Jump to content

Protagoras

Members
  • Content count

    948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Protagoras

  • Rank
    Because justice is more important than basic human "rights"

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

2,465 profile views
  1. Protagoras

    Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

    Kudos to you that you try, but I am sort of wondering what motivates you to argue with people who refuses to use logic nor any kind of perspective other than "my biased position is truth because I say so and at any time someone uses real arguments and actually try to make up consistant rules, I back down to the classical "its just your opinion and you are the one who is biased" because I don´t have any real arguments but emotions". How do you stand the amount of idiocy thrown your way? I am curious. Because I find myself losing my temper when I run into stupidity, bias and ill faith.
  2. Protagoras

    Acts of brutality? It's your turn to pass judgment.

    Most Brutal (as in, how did they die, innocents? and how many) Reynes of Castamere: Everyone died, slowely but surely by water. Everyone. 100%. All innocents too. And not a pleasant way to die. In fact, a really horryfying one. Duskendale: Not everyone died, but many, including innocents, did. Many were also tortured and died painfully . However, many innocents - especially servants, survived. And Barristan was allowed to save one. Harsh, but their crime was straigth up treason. Moat Caithlin: Few men, no innocents, but all tortured severely and for no cause since they had surrendered. I don´t doubt that the way they died was worse than all other candidates on this list though. Red Wedding: Many died and violently, but with little torture. Many were also soldiers, already commiting themselves to war and their possible death. Innocents were few and you could argue that since the soldiers followed Robb, that they had taken upon themselves to sntand by him, including his oathbreaking. Destruction of Goodbrook villages: Pretty standard for the time era, nor do few seem to call it out. Houses were destroyed, some were killed (but I doubt that many), some raped and a signal was sent. Tit-for-tat plays a huge role why I can´t put this higher up. And I doubt they went full crazy Song My either. Craster´s: One person died. One. And said person died pretty fast as well. The innocent women were raped surely, but I doubt much more happened. Most Justified Duskendale: Either Aerys was presented bread and salt, which make this a guest right crime by the Darklyns. Or he was ambushed under a flag of truce, a white flag so to speak - which is a war crime. And not only was he imprisoned, but the Lace serpent also have the audacity that a man entering their keep under such circumstances should be killed (and maybe even had him tortured). She more than enough deserved the sexual torture performed upon her (all those that think Aerys did this out of sexist reasons, why was said torture only performed on her?), since she was a driving force behind the treason (And I am quite frankly tired of the idea that you should go softer on women because they are women and that some limits exist in a way it doesn´t do on men. To those that think so, I say - you are a horrible persons with double standards and your opinions are a reason in itself for those limits to be broken) and treason was punished with hung, drawn and quartered in our days. At best you could argue that Aerys should only have demanded the head from those involved in the act itself and that the torture should be lighter since they surrendered, but then again - it was far to late then to just give up and avoid punishment. Destruction of Goodbrook villages: Looks pretty standard to me. Tit-for-tat do exist after all and I am pretty sure this always happen in wars in Westeros. Also, was this even intentional or something that did just "happen?". And isn´t in pretty likely that this would have happened to Lord Hosters villagers if the war has gone the other way. And were the buildings really that destroyed? And while certainly people was killed and raped, was it really a significant difference than what normally happens in war. I think no. Reynes of Castamere: You could argue that Tywin broke word, but so did the Reynes and Tarbecks many, many times before that and they sort of got what they deserved, since they were supposed to be vassals to the Lannisters and had sworn oaths to do so. This "crime" has also been approved by the legal king of Westeros by that time, so it clearly have Westerosi legal support. In addition, the Reynes didn´t want to surrender, but instead offered terms. Could Tywin be more lenient? Yes. Is he forced to? No. Red Wedding: Walder overreacted, but at least he had a reason. He had been snubbed by the Starks and wanted to get back. Problem is that he decided to break guest right, making his crimes one of the worst possible in Westeros. Luckily for Walder, this thread is about justice in comparison to the Starks and not the other things he opened up with this (The end of diplomacy and negotiation for example). In addition, not "playing by the rules" is not really a good thing here. Better to kill fair and square. Craster´s: Well, the Watch were assholes, forcing Craster to give them things that was not theirs to ask for and killed him as well as their commander when they was denied. Granted, Craster is not a good host, but it is still his home, and his rules. Yes, they were hungry, frozen and unhappy - but thats just excuses. Moat Caithlin: Well, if the Craster situation were bad, consider a situation where Craster gives the mutineeers all they ask for and they still decide to torture him anyway. Such is the situation with Ramsay and the Ironborn, a class A warcrime if ever there was one. He tortures a surrendered foe most brutally and breaks his given promise, making me wonder if any peace can ever be achieved with that "man" in charge. That "broken promise part" is so vile that it is hard to describe. All the other cases were a struggle where it was sort of expected that the strong would impose whatever they could on the weak. Next time anyone suggests deals in order for someone to surrender, this event should be in everyones mind. Nor had the Ironborn done anything to the Boltons that motivated such response. War is not a case in itself for brutal torture, even if the target is the fan favorite region.
  3. Protagoras

    Did Brandon Stark rape Ashara Dayne?

    As they say - what happens in Highgarden STAYS in Highgarden,
  4. Protagoras

    Did Brandon Stark rape Ashara Dayne?

    How? Why? How did the video even...? Is there anything substantial who back this theory up? Anything at all? Or is it just random mumbling? Like somehow, Brandon talk to Ashara for Ned, think that he want her himself to fuck with Ned and then somehow this turns out to be a rape? And I don´t think that person in the video necessary has pegged Neds and Brandons relationship here. He just assumes relations brother to brother just must be in a certain way. Now, I am going to go write about my theory that Mace Tyrell kidnapped a fleeing Arthur Dayne, took him to Highgarden, tied him up in his sex dungeon and had him anally. I have some great evidence. Namely that I say the books should be interpreted that way. Its evidence, right?
  5. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    Not sure either - maybe this one: Or this one?
  6. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    Have little amount of time, but yeah - we do seem to be mostly in agreement, apart from Tyrion being a consort of Daenerys and maybe something more.
  7. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    It is certainly possible that Bran can do that by religious means, but due to that he is also a warg and maybe could reveal himself to Jon through a "shared wolf dream" I think it is more likely it will happen in more of a direct communication sort of way. A combination of his two powersets if you will. Or, simply that Bran somehow run into him and tell him then. Jon has certainly an identity as a Stark but he has been curios for the truth about his mother a long time now and when he find out about Brans abilities, he might just ask him. Yup, and I don´t necessery think if they were married or not will have a plot significance. Daenerys will know that A. Jon is their kid and B. That they loved eachother. Assuming that she is not hostile to Jon and the North due to some north supremacy shit, I don´t think Daenerys is going to really care about a possible marriage or not. She might see the intent in her vision. Wherether or not they were married legally might not even be touched upon at all. But (and this is why I commented this thread initially) this doesn´t mean he is necessary trueborn. In general I think people misinterpret the "Bastards should not hurt princes"- dialogue. That Jon is a "prince" is more a hint of his secret identity, hidden in the North while Joffrey is a bastard, also with a secret identity. And if Rhaegar had won at Trident, then maybe Jon had been trueborn. Still, I do wonder if we will ever see any real proof. We might see visions from Daenerys where we see baby Jon with Rhaegar, but will we really see a wedding scene? And if we see a wedding scene - will it be legal. Certainly, Rhaegars intent might have been that, but he is not king and in no position to change the rules. So we might have a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound" situation. After all, a ceremony of this scale need witnesses. In all the other marriages we see, there are people who can testify. And can Rhaegar even do this without Aerys consent? If we have had scenes like this, there might have been reason to speculate on a possible marriage but the Jon-crowd tend to make things up, regardless of what is in the books. I have been speculating for a while that one of Daenerys dragons (not Drogon) are not long for this world, possibly connected to Euron and his plot or Aegon do something to one that triggeres their war. I doubt GRRM will give Daenerys 3 superweapons when she invades. As for the riders, I think Jon is indeed the one close to death. Jon will be changed when he returns. Darker, less moral. More "wolflike" if you will. GRRM is not going to give him that resurrection for free and as you said, undead kings do strike me as an unlikely ending. It has been speculated if Daenerys will go dark, but she has always have some darker streaks of anger and justice in her. it wouldn´t be much of a twist. If anyone should go full sith, Jon is by far the best, most shocking and most interesting suggestion. A slow walk, of course where Jon do more and more questionable choices and dies as the enemy he initially tried to stop do pack a strong punch. As for Tyrion and Daenerys, they can both certainly die. Tyrion because he is GRRMs favorite (which increases his chances of death - not decreasing it. His opinions about Rowling do say alot about this) and because his near-experiences with it. Daenerys because, GRRM want to do a more tragic ending and because when people have done their arc, they tend to die. The childbirth death would certainly tie her story together.
  8. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    Exactly! And it always happens with characters the audience sympathises for and is made with the purpose to reinterpret the written words in order to sell said persons own fan fiction, later using said fiction as fact and claiming that you are "analysing" (usually with a hint that you, as a creative, sensible, intellectual person have "seen" something few others have understood - an objective truth we mere morals can´t grasp and that we also should listen so that we can see more than the cave-wall that block us, poor readers). I think some people of this forum should consider that not all analysis is good analysis but often biased analysis.
  9. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    Then don´t respond to my posts. Simple. No one forces you to it and you need to learn, just as everyone else, that the Internet are full of different opinions. You are not a special little snowflake and, like Jon, shouldn´t get the world adapted to you and be able to influence people without giving others have the same option. There are alot of posters I think are complete idiots too and those persons usually end up on Ignore list. I recommend you learn how to use it. But I don´t think those posters have to adhere to my rules about what the can or can´t post and respond to. Because why should they - we have no working relation that should be preserved. Nor do we. As for the rest of it - if people or going to assess the likelihood that it will turn out Jon is not really a bastard at all, based on zero facts, a biased mindset and ton of unbased speculation that you and others have the guts to claim is "literary analysis" , then I am certainly going to point that out. And again, if you don´t like how I think, then don´t respond. The person unwilling to hear others opinions yet wants to say their piece in a safe-space environment is the person who should stay forever silent.
  10. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    I think the sort of only realistic way is something like this: Bran convinces Jon of 1 and 2 with visions. 3. Jon runs into Daenerys somehow, they get along well and 4. Daenerys see the truth about their marriage by more visions. She 5. declare him his heir and claim to the world that he is the trueborn son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (and let her dragons eat those that have any objection). So, yes - an adoption is going to be necessary in one form or another. In short, for Jon to be seen as a non-bastard by the world, it is going to require magic (with two different people having magical dreams), plot power and a very sympathetic Daenerys who will remove obstacles he can´t remove himself. Normally this would be impossible. In Jons case however, I would just call it unlikely. Nor do I think the story will go this way. I agree that just giving him a kingdom is very clichée fantasy and I have more respect for GRRM than that. But I wouldn´t say it can be completely excluded.
  11. Protagoras

    Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    This is not a hard question. At this point in the book series neither Jon nor anyone has an idea about his mother. He has been presented to the reader and the world as a bastard. And everyone in the book indeed see and treat him as one. Lets call this "default status". In order for said status to change, hard evidence not open to interpretation needs to be given. Said evidence also need to meet and explain why said parents were married. You can´t just say that they were because you think so - you actually need to prove it. And no, where the kingsguards are are NOT hard evidence, since it is very much open to interpretation (which this thread and other threads have done ALOT of). At best - they are supporting noise. The main point here is that in order for Jon to be something but a bastard, 1. The default status need to be changed by evidence. 2. Until said evidence shows up he will be defined by said default status. And this forum have a tendency out of Jon bias to simply ignore this logical chain of work just because they want to. For me, that is a sign of low intelligence - your feelings have no logical value for anyone but yourself and should have zero convincing-power in a discussion since people do feel different. If you need to feel the same way and hold the same biases in order to "get" an argument, then you are not presenting arguments anymore, you are presenting a cult. So, right now - with what we have to work with, Jon is a bastard. This might change later, but for now that is what should be assumed.
  12. Protagoras

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Not entirely sure where the OP is getting with this. No one forces the OP to see everything as grey. Indeed, the OP is perfectly free to state that certain actions are wrong and other actions right. But I see no reason why others necessary should agree with that viewpoint. What ASoIaF does well is to present somewhat realistic characters instead of cardboard villains and those characters often think or believe that they are justified to act as they do. In many cases the setting acknowledges this right for them to act a certain way (and if a certain act is seen as legal then it is also moral, since laws are nothing but a legislation on moral issues). So Victarion reaving in an ironborn culture is nothing but a just act, since his society say it is. The idea is of reaving is made into a law, the idea of reaving is being held as a strong cultural consensus and many ironborns seems to follow their cultures moral code. Compare with say, Ramsay - who doesn´t seem to act in accordance with his culture. Morality = legality. Now, morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. Because what else is there to base it on? And moral disagreements are not rationally resolvable. Therefore what will be seen as right or wrong will vary - which should be evident by sheer diversity of moral opinions which exists between societies. And there is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute morality. However, as stated above, there is possible to create an intersubjective reality about this (which most societies do) and since we all live in the modern age and mostly from a western culture, such an intersubjective reality for us on this forum is pretty easy to make. But is does not make it objectively true and it severely clashes with westerosi morals (Who should have a right to decide what is right and wrong in its own universe rather than that we, who live under other conditions imperialistically forces our viewpoint onto them). And you can´t (again) "prove" your morality superior. It will just be you saying it is. And everyone can do that. If you hold the view that, what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong you need come kind of reference to separate it from your own or others opinion.You need to justify the claim that there is such a thing as objective moral truth. Otherwise, there will only be your (subjective) words on it. And here is the problem - you don´t really have any facts to give, like you could in say - a disagreement about the shape of the earth. You need a a universally unquestioned source - which doesn´t exist. So while certainly the OP might consider an act immoral (after all everyone has the right to decide what is right and wrong - just because a moral outlook can´t be proved superior to another does not mean that it can´t be judged superior aka intersubjective reality), such a statement is not and will never be an objective truth. People can (and will) disagree. And if enough do, then what is seen as right and just will change. All moral judgments are true or false only relative to some standpoint (like a culture) and no standpoint can claim objectivity over the others. So, I don´t think anyone see everyone and everything as "grey". I don´t even think most characters are seen as grey. I think most people on this forum have clear ideas on who in ASoIaF is good and who is evil. I do too - but I am willing to accept that I do so according to norms and values of my particular moral standpoint, one that are probably given to me by my western, modern cultural community and is by no means a fact. Ideas on "good" and "evil" doesn´t always match that others. Some might disagree, thinking that Tywin is not evil, that Ramsay is not evil, that Cersei is not evil. And it is retarded to expect that they would and should agree. I also have a hard time seeing why less moral ambiguity makes a better book from a literary perspective. No one is going around thinking "I am doing act x because I am so eeeeevil" (dramatic pause) and I don´t see why presenting everyone as humans with thoughts and ideas are a bad thing. Edit: Are people who think like the OP on this genuinely afraid of widening their perspective? Is it the fear of actually putting yourself in that persons shoes so shocking? Yes, that person could be you. No, you are not immune to that because of your moral code. Yes, they most likely believe themselves to be good people despite what you think. Deal with it.
  13. Protagoras

    Arya will become Queen

    And as Cersei showed us, that doesn´t mean you will be able to fulfill your ambitions nor even the possibility to make own decisions. She was a glorified baby-maker. And so will Arya be. If you want to force this marriage and this new title on Arya despite what she think and then argue that you do Arya a favor then you are delusional. At least admit that you don´t give two shits about what Arya want. Edit: To make my point even clearer that it is all about Jon, lets assume Arya will become queen but her husband will not be Jon but someone else. Would you still want her to become queen? Yeah - didn´t think so.
  14. Protagoras

    Arya will become Queen

    Is that really the best defense that exist against this, very obvious, objection to this theory? I mean, Arya is a main character and has an own arc. And that arc has have nothing to do with queenship so far. So if anything is forshadowing, it should be Aryas line and not Neds? I feel that so-called Arya fans try to sell this end game for Arya, based on absolutely nothing, in order to give Jon a nice trophy wife who will sacrifice all her agency for him. And for once I actually feel sorry for Jon here. Can´t he get someone who he doesn´t see at his sister? Yuck! A little better I think even he deserve. As for me, I would prefer that Arya died rather than giving her this ending and I would hold GRRM for less of a writer since he then have decided to cut short Aryas story arc in favor of Jons. Its like Witcher 3 all over again, where I prefered
  15. Protagoras

    Friends in the Reach

    Because GRRM has a plan for the character later on and tries to give away anything at all if he can (Cersei do seem to want to summon Taena back after all and Kevan has approved so she might already be on her way)? Well, then we shouldn´t really assume a Varys-Orton-Golden Company-Taena connection either should we? Considering we have about as much support for that one. We have very little to go on here and I think my suggestion is more logical due to Cerseis nature and to the unlikelyness that not only was Varys able to eavesdrop on the Trystane information, but also decided to send it to Doran. So while Arianne most likely will lead Dorne to the side of Aegon, it has most likely no connection because of that warning from Varys (if yhe sent one). Strange that, if Varys is so sure of their support, that he havn´t told Doran that "Oh, I need your help in a future war - I am backing a "targ", especially after Varys has just saved the life of Trystane. I really can´t see a better moment to give that intel then at such a time.
×