going to respond. 

And now you need to resort to childish arguments over semantics. Let me rephrase my response:

Nothing in your response is accurate, or worthy of a response.None of your points are accurate, or worthy of a rebuttal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And now you need to resort to childish arguments over semantics. Let me rephrase my response:

Nothing in your response is accurate, or worthy of a response.None of your points are accurate, or worthy of a rebuttal.

 

Who is being a child? I am trying to keep the discussion on topic, I am not merely replying to insult other people, that, personally, seems a pointless task. 

So back to the subject matter I will ask again, given what both the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary state on what qualifies as genius why do you think Qyburn does not qualify?

 

 

edit: It should also be pointed out that what you have said is a rebuttal. You have claimed that none of my points are accurate, that is a rebuttal (not a great one, but a rebuttal nonetheless). So you actually have offered a rebuttal to something you claimed was not worthy of a rebuttal. That is quite the contradiction. 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Something cannot be considered an act of genius, when you have no idea what is involved in the process

I have to come back to this, as this statement truly baffles me. 

I will give an example why I think this is a flawed statement to make; Tesla was a genius. People did not have to understand what was involved in his process to call him that, all the same his results spoke for itself and he was rightfully recognised as a genius. 

The idea that Qyburn's results alone don't qualify him as an expert in his field is kind of bizarre. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And actual strawman. 

I never once posited of virtue of being very intelligent Qyburn is a genuis that would come about a thousand years if ever-at most I said his resurrection of Gregore show him to so insanely intelligent it'd be foolish to want to see him die without seeing what else he could do.

Sorry, that is not a strawman argument. You in fact, made this very argument:

On 06/02/2018 at 5:54 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

My reasoning was he's a genuis to which the world would be lucky to see again in a thousand years if ever.

He beat death to (to a degree), within the span of a year.

He created a literal zombie.

You then, in an attempt to back this assertion of yours, stated:

Quote

We do not need a literal IQ score to realize to be as good a healer as his Archmaestor shows Qyburn to be very and I do mean very intelligent. 

Unless, with this statement, you are recanting your assertion that there is evidence to suggest Qyburn is a genius, and are now claiming that he is only very intelligent (as opposed to being a genius), my argument is valid, and not a strawman.

So, if you would like to confirm that you agree your post was not evidence as to Qyburn being a genius, I will gladly concede that my response was a strawman - although unintentional, and due to a lack of clarity on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Unless, with this statement, you are recanting your assertion that there is evidence to suggest Qyburn is a genius, 

There is evidence to show that Qyburn is a genius in his field, that evidence is Gregor. No other Maester has been able to do that (as far as we know) and such a feat seems beyond medieval healing. As morally reprehensible as his actions are, he is clearly a genius. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is evidence to show that Qyburn is a genius in his field, that evidence is Gregor. No other Maester has been able to do that (as far as we know) and such a feat seems beyond medieval healing. As morally reprehensible as his actions are, he is clearly a genius. 

 

Really? You think just repeating the exact same deductive fallacy you've already been called out on, is a viable argument? :rolleyes:

Alright, I'll play along. Show me some text confirming that even one single maester has attempted to do what Qyburn has, using the same methods he has.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Really? You think just repeating the exact same deductive fallacy you've already been called out on, is a viable argument? :rolleyes:

How have I been called out on it? Show me the post were it is proven wrong?

By the very definition of the word Qyburn is a genius. I'd love it if you could actually back up your opinion that he is not with something other than personal swipes. 

11 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Alright, I'll play along. Show me some text confirming that even one single maester has attempted to do what Qyburn has, using the same methods he has.

What does that have to do with being a genius? Sometimes geniuses break new ground and Qyburn most certainly did. In his field he has gone beyond all others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

What does that have to do with being a genius?

OK, let me try to explain this to you, using a simpler example, as you seem to strugle with basic logic.

Let's say you have a group of sprinters, all attempting to beat the previous record time around a track, but they all fail to beat that time. Now, along comes some guy on a motorcycle, rips around the track, and easily breaks the record time around said track. Is that evidence that he is a faster runner then the previous sprinters who all couldn't make it around the track in the same time as he did? 

Not only do you have no clue as to what Qyburn did, but all of these others that you claim couldn't do the same, were not willing to use the same methods used by him. It is a fallacy to claim he is smarter than them, just because he accomplished something that the others have never attempted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

OK, let me try to explain this to you, using a simpler example, as you seem to strugle with basic logic.

Is this how you speak to people in real life? I have to say it would be quite amusing if true, but I suspect not. Carry on anyway, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

 

Quote

Let's say you have a group of sprinters, all attempting to beat the previous record time around a track, but they all fail to beat that time. Now, along comes some guy on a motorcycle, rips around the track, and easily breaks the record time around said track. Is that evidence that he is a faster runner then the previous sprinters who all couldn't make it around the track in the same time as he did? 

Sorry, what on earth does this have to do with the word Genius? Are you trying to change the subject to racing? I concede, Qyburn is not very fast, he is however a genius in his field. 

Once again, as you seem to be doing your best to ignore them, here are the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries definition of 'Genius'

very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this

An exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity.

How does Qyburn not qualify, given that he most certainly has an exceptional skill in a particular area of activity?

Quote

Not only do you have no clue as to what Qyburn did,

And? Most people did not have a clue what Tesla did, that did not stop him from being a genius. 

Many geniuses methods are a mystery to the general populace of their times, does not stop them from being recognised as such. 

Can you please tell me how you reached the conclusion that only people who are fully transparent in their methodology are recognised as a genius?

Quote

but all of these others that you claim couldn't do the same,

I never claimed that they could not. Could you quote where I actually said that because I have not, what I have said repeatedly is that no other Maester appears to have done this before and pointed out what he has done has never been done in our own medieval times. Perhaps more time reading and less time making personal remarks would be a better use of your time. 

Quote

 

were not willing to use the same methods used by him.

Which does not change the fact that he is still a genius in his chosen field, even if that chosen field is limited to only a number of people. He has made a breakthrough that, as far as we know, no other Maester has ever done. 

By the actual English definitions of the word this makes him a genius. 

Quote

 

It is a fallacy to claim he is smarter than them,

You are making up arguments that I have never made. Not once have I claimed that he is smarter than all other Maesters. That would be an idiotic assertion to make in itself. What I have stated, repeatedly, is that in his field no one, as far as we know, has been as skilled as him. He has literally brought someone back to life. He is a genius by the very definition of the word. 

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

<snipped>

Wow! You must be a real, bonafide genius yourself, as you are the only person ever in the field of Internet trolling to accomplish the feat of having me put someone on the ignore list.

So long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Wow! You must be a real, bonafide genius yourself, as you are the only person ever in the field of Internet trolling to accomplish the feat of having me put someone on the ignore list.

So long.

Do you not get tired of constantly deflecting with the troll or strawman accusations? Is it that hard to concede that you were mistaken?

You have offered nothing substantive in support of your opinion, other than make up, three times no less, arguments that I have never made. 

But good luck to you, this is only a forum, I wish you all the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

 What I have stated, repeatedly, is that in his field no one, as far as we know, has been as skilled as him. He has literally brought someone back to life. He is a genius by the very definition of the word. 

 

Life? I'm sorry but to me Ser Strong is not "alive". It's clearly stated that he doesn't eat nor drink nor go to the toilet… It's a zombie, not a human living.

In his field? With the exception of the NK, no one in Westeros is busy making zombies from poisoned corpses… It's easy to be the winner when you're the only one to compete!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Walder, as awful as the Red Wedding was it was 1) Ordered by the legal government 2)against unlawful rebels 3)a quick way to end a bloody, costly and unlawful civil war 4)Mostly against military target.
So is he really a criminal? He did participate in a violation of the guest right, and that's a serious offense, but despite what the Westerosi nobility think of themselves I'd wager it wasn't the first time a sacred right like that was broken during wartime.

Also while he appears to have a fowl temper and be lustful (and incestuous), I don't remember him committing monstrosities and displaying maliciousness/sadism on par with those other people you listed.
So he's the least awful of the bunch to keep around.
 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

 is that in his field no one, as far as we know, has been as skilled as him. . 

 


So? Cutting living people apart and creating undead, mostly mindless, shambling zombies isn't exactly a field that's very desirable or  useful.
It's like saying praising somebody's skill in devising and admonishing novel torture techniques. 

Edited by Orphalesion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 11:30 AM, Nowy Tends said:

He made him a zombie, a totally harmful creature, where is the genius?

It may be immoral but he has managed to cross the barrier between death and well "life" in a way.  His methods are certainly immoral but the guy did not just stroke it lucky and hit the jackpot.  Could be evil genius, but there is some genius in it in my view.

Don't get me wrong I certainly dislike him but he is an interesting villain with potential as opposed to say Ramsay who is not even useful to his own family or house... and we were given a pretty difficult list to pick from although, if not him, I would probably would go for Black Walder, for the opposite reason, less genius but also less of a threat to the world at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from in-universe pov, the weeper, cause he is the smallest threat

from out-of-universe pov Euron or Qyburn, cause they are big game changers with interesting methods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

With the exception of the NK, no one in Westeros is busy making zombies from poisoned corpses… It's easy to be the winner when you're the only one to compete!

Spoiler

There is no NK in books.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What say I get back to what is actually written in this long ass novel, saga or series --- pick the term you prefer.

Qyburn is not a maester. He was trained at the Citadel and kicked to the curb. Genius, I think not. As he said, “I wished to understand the nature of death, so I opened the bodies of the living.

A Clash of Kings - Arya X    Though he wore maester's robes, there was no chain about his neck; it was whispered that he had lost it for dabbling in necromancy./

I had not heard the word necromancy until I read it in Martin’s tale. Then, I googled it. .Necromancy supposedly is something along the lines of -----magic involving communication with the deceased – either by summoning their spirit as an apparition or raising them bodily – for the purpose of divination, imparting the means to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge, to bring someone back from the dead, or to use the deceased as a weapon, as the term may sometimes be used in a more general sense to refer to black magic or witchcraft.

That said, Qyburn according to his own words was kicked to the curb because he open the bodies of the living. Make note of that --- live specimens 

A Feast for Crows - Cersei II    "Why did the Citadel take your chain?"    "The archmaesters are all craven at heart. The grey sheep, Marwyn calls them. I was as skilled a healer as Ebrose, but aspired to surpass him. For hundreds of years the men of the Citadel have opened the bodies of the dead, to study the nature of life. I wished to understand the nature of death, so I opened the bodies of the living. For that crime the grey sheep shamed me and forced me into exile . . . but I understand the nature of life and death better than any man in Oldtown."/

Qyburn opened the bodies of living humans. Yeah, yeah, back in the day humans performed all sorts ff atrocity in the name of science ---- Qyburn isn’t a genius. I’ll leave it at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now