Jump to content

Demetri

Members
  • Content count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Demetri

Recent Profile Visitors

47 profile views
  1. Demetri

    Heresy 222 vindication

    I won't claim to be *one of you* but I have lurked along with this thread- - for years. Please feel free to correct me if I've missed something. Again, I don't really agree with y'all on everything so if I'm off base, please elaborate on why (Because this encyclopedia of a thread can be kind of overwhelming and my lurking was more curiosity than agreement.) And pardons in advance if this has been discussed at length. I'll fill out a visitor card if this particular church does such things, though. But I actually think the biggest coup for the Heretics was in "Fire and Blood" and the account of Good Queen Alysanne at the wall. Namely, that her dragon willfully refused her attempts to cross over the wall. Even in the somewhat dry FaB, that entire passage was incredibly eerie. Alysanne says she tried to get her dragon Silverwing to go north of the wall three different times and that Silverwing's manner and refusal were both VERY out of character. Silverwing had known Alysanne for 22 years when they reached the wall and had been ridden by her for 10. Those 10 years were pretty full of travel so it is safe to say they had a good relationship. Yet Alysanne was taken aback by her dragon's vehement refusal to go north of the wall. During the three attempts, Silverwing's behavior was startling even to Alysanne. It is noted that, "[T]hough it was summer and the Wall was weeping, the chill of the ice could still be felt whenever the wind blew, and every gust would make the dragon hiss and snap." Alysanne describes the experience first hand: "Thrice I flew Silverwing high above Castle Black, and thrice I tried to take her north beyond the Wall but every time she veered back south again and refused to go. Never before has she refused to take me where I wished to go. I laughed about it when I came down . . . . but it troubled me then and it troubles me still." (Fire and Blood, p 264) I think this is pretty interesting. First of all, this event happened JUST at the wall. It is noted that it was summer and the Wall was weeping. And while it is acknowledged to be cold generally, that doesn't seem to be the issue unless the Wall is important as a boundary because either a) of inherent magical qualities in the wall that makes it like a sort of dragon/magic repellent of itself or b) some sort of magic kicks in when the lands beyond the Wall can be seen or when the Wall is crossed. It seems HIGHLY unlikely that it was simply the matter of however many degrees colder it would've been 2 miles North. We also have the dragon trying to attack the cold ("hiss and snap" at the gusts of icy cold wind) despite being on a tour of the North (having previously stopped at Winterfell and then the Last Hearth before Castle Black). Yet, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a major climate difference betweeen Last Hearth So why the visceral response from the dragon? Why the absolute refusal to go where Alysanne- a magically insensitive human- told it to? And why was Alysanne so troubled by it, troubled so much, in fact, that it troubled her long after giving an account of the event. We know that dragon riders and dragons have a certain sort of connection that seems to be based on imprinting (Silverwing was placed as an egg in Alysanne's cradle where it presumably also hatched). The importance of this is that Alysanne is able to voice her concerns whereas Silverwing merely wanted to avoid/attack the biting cold. The key factor is obviously the wall. "Cold" is obviously not the most logical reason for Silverwing's reluctance as he had flown from Last Hearth and we have no reason to think it is THAT much colder at the Wall than the Last Hearth. Barring the supernatural, it would be negligibly colder a mile north of the wall than 200 feet south of it. To me, this shows that the wall is inherently a magical thing, but we knew that. My understanding of the concept of Heresy is that one good starting place is that the wall wasn't built to keep out WWs. Here, we have a magically driven beast representing the elemental opposite of the Others, an apex predator that has traveled across Westeros and likely fears nothing. And yet there is a compulsive and overpowering urge by the dragon to not cross the wall. Upon arrival at Castle Black (the structure of the passage suggests upon arrival at least at some point before trying to fly over it), Alysanne notes that "[Silverwing] does not like this Wall" This harkens back to a the OG, 1st Heresy thread where the inimitable @Black Crow speculated who speculated that he was "thinking of Fire, dragons and Azor Ahai" as cause for the construction of the wall. So where does this take us? There isn't much evidence that dragons were such a problem when the Wall was raised that it caused its construction. More likely, the magic of the wall isn't directed towards dragons but certain type of elemental forces (such as those mentioned in Black Crow's quote above). It is immaterial if the wall was made to prevent dragons if dragons are a type of magical or elemental force that it was precisely designed to blocked. But why there, all the way up North. Is it keeping elements apart (AHA!) or is it something else? I very much like the concept of the wall being not to prevent ice from passing, but to prevent ice and fire from meeting. For that goal, the location would be perfect. Here is a tiny seedling of a theory. It would also be a great location if the wall was actually literally covering something. I haven't fully worked out the kinks of this one, but given the Stark-Wall connection, perhaps it is a similarly powerful source of magic that caused the dragon to recognize its equal and antithesis (or, if not antithesis, that some latent power lurked in the wall.) A lot of the stories of the North, of the Starks (possible Winterfell connection here somewhere) and of the Wall make sense of the Wall wasn't actually guarding anything, but was itself being guarded. The Stark in Winterfell and the men of the night's watch remaining true is obviously important, if only for reasons of lore. But what if an agreement was made to essentially guard a grenade as a sign of the good faith of men towards older creatures (like CoTF + WWs) as a way to bind men to peace after taxing wars. The failure of men to uphold their ancient vows (to not kill CoTF, for example) would lead to the magic residing in the wall or the power held within to break free and consume men through an evil of their own making. (The following is more speculation and stream of consciousness than the preceding bits which I'm sure are still pretty raw) The Wall weeping has always been a weird thing that has been noted again and again and again. It could be some sort of barometer for the honor of men or it could be a strong force of magic that isn't fully containable. We know the Wall weeps and that the Wall "defends itself", but perhaps those are more than simple rhetoric but the "telephone game" effect caused by the passage of thousands of years. It also makes a bit more sense to me why certain entities would agree and be satisfied with being sequestered in perhaps the least enviable part of Planetos. The agreement was made in recognition of a lasting peace. Creatures north of the Wall simultaneously have a group there defending the border but forced into the agreement that that border could turn explosive if they break their agreement. If such power was unleashed due to the night watch not staying true...to the agreement of peace, then those men and the Starks would be punished most strongly. Hence why such statements like "must always be a stark at winterfell" and "as long as the men of the watch remain true" have carried throughout literal millennia. Just a thought prompted by the "Vindication" title.
  2. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    You don't have the moral high ground when you try to discredit someone's postings by making ignorant claims about their education while acting condescending (and simultaneously childlike in your understand) of the same issue that led you to ad hominem. Nice try. Read back through, I only started insulting after you did and that's because I actually like to make good arguments and not masturbatory assertions.
  3. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    You're unbelievable. AGAIN, we're talking about FEMINISM in a MEDIEVAL culture. The thread itself forces anachronistic conceptions. Secondly, how dense are you? The real life legal concept it derives from isn't some random act of luck or fortune, it is a system that inherently makes sense. If I really have to explain to you how all the lords and kings of Westeros have always relied on common law then you need to excuse yourself. And I don't need to ask my teachers. I'm the only one, of the two of us, who has any knowledge of the field. The teachers have already taught me this. Furthermore, I have quoted Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court cases, respected legal scholars etc who all agree with me and my teachers. You're just so wrong that I wonder how you get by in life. Oh, and remember that the point of the thread is a "real life" concept much like common law! I do feel bad that you don't understand it, but you can't find anything at all that agrees with you. I've provided reams of supporting evidence while you repeat assertions in your echo chamber while 7 PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU. And I'm the one with mental illness...Right. You're not the policeman of this thread, and you digressed WAYYY before I did (in fact, your silly posts prompted me to say something). Go be aggressively wrong somewhere else. And please, please, please, actually research the shit you say because you sound really uneducated when you can't find a single authoritative source to support you. It's like talking to an especially dim wall.
  4. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    What are you even fucking talking about? You've asserted I'm wrong but you re incapable of proving it. I've quoted 5 independent sources that support my view. What have you presented besides undeserved arrogance. You don't understand common law, you think the only evil slavery was American Slavery. 40% of slaves in the Americas went to Brazil and they're still divided over lineage and skin color and yet you're only smart enough to think of the American South and, furthermore, suggest that it was some special, previously unheard of manner of brutality. Most people understand that mentioning another (perhaps more dominant) example doesn't negate the truth of another. In fact, it does the opposite because my point of comparison was in the absolutely vast network of slavery in Brazil, the numbers which eclipse the U.S., an incredible amount of brutality (some scholars call it the worst) that still creates rifts today. My larger issue is that you made up some analogy to the American South not because it was super thought out but because of your own political ideology. Brazil had slavery for longer, imported multiple times as many slaves, abolished slavery later and was undoubtedly exceptionally cruel. And yet, for you, only the American South exist. They were both terrible. I can say that, can you? I'm not at all worried about the opinion of someone as ignorant in law as they are in logic. If you think I'll be bad then I think that suggests I'll be pretty good as so far you've shown that the opposite of whatever you say is right. I only mentioned law school because you decided to make ad hominem statements about education. Tell me about your education. Oh, and feel free to "Drop it" yourself. But don't expect me to because you whined about it
  5. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    So. Wrong. First, you aren't qualified to speak on legal discourse. You have no idea what terms people use, obviously. You understand this so little that it is astonishing. If you mean that no jurisdictions lack any codified law, then yea. But common law doesn't require a complete lack of codification or a lack of statutes. You do realize that the British did have royal decrees which were really the very first step in common law? And what do you think the Supreme Court does? What happens if a law is ambiguous, what happens if a case brings out an unforeseen wrinkle not controlled directly by statute? Common law (and the entire body of jurisprudence) comes in. It ALWAYS has in the U.S. and Britain since courts were organized. Second, entire states are referred to as "common law" states. You misunderstand federalism a good bit. I mentioned the Erie doctrine in the post which is a COMMON LAW PRECEDENT stating that federal courts have to follow substantive state law on a state claim when jurisdictional issues force them to hear it. Guess what the state claim in issue was, it related to a COMMON LAW claim. Furthermore, when scholars discuss the law, they refer to certain states in the Union as being "common law" states. Louisiana's criminal law is considered to be common law, with statutes merely codifying the common law practice. As a result, they have some weird criminal elements (such as intent in sexual assault, liability issues and inheritance) which are pretty unique to the area and considered to be entirely a matter of a state's common law creating standards that aren't the norm. This is not to mention Bangladesh (which has severely departed from the purpose of the judiciary in English common law) as well as Guyana which naturally has some different flavors due to cultural/regional differences. Illinois is considered a common law state in many matters, as are many others. In fact, you are so wrong that there is a thing called the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code (MPC) which was an effort by the American Legal Institute (ALI) to standardize criminal law because so many states had developed their own brand through common law. The MPC is nonbinding, but instead academic and yet has been incorporated in about half of the states in the U.S. It, itself, is a form of common law even though it's purpose was to create a uniform penal code to counteract all the states and their common law derived versions of various crimes (including, famously, defining intent and attempting to change the rape standard from the archaic English Common Law. Common law doesn't mean nothing is codified, it means that the law can grow and change outside of legislation as long as that legislation does not particularly address the issue. It's kind of what the Supreme Court does. But you're absolutely wrong, there are territorial pockets of law created because of the common law evolution within that state. "After a custom has been recognized as of controlling force, in the decision of a court exercising purely legal jurisdiction, it becomes part of "the body of the common law," to the extent of its judicial recognition. According to our view, the "body of the common law," in any territorial jurisdiction, comprises all the decisions of its courts, acting as purely legal tribunals, that apply the general principles and customs of which the spirit of the common law consists." https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=8071&context=penn_law_review "It so happens in the case of Pennsylvania-as can be said of the other states originally composing the Union, and of most of those subsequently added-that the local common law is predominantly English; but, because English decisions have been frequently disregarded and will probably continue to be disregarded in many instances, owing to their inapplicability to different conditions prevailing in this country, and because elements from other systems have from time to time been included, we cannot say, strictly speaking, that any of the states follow the English common law." -Weird that a legal scholar would say "local common law" and still call it common law despite it not being "English common law" "On the contrary, each state's common law, since it is a growing and continuing system, represents the non-statutory rules which the courts of that particular jurisdiction announce and administer in settling legal disputes between litigants"- YES, each state that has a judicial body intended to interpret inherently relies on common law. I don't know how this is difficult to understand "That the view just voiced is an accurate one [summarized in the preceding quote], appears when we consider what would have happened in any particular state if the English common law had been either definitely rejected or not expressly adopted. The courts in such a contingency would have been obliged, in deciding cases, to apply some law, and, in the absence of statutory declarations on particular points, would necessarily administer the principles which, in their opinion, would effect a just decision under the circumstances, without regard to the source whence such principles might be obtained.The significant fact is that, through the repetition of this process, the rules founded on these principles would gradually form a body of unwritten law which would be strictly common law. Hence, the failure of a particular jurisdiction to adopt an existing system of common law, does not necessarily result in the lack of a common law of its own." This is precisely what we meant when we said "common law" in Westeros. "In view of the conflicting manner in which various states of the Union today follow, or refuse to follow, not only English decisions, but also those of other jurisdictions, which may or may not have adopted the English common law, we can safely assert that the common law of no one state is the same as that of any other; different conditions produce different rules." -Again, they discuss common law within a state, or a boundary defined jurisdiction with a full judicial system that acts in accord and below higher, federal courts (unless Erie doctrine applies) "...we can safely assert that the common law of no one state is the same that of any other; different conditions produce different rules. Nor is the common law in any particular state identical with the common law of England as originally introduced into that state; this system of law, since its initial adoption by the states, has been molded to meet local wants, and we find no uniform body of non-statutory rules, with binding authority throughout the country, on which either local or federal courts base their decisions." -Common law generally meets the needs of the body of people requiring a judicial system, they vary and several versions exist throughout the country. It is this process, not English Common Law, that everybody BUT you was talking about. Common law grows to exist naturally in a process where adjudication and precedent is key. Westeros has this, Dany does this. Why the denial? You very badly need to read that article. Your argument was basically that we wrote stuff down, therefore there can be no common law. But you entirely misunderstand the purpose of the judicial system in interpreting laws. If you think statutes mean that the law is perfect then you don't understand government. The judicial system has the right and responsibility to use case law (common law) or some sort of policy or moral precedent to rule a law unconstitutional, illegal, not applicable etc. In the study of law, you study common law rules a ton. Sometimes you refer to a "majority" or "minority" rule on an issue (meaning it is the rule of a majority of states or a rule in a minority of states.) That is almost always the result of common law evolution specific to a place. Hell, in property law there is an "English" and "American" rule regarding the obligation of a landlord and tenant when a tenant is trying to lawfully gain possession of a property. Real quick, go find me any sort of academic text that says that common law has ceased to exist. You don't really think this argument through as codified laws didn't just appear, but the degree of codification has increased rapidly. That doesn't mean the judicial system isn't interpreting laws and impacting law based on a common law usage of jurisprudence, case precedent, mores etc. Not only does common law exist, but AMERICAN common law exists (as I'm sure it does in many countries). As long as the judicial branch (both of states and the federal courts) is meant to be part of a checks and balances system with the mandate to interpret laws, common law is alive and well. Research how much some states vary and tell me that isn't common law evolution. Please bring some evidence to the party this time and not just make unfounded assertions because, frankly, you lack all credibility in this regard. I keep giving you quotes and reasoning, you keep making assertions. Find me SOME academic article SOMEWHERE that agrees with you, because no one in the field of law does. Oftentimes, law schools study three things: 1) common law, 2) (if different) state law where the school is located, 3) Majority rule (and sometimes, minority or notable exceptions) on the issue of law. That's because omitting any of those would be disregarding a major part of our legal system. I think you have this false concept that our federal law makes us legally cohesive and thus prevents common law. That isn't anywhere close to the case and shows a real lack of knowledge on the subject
  6. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I didn't make a mistake, you don't understand what common law means. I've read hundreds of British cases viewed as common law, I've written on the common law system in individual states. You not being able to understand me doesn't make me wrong, it makes you limited and should probably excuse you from the conversation. Now, at least, you're not even trying to spout nonsense because you accept that you're better at insults than analysis. Furthermore, you know absolutely nothing about the law in general, law schools or lawyers. You commenting on it exemplifies the willful ignorance you peddle like crack. You've never posted an ounce of evidence. I've provided examples, court cases and quotes. It isn't nonsensical, it's just above your head. Go do some research, bring back evidence and maybe you'll have an opinion worth talking about because as it stands you think American common law doesn't exist, that English common law is the only type of common law that can exist, and disagree heartily with established jurisprudence both here and in England. Furthermore, you never really corrected me with a better understanding because you don't have one. I literally quoted a Supreme Court Justice who laid out exactly the type of system I was talking about and, because he has a greater understanding than you do, did not ever mention that the process of common law must be set in any particular geographic place or derive from an particular country or culture. I'm glad you accept your role as being the person who doesn't "say smart things" as like 5 other posters have pointed out. And total d-bag? You questioned my education (which, given your silence, I assume I have more of than you do) before I ever mentioned anything ad hominem. You have a childish tendency to "LOL" and "HAHAHA" in response to posts in an attempt to belittle rather than leading with analysis and logic. That says EVERYTHING I need to know about you. As a final thought, I don't give a crap about your opinion on where I should post. It isn't my fault you don't have the chops to back up the silly stuff you say. And it is shocking that you don't remember the point I was trying to make. Let me help, since remembering the point is important in arguments. You digressed terribly when I said that "common law" isn't nonsense or "Circlejerk" (a term produced by your amazing verbal skills). We were talking about the GMs for a while, and another poster said that Dany had refused to apply ex post facto laws in recognition that previously slavery was legal either due to statute (where was the statute, hm??) or through common law, thus making the offender's act of sexual violence NOT rape due to the circumstances and the common law legal status of slavery. It was exceptionally poignant to the discussion as your contention was that "all slavers should die and that's good justice by Queen Dany" when, in fact, Dany didn't do that at all and almost definitely let some morally repugnant slavers walk free because she couldn't be bothered to determine if they were all guilty. Remember, we know they weren't all guilty of murdering 163 children (the crime the 163 GMs were punished for) as per Hizdahr stating his dad (And others) argued against it. Then you waffled about "der, but that's in the show" while on a thread in the (wait for it) SHOW section. It is a great example of you ignoring truth because you're little mind is already set and, bless it, it did the best it could and won't try anymore to think critically. This issue is key when discussing if Dany is "just." I know, you want to just say all slavery is terrible (which it definitely is!) and reject anybody who sees moral complexity as a "slaver apologist" in order to write them off, but that isn't how life works. But I'm certain you take some time to consider the nature of life when asking "Do you want fries with that?" which seems to me to be the only thing your education has qualified you for. In fact, when killing the GMs, she acted unjustly and immorally by not trying to dispense justice but instead randomly selected 163 members of a guilty group for punishment. I argue it was a punitive measure (legal term, look it up!) rather than a recuperative measure. Dany didn't care about their individual guilt or the justice of each individual crucifixion, but instead cared about a static, elementary concept of justice (kind of like you!) that in the hands of queens often produces bloodthirsty tyrants (like someone who would burn down KL.) How embarrassing is it for you that you couldn't even remember that? I think you'd do a better job of defending Dany if you'd do things like, I dunno, provide support for your arguments or even REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE! But either way, I'm not letting someone who can't remember their own argument dissuade me from posting. You're welcome to step away, though. It prevents tons of people from having to correct your logical pitfalls (see: last 5 pages and the 7 people who think you're wrong on almost everything we've disagreed about.)The only purpose and point of your views is for me to point out why they're so pigheaded. If you don't like being "bombarded" with replies, stop posting insults and idiocy. Now go research common law because you are literally the only person here who doesn't get it.
  7. Demetri

    GRRM's (Brief) Thoughts on the Final Episode

    The larger points, in my mind, are: 1) GRRM straight up confirmed Jon's parentage. We know he doesn't lie to try to throw us off the trail, though he might try to distract or confused. To me, this is an unprecedented amount of candor. It wasn't so long ago that GRRM wouldn't even discuss the books at a show event so as not to provide spoilers. All history indicates that he views spoilers with disdain and ire. And yet he is confirming a spoiler for book readers by confirming a plot point in the show. In my opinion, it isn't as much about the actual reveal itself as it is the mindset surrounding it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen him VOLUNTEER a spoiler explicitly (no inference necessary.) I'm somewhat curious if this is a mindset change and if so, why? This reveal was way out of character for him. When the Aegon issue is juxtaposed with Jon's parentage, it makes it seem like he's stating Aegon VI as legitimate because Jon's parentage was stated just as matter-of-factly as Aegon VI was. I did omit the Aegon quote accidentally (my bad and thank you to the person who supplied it!) But to me that sounds more like the doublespeak of GRRM that I'm used to as there remains some ambiguity regarding what it means to be a character called Aegon VI. This contrasts with the Jon reveal which was stated unequivocally. We know GRRM likes to portray the opinions/deeds of others as fact, it's part of his writing, so someone recognizing Aegon or even Aegon recognizing himself could warrant calling him Aegon VI. That's certainly going to be the name signing the letters sent across the realm. 2) I'm with you on the "will we get the book" thing and it bothers me. As a result, I tend to be a bit optimistic and naive when GRRM says he's writing. That optimism drives me to perceive a mindset change represented in that post. My take (again, optimistic) is that he wants to explain why the number of daughters O'Hara had actually matters and he wants to explain that desperately. I'm not saying he'll be using the show as a counterpoint to undermine, but he knows that it's out there. 3) The story about the dinner with D&D and guessing Jon's mother is an old one. GRRM tells lots of old stories in blogs, interviews etc. Perhaps the story means something different to him now than it did at the onset of the show. I certainly hope so. I think the fact that he just straight up stated that Lyanna is Jon's mother is a form of accepting that there are some similarities and his willingness to accept that they exist. This inherently means that a "different" version exists in book form. My hope is that each time he mentions O'Hara he is reminded that unless he writes his version that we'll know exactly how many children O'Hara because we only have one version of the story: the show. Yes, I'm being very idealistic, but you have to admit that at least some things about this blog post are wildly different than things we've seen from him before.
  8. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    That's what I'm trying to explain to this hardheaded and insulting person. I'm glad that you, at least, understand. And apparently other posters who disagreed with old Ghastly tried to explain it to them too. To no avail. Thanks for chiming in though. It is frustrating when you're met with insults and ignorance while discussing something that should be generally understood.
  9. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    You can always tell when someone is really bright because they use ad hominem attacks instead of substantive points. For the reading impaired, I never said I actively study American South slavery. I actively study law. You're changing the goalpost again as you went from "American South" to "European slave trade." Even that is utter, utter nonsense. Have you thought of providing evidence of the stuff you say instead of assertions and attempts at insult. I'm not going to even take the bait of someone who can't keep a thought straight making completely ignorant assumptions about my education. I'm not even convinced you've had one. "I can tell" is code for "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but I'm gonna do it anyway." Please use your magical abilities to tell me what law school I currently study at? By the way, tell us a bit about your amazing education. Considering how much of a complex you appear to have, I imagine there is a reason why you use it as the source of ad hominem attacks. I already said I didn't go to state funded (Bible belt) schools. You don't listen and are even worse at comprehension. I think any school that let you graduate should be immediately shut down based on the "intellectual" display I've seen from you. Actually, I'm not. The idea of the law being "common" to the areas that observe it is literally where the term derived. You are just dead wrong with the "oh international law uses english common law" is dead wrong. The article says "In sum, the decisions of international tribunals create a form of nonbinding, yet influential, international common law." Wow, so they're saying that a body of common law can exist independently of english common law? I think everybody knew that but you. It is also amusing that you call it "English common law" when previously you claimed that would be redundant. But this post shows what a very basic conception you have of common law. Yes, I know that non-binding precedents are non-binding. I mentioned in my post that common law can be contrasted with fully codified law. I have already explained this to you, but it is cute that you're trying to explain to me something that you don't really understand. You're also just dead wrong on a few things. First of all, I never said it was law common to all nations. I mentioned common law because of your asinine mindset that the concept of common law can't exist and instead we only have the British common law. There can be no other sort of judicial precedents that form a body of law common to areas. The article is discussing how international agencies and tribunals are creating soft law (which is the very definition of codified law, which you seem to not understand, which in effect creates a body of common law. How can a body of international common law exist without it being British, if Common Law is, as you say, ONLY ever relating to A british system. IF we believe your broken logic, it can't. But it can, of course. Yes, when Common Law is used it is used in the British manner. Reading comprehension fail. I was trying to teach you where the term "common law" came from and that is that it was a law common to the land it governed. If you don't understand that then please see yourself out. You misunderstand that English common law (and it is VERY often called english common law because you're referring to the common law established in England). By the way, it is almost categorically called English common law not British common law, England is one of the three countries you mentioned. If you honestly think that English Common Law came about because everyone in Scotland, Wales and England happened to have the same laws is idiotic. The common law was imposed by kings in the beginning and were common to all the king's courts (all the land where the king held dominion), much like it works in Westeros. There is also an American common law tradition which diverged from English common law. Yes, it is a system of English Common Law, but the many, many countries that use it have used it in different ways. Look at Bangladeshi common law. It is English in practice but has some exceptionally notable differences based on the practices of that area. These bodies of law are modeled and based on English precedent, but can differ in many ways based on the particular country. Saying that English Common Law is somehow all that common law can ever be is like saying all countries that rely on statutory guidance are inherently French due to the derivation from Napoleonic Code. Just because the French made a famous effort for thoroughly codified laws doesn't mean that civil codes are French by nature. You mention a feudal system. So, do you have any idea when and what caused English common law? Because it definitely started during the feudal system. I could bore you about courts of law and courts of equity and how common law factored into the creation of a court system specifically to limit the impact of common law. That system is an incredible rarity (dividing courts of law and courts of equity) in the United States but the distinction in the type of remedy has generally been melded. However, it exists as two separate courts in England and man other countries. This is all part of the evolution of common law. I imagine it was also over your head, but feel free to read up on it! You are so aggressively wrong that it hurts. I like that you mix in baseless speculation about what "decent lawyers" would say when you haven't got a damn clue. First, let's deal with bombarding the threat. I don't care at all about your opinion of my opinion. If you don't like it, I don't care. Secondly, it is hilarious to argue that "English common law doesn't exist in Westeros" and then try to interpret the same work of fantasy through feminist lenses. If you don't understand that common law pervades Westeros whereas feminism is not really a concept they have then I dunno what to tell you. Anyway, some inane and uninformed post by you is always what I was responding to. Oh, also funny to note that about 6-7 people have disagreed with you but not a single person has defended your ill-informed opinions as reasonable and correct. More to the point: I'm sorry, but if you don't think that American common law exists then you need to go excuse yourself. You mention states and yea, you're right (kind of, see the Erie Doctrine in which federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction-go look it up yourself, I'm done babying you- must apply substantive state law on a state law claim. Guess what, that doctrine derived by overturning a previous decision which decided to limit state application of common law in a federal court on a state issue. This is all to show that it is so much more complicated than you think it is.) The Erie doctrine, by overturning a previous case, created federal common law on the subject. It isn't codified and is a creation of case law. But what you don't know is that many states have adopted the English common law system and others have to varying degrees. Much of federal laws are simply codified forms of common law. (Note: A law being codified does not erase it from common law but shows how common law affects both the legislature and the judicial system.) But more importantly, no legal scholar in the world would deny that American common law exists. Federal common law isn't nearly as prevalent as states adopting a common law system but the entire concept of reviewing cases is the very essence of common law and federal courts certainly do that. It has been held that federal common law exists in matters of air and water relating to interstate or navigable waters (Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, Wis, Supreme Court, 1972) as well as in other areas. It might be fair to say that there is no federal common law (justices have argued about this for ages) as a cohesive body of jurisprudence, but just because it doesn't exist as a default rule doesn't dismiss it as still being judicially powerful. More importantly, it is irrefutable that common law is impactful in every realm of the court. Certain rights within the entire court system derive from common law. What do you think when the Supreme Court makes a binding ruling that deals with something not codified? I could name Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision in which something was ruled illegal despite not being directly codified. The Supreme Court does not merely interpret laws, they use notions of fairness, justice and past precedent to guide them if a law is lacking. If you are confused and think that American common law can't exist because there is no clearly delineated federal common law then you misunderstand federalism. American common law doesn't have to be federal, it simply has to be within the American court systems and these court systems are interconnected to such a degree that that distinction doesn't mean much. If you were to research "American common law" you'd receive reams of scholarly writings on how the institution exists in America. Go read a few of them; learn something. That precedent is, until legislation countervails, considered by stare decisis generally treated as common law. Even a basic knowledge of the Supreme Court would inform you on this. I could cite Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case, I could discuss how different jurisdictions integrate common law differently, I could cite endless scholarly articles. You still wouldn't get it and I'm done trying to educate someone who seems to be encountering the concept for the first time. I'll try to keep it relatively short though because, 1) you're beyond help, 2) I could fill 200 pages with quotes trying to explain this to you: Read the last quote carefully. Because it explains the logic and method behind common law. Notice that Justice Holmes is not talking about a certain place, or a certain time, he's talking about something like the collective unconscious spirit of a nation/area. You confused things by bringing in your misunderstandings about English common law (it amuses me that you, correctly, use this now when you argued that common law=english common law at first) when I'm speaking about how common law forms. Everybody who is familiar with Westeros knows that king/lord decree, habit and custom are impactful to a justice system or to law. In Westeros, very little law is codified. So do you think they don't have laws? Yes, they make up a lot as they go along, but they also rely heavily on the past. That's common law. It isn't the collection of English laws and decisions which became English Common Law, but it does provide legal precedents that carry weight for future decisions (such as issues of succession, for an easy eample). My education is fine and I'm looking forward to my career. Hell, with your misunderstanding of basic concepts like logic, ethics and law, I might end up seeing you very soon! It amuses me that you drop arguments that show that you don't ever bring a shred of good analysis or evidence to the table. You handwaved "international common law" and don't understand the concept that common law can be formed in places not at all directly related to Britain. You ignored a quote (thrice, now) in which Dany refuses to punish a slave master who raped a slave because, at the time, it wasn't rape. You make ad hominem attacks because you can't construct logically valid arguments and question the education of someone you don't know, who is studying something you don't really understand. Adorable stuff. No wonder everyone who has jumped in has disagreed with your nonsense.
  10. Demetri

    GRRM's (Brief) Thoughts on the Final Episode

    I've heard him use the O'Hara example way before this season. In fact, he used it ages and ages ago especially when the show first started. I should have said that I find it particularly unsatisfactory here because we aren't dealing with Jeyne v. Sansa but the entire ending. If the ending of "Gone with the Wind" hinged largely on how many children O'Hara had then that discrepancy ceases to be immaterial to the ending but, instead, the meat of it. I know it's an old hat statement by GRRM, but I find it being repeated here to be fairly disturbing for those hoping for a substantially different ending than the show gave us.
  11. Because it was an idea they had once 3 years ago and, like all their ideas, they thought it was really cool and precious thus had to be included. It might very well be an epilogue piece for GRRM. It fits well with his undertaking of meta-history. But here, in the show setting, it was a slap in the face.
  12. http://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2019/05/20/an-ending/ This blog entry was an interesting choice. Parts of it felt perfunctory, the natural byproduct of the end of an era via the shows. However. Parts of it certainly stand out and are worth a look. First is perhaps the most stark example of GRRM spoiling his future material ever. " I sat down for the first time with David Benioff and D.B. Weiss for a lunch that lasted well past dinner? I asked them if they knew who Jon Snow’s mother was. Fortunately, they did." GRRM might be tricky, but he naturally draws a line between outright lying and general deception. If R+L=/=J then this would be basically a complete lie. But furthermore, he is being unnaturally candid in this statement. For those who enjoy some SSM, this is even more confirmatory than even minor things in the past. My read is that he is overtly acknowledging the legitimacy of this aspect of the show as it relates to book canon. Second, his overall take and the neverending question of endings. Martin says that "Book or show, which will be the “real” ending? It’s a silly question. How many children did Scarlett O’Hara have?" Personally, I find that unsatisfying. The amount of children that Scarlett O'Hara had was not material to outcome of the story, the ending. If the number of children was absolutely essential, then it would be a primary point of distinction between the story told, not a detail that varied due to the medium. I'm afraid of this answer, to be honest. To me, this suggests strong confirmation that the broad strokes will remain the same and that the show canon was basically a true telling but relatively minor details such as the number of Scarlett's children differ. It both confirms that his book will be a different thing and concedes that O'hara is definitely in the story. There are a few digressions in GRRM's blog post as always. I thought it was a sweet and somewhat heartfelt post but clearly premeditated. Call it wishful thinking, but I almost sense a renewed desire to make the books a manifested thing. This seems like a throwaway, but I think that GRRM meant more than that: "How about this? I’ll write it. You read it. Then everyone can make up their own mind, and argue about it on the internet." Let's hope we get to take him up on his offer quite quickly.
  13. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Saying there is no common law in Westeros (or any fictional place) is the same thing as saying that there is either no law or completely codified law. @Ghost+Nymeria4Eva think about that for a moment, truly. The Common Law however, is a historical body of jurisprudence. But the idea of not codifying law and having historical guide instead is as old as time. This justice is "common" to the land and forms "law". Got it?
  14. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    First, I was talking about the slave trade into Brazil. I should have been really clear on that point. Do a bit of research. Learn something. Your nasty tone followed by nonsense makes you a character more than a poster. Second, remember that I actually study it whereas you talk out of your ass. I'd drop the aggressive tones when dealing with someone specializing in an area that you obviously don't fully understand. When people say common law today they're referring to a body of law created by the precedent of Britain. Common Law (as a capitalized) phrase, is a thing. But the term derives from law "common" to the land. Because of how history has worked, that is British in general. But the CONCEPT (I know, headaches abound) of common law can be applied to something beyond how it worked in our history. Just to demonstrate how narrow minded and ignorant your belief is, here is an article entitled "International Common Law: The Soft Law of International Tribunals". Now, since you've shown very limited ability, you're probably wondering why a berkley law article is talking about international common law since common law only ever means british common law. Common law represents the body of law not codified but considered enforceable based on past precedent. That's exactly what this article describes without invoking British court cases (which I feel certain you've never read, otherwise you'd understand that common law is a template.) ://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771&context=facpubs I'm actually a full time law student, not taking a beginner course. It's a pretty good school. Not that any of that matters, but you questioned someone's education and, based on reading your posts and you invoking a very particular legal concept, I thought I'd point out that my educational credentials (counter to your accusations of homeschooling etc) are a lot better than yours in issues of law. Considering you mentioned the American South "from school and stuff" doesn't suggest you specialize in anything close to what we're talking about. Since we're talking about adjudicating justice, I thought I'd try to undercut your narcissism and belittling a bit. The idea of OUR common law, or legal systems that use THE common law is a British one. The idea behind common law (rules deriving from common practice outside of actual statutes) is a pretty simple one. It is literally used throughout Westeros in the form of precedents. How much of this world do you foolishly think is codified? Do you think they all have a nice constitution that they pass around along with civil and criminal codes? Anytime a lord uses precedent he is invoking common law. I'm terrified that you don't have the mental flexibility to realize that the concept of common law and the actual current Common Law can exist independently
  15. Demetri

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I'm absolutely not arguing not that. I'm merely saying that Dany really look much into her method of punishment. It seems like they randomly selected 163 Grand Masters. The result of imprecise justice is that some of those grand masters were more culpable than others. And some of the most culpable would be walking free based on however the list was comprised. That isn't great justice. I'll say this, if she'd have killed ALL the grand masters that it would've been MORE justice. I was more dealing with the way justice is distributed. We can totally agree they have X amount of basic culpability by being part of a slavery institution. But the punishment wasn't for slavery or for having morally repugnant views on other humans. It was a direct punitive measure against the murder of the slave children. My point was that the vote wasn't 163-Some Lesser Number, and all 163 were punished when the decision carried and that THOSE 163 were chosen. It was a punitive act (the punishment isn't recuperative or designated but meant to teach a lesson). Historically, punitive acts against people represent things like war crimes, genocides etc. The argument isn't that the slave owners were really okay people and it is bad to murder okay people. It's that Dany did a pretty poor job of dispensing justice. I know you aren't making this logic leap, but it isn't a hatred of Dany or a secret sympathy for slavers, it is that she chose to answer blood with blood and she wasn't particularly picky WHAT blood it was that was spilled. I argue that people who are making judgments that end in blood should be VERY picky about what blood is spilled. Even though they are all guilty of a moral sin, Dany is trying to punish one particular sin and she did it somewhat hamfistedly (books and show).
×