Jump to content

Varysblackfyre321

Members
  • Content count

    2,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Varysblackfyre321

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday February 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hell?
  • Interests
    Sitting on my ass and watching dumb videos on YT.

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Roose

Recent Profile Visitors

2,715 profile views
  1. Varysblackfyre321

    Popular Book series you’ve tried and failed to get into:

    Meh I can relate. I’ve always found Kvote to be a bit of a Sue type character. Well at least Young Kvote but given that’s who we’re focused on throughout the story so yeah. Like for most of the books everything he does he pretty much excels at. It’s not until book 2 that he is briefly mentioned to have failed at things at chemistry and Theoretical math towards literally the last few pages. Also, the series magic system seems pretty standard. The world doesn’t exactly strike me as that interesting. Ambrose as an antagonist seems more suited to be the bully for 80s movie. He’s not nuanced and that in it self is ok, but he’s also evil enough to be that interesting either. My readings of series so far could mostly be categorized as “meh”. Still I’m probably going to read the third novel. More to see if my hunch on who is the King Kvote kills is correct. I personally don’t see a problem with introducing the protagonist(s) in the series doing something deplorable. But it should to have a point that isn’t just “Aren’t these characters so dark?!”. Which the introductory scene of “Prince of thorns” seems to be the only message the author wants to convey. The Broken empire trilogy feels to me like the writings that a teenage edgelord does when he tries to feel deep-and fails doing. “Religion is a scam” “Civilary is stupid” Very surface level critiques that lacks any real nuance on the complicated subject matters it wants to address.
  2. Varysblackfyre321

    International Thread 3

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-charges-wikileaks-julian-assange-with-publishing-classified-info It will not take long for Trump to bring the same charges against the “legitimate” media outlets that publish information about his administration’s crimes both nationally and abroad is Assange is convicted. It’s a shame so many Democrats are cheering over this as if Trump wouldn’t eventually go after more Democratic/liberal friendly media outlets using this pretense when his crimes are unconvered and they dare to talk about it. A nuanced approach that doesn’t sanitize Maduro while making clear the last thing Venezuela needs is for the US to come and “liberate” it.
  3. Varysblackfyre321

    LGBTQ+ 6 -- It's a Rainbow of Flavors

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48363362 A truly brave man.
  4. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yeah, everybody in a large could agree on something. Sure, most instances large groups could find some form of disagreement but these are particularly dire and exceptional times for the Slavers-what they have in front of them was an invader whose just butchered the Slaver populace of Astaphor. Daenerys represents an existential threat to them and their very way of life. Anything that could possibly encourage her to stop her advance would not be shot down. And these wouldn’t be “children” the GM would see as slaughtering. They’d be cattle being butchered. Every single instance we get in relation to the Slavers discussing slaves it’s clear they genuinely don’t see them as human. There could be one exceptional individual who for some reason is far more progressive that his setting would dictate. But the odds of that are slim.
  5. Varysblackfyre321

    The Great thread-re-read of the Great coats

    I’m broken. Damn man before I met you the only person I thought could demolish me this badly was that 4 year old boy who called me dumb-dumb when I was in Pre-school. You are awesome. Meh, fair enough. Thanks for the advice.
  6. Varysblackfyre321

    The Great thread-re-read of the Great coats

    Oh my god I am once again destroyed! When I accuse you of offering replies with no real point other than “thread bad” you-offer another nothing reply saying “thread bad”. And you’ve helped keep this thread on the first page of this section a little bit longer! Damn I never wanted that. My god truly you are the master. I am crying with shame in face of your great argumentation and logic. You got me again. Damn. Haven’t been devastated since you called me drunk for saying a book was boring. How could I be so foolish . Of course when you complain about “lol” being at the end of a sentence, grammar is far from your great mind.
  7. Varysblackfyre321

    The Great thread-re-read of the Great coats

    Meh, I don’t regret making that thread. I thought I was clear in my reasoning but I get the feeling you were deliberately being obtuse. And I make a lot of spelling errors in my posts. I could say it’s mostly because I go on this site using my cracked phone. But if I’m being honest I’m not really terribly concerned with it altogether. I’m not 13. I’ll make threads if if I’m bored. The threads could generate some good discussion, or it could garner just a single reply and never be commented on again. Either way it doesn’t really inconvenience me or anyone else. You do not have to post on threads that you have no interest in discussing other than to say “this thread is bad” but you nevertheless you do repeatedly. I imagine that’s fun for you. Keep on doing you my man. It’s punctuation not “puncation”. If you’re going to play a grammar nazi put real care into your performance.
  8. Varysblackfyre321

    The Great thread-re-read of the Great coats

    Dude, you’ve taken me saying a book was boring, and a book series immature drunk a post. I can’t put much stock in your declarations when your bar is that low lol. In my defense people could still post on the threads I made regardless of My declaration of being finished(for a time), with reading the series in question. They(if they are reading it) are not pacing themselves to my tempo. I could read the series in a month or a year. They’ll go at they’re own pace if any. Though yes I could have structure the thread more neatly. Taken the empathesis off myself in the OPs and onto the series in question. Guys I do apologize for that and in the future if I make one of these re- read threads to be more careful. I do want to attract those who’ve read the series to come and talk about it. Hopefully they could offer insights that I(probably) hadn’t considered yet and are worth a ponder.
  9. Varysblackfyre321

    The Great thread-re-read of the Great coats

    It’s been a couple years since I theighned to read “The Greatcoat” series by Sebastian De Castell. So I’m finally going to look it over again.
  10. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    All I need to reference is the definition, which I have. If you do not agree with the definition then you are not using the word correctly. “The Dictionary said this is right therefore it’s right.” Seriously, if you’re sum total of research in regards to religion or philosophy, or atheism is just looking at dictionary definitions, I cannot take you seriously. Dictionary definitions are descriptions for how words are used. And yes they can be imperfect. If the actual description of the word does not match how it is is it faulty. You could’ve tried to give a real argument for why your description of Atheism is valid. We could have a real debate. But alas you’re not interested in such. I get the feeling you’re the type to not say you’re a feminist-and then spout how you’re for gender equality regardless of the dictionary definition of it. If so I just want you to know you’re being inconsistent. Weird to use a double quote. But to your question it doesn’t really have to “end” anywhere. It’s not either or situation. A person could be an agnostic-Atheists, or an agnostic-theist given Agnosticism focuses on answering a different different question then pure belief in a deity. “Do I believe there’s a god” “yes/no” would be a matter between theism v atheism in its answer “do/can you know there’s a god” “yes/no” would be a matter of Agnosticism. It has always be an answer to knowledge regarding a god or gods. Really? But it’s listed as a synonym for nihilism. How could that be, clearly Agnosticism needs to actively disbelieve in the idea of god altogether given its a synonym for it! Jk. But seriously I hope you’d avoid using “Atheism is a synonym for nihilism” in actual discussions of it in the future. It makes it seem you understand neither. To your position-not really. Agnosticism focuses answering a very specific question; in regards knowledge not belief. Not really. “a” as a Greek prefix literally translates “without” not “opposite of” An important difference. A more appropriate stand-in for those who would have a disbelieve in a god or gods would be anti-theists-given the prefix of the word anti literally means against or opposite of-which is a more distinct form of atheism. Seriously, it’s not “achrist” feared in many denominations of Christianity“ “it’s “anti-Christ” This is what the words mean, you cannot change that with anything you write. You know if we took your view the definition of rape would have never been modified to include married couples, and men in Dictionaries or law and forced to conclude before the modification any talk of such sexual abuse being “rape” would be should lambasted. I’m sure you’re not really so stupid as to think animals incapable of fear, or cognition in it of itself proof of the supernatural. You value love, and hope, in a spiritual sense, that’s fine. But, please no one whose able to value them is doing it wrongly. Oh my mistake-you’ve only taken some emotions as beliefs. . Truth be told you haven’t actually given an explanation on what you think “love” or hope even is in terms of belief and how they are intrinsically spiritual. Oh no I just disagree with you. Also this accusation coming from the man who insists all ideas including ideas such as it’d be ok to genocide or ethnically cleanse a region shouldn’t be found offensive and has yet to actually give an argument for why they shouldn’t be. I’ve called you to do so multiple times and you’ve refused at every turn to even try. And whose refused to address, non-theistic/atheistic religion, religions that don’t place human at the epicenter and the concept there being a god and it not particularly caring much for humanity altogether or that much more than any other creation, after saying one can’t logically treat people good without a god or being. Oh you’d want a society where’d you’d treated fairly so it behooves you to treat others fairly to make them more inclined to do so. That’s literally all the logic you’d really need to treat other’s well. Because I disagreed with you on things, and desired to tell you such, and why. I’m pretty sure you think you sound mature saying this but really you sound more like this. “I’m taking my b-ball and going home!” Listen man, if you want to end a conversation on the internet then just end it by not responding all together. You don’t need to precipitate it with saying you’re going to end it as if your taking some grand stand in leaving an internet argument with a stranger. If you truly feel strongly fine-stick to your gums and ignore my posts from here on.
  11. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    No. Not really. You don’t need to “ believe” in being scared shitless if you think you’re about to die. It’s a totally natural reaction. Seriously, when a Deer sees a hunter about to shoot it there’s no “belief” it should be scared about you dying. It gets scared and runs away. Again no to all of this. Dogs love, fear, and hate, can feel anger at those around them if treated harshly, or positively enough or because they some neurological defect. There’s no “belief” in it. And please by virtue of you erroneously having decided that “emotions are beliefs” does not mean everyone else will adhere to your logic. You take a too high view of yourself quite frankly. And literally a precursor of basic research Psychology shows in regards to some the neurological basis for emotions. Like it’s not exceptionally hard to find dozens of cases of someone suffering some form of physical and biologically not being process certain emotions or emotions in general. But then again this seems merely a distraction because you’ve posited “Emotions prove the divine” or some such nonesense. Emotions by themselves show nothing of god or gods. Literally not believing them to be creations of such is no more unreasonable than not believing they’re a byproduct of Leprechauns. The assertion could be true. But it’s on the person making the claim to prove it. You’ve seem to have a limited understanding of the philosophy of “nihilism” if you think it could be used interchangeably with atheism in general. Nihilism rejects morality along with god. Atheism says nothing in regards to the subject and simply does not believe in god.. Even most Dictionary definitions(which are by no means perfect ) of Atheism holds no of mention of a stance of “Morality” in it’s description. Nihilists are atheists. Not all Atheists are nihilists. All Lutherans are Christian, not all Christians are Lutherans. And I find you’re argument for Nihilism being listed as a synonym for atheism as indicative on a lack of research on your part. I imagine you’ve only heard Nihilism is listed as a synonym for atheism and never bothered to see if it was true because you would probably have seen Agnosticism being listed as a synonym for Nihilism as well. Along(laughably) with non-theism. I imagine you’d tell the Dali Lama that he is Nihilist too because it’s listed as a synonym for nihilism lol? Seriously, if you’re going to argue for your interpretation of “true atheism” reference the views of actual scholars, philosophers, secular activists, or poll of those who actually self-identify and have built they’re likeness on discussing atheism and are prominent figures in discussion of it. My main point here was merely acting within accordance to nature-that is to help your kind-doesn’t make atheists hypocrites for doing so. They’d mostly be following the ingrained nature that allows most mammals to survive. And emotions like love or the physical stimulation we label “love” could help facilitate that avenue. “I don’t want you to feel you’re wrong to think that but I must tell you you’re absolutely wrong” lol. For much of your objections of me being so close-minded you’ve taken a hardline stance that without a shadow of doubt emotions are beliefs. I think you probably have as a profound misunderstanding of agnosticism as you do atheism. I think you’ve refused to actually do a nominal amount of research on theology philosophy, evolutionary psychology, and have instead have decided to take your own basic prejudices as factually grounded. You demonstrated you don’t know what atheism is. You’ve conflated religion with justifying human superiority and further seem to have taken religion as sysnomous with theism-as if religions like Buddhism don’t exist. And have taken a denial of a god with denying spirituality-which again is absurd given there are non-theistic religions. “White-supremachist are not bad people, just because they want to genocide and to ethnically cleanse their land of non-whites and such ideas are not offensive stop being so quick to judge them” paraphrasing here. but even my tolerance has its limits when it comes to people who would see me and my loved ones dead. Yeah I’m not going to respectfully disagree on their ideas that I deserve to be treated as subhuman or killed because I’m black. Sorry if you see my intolerance towards racist so closed minded. I will not pretend I’ll see you anything but vile if you agree with them or think the ideas they espouse are not offensive. And please “Atheists are hypocrites if they act nice to other people” is not worse than saying White supremachists are bad people for being white supremachists. Actually make an argument the ideas they’re espousing shouldn’t offend people. Not really. You have a juvenile view of free-will. No, advocating for a creator to not do something, or do something is not violating his or her free will. Free-will does not equal people not being tell you should do or not something. It merely means you could choose to ignore them. You are not entitled to whatever platform you’d want. A Yeah you seem to be conflating critiquing something as offensive with being as bad as literal censorship. An artist in not entitled to never be criticized or derided for his or her work being offensive in sort of way. Or instead of passively taking racist propaganda being spewed one should deride it as such. And not care that it *may* make those who feel comfortable with the art uncomfortable. Ideas could be put forward. That doesn’t necessitate I not negatively comment on some of them or criticize the author for seemingly to push the ideas as bigoted and offensive. A man could make a movie about how evil Jews are behind every bad thing that’s happened in the world and I will however call him an idiot for spewing such nonsense. If that hurts his feelings and he’ll feel more self-couscous about spewing such drivel-good. If it makes movie-producers more hesitant to fund this anti-semite’s project-also good. I’m also not going to act as if I’m violating his or anyone’s rights by criticizing his movie as racist drivel.As as you tout out the importance of allowing ideas in media you don’t seem want them to actually be challenged.
  12. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I think the show’s depiction of Daenerys occupation of In Essos isn’t entirely better or worse than in the books. Like for instance her deciding to burn one of former slavers in response to the sons of the harpy’s terrorism. It was was much more nuanced in the books. She did the 7 kingdom custom of taking in children to be wards/hostages from the noble houses. The situation kinda demanded Daenerys to kill one of the children in response to the children much as the way Jon would be pressured to kill some/all his wildling hostages should they’re parents start to rebel. I have to say I’m alway flummoxed no one’s mentioned the fact Daenerys had the Unsullied butcher all noble sons in Astaphor who were over 12. Her kicking out of Jorah was framed way more in favorably in the book. Given she did initially plan on pardoning him for his valiant service and only changed your mind once Jorah acted like an entitled possessive ass. In terms of the crucification of the GM meh. I honestly thought it could’ve deterred other slave-masters from committing similar acts of depravity just to spite her should Daenerys choose to invade other slave cities. No to part of this. I have no problem story-wise with the concept of Daenerys destroying a city in pursuit of conquest-it would be in alignment with acting to the likes of a typical conqueror. But KL was too important to destroy at whim.
  13. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    My pointing to it was merely a demonstration of bigoted cliches not just being because of some biological basis. But you do go on to to call every atheists who does good hypocrites. So not that much better a stance in regards to them since you clearly think atheism demands immortality or amorality. You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism and really religion in general. Atheism has no belief in divinity by definition and most atheists will tell you that they simply don’t believe in whatever divinity you think has set up some form of rules. Most do not actively deny god(I assume that’s what you had in mind) exists anymore than you actively deny leprechauns exists. They don’t have to try to prove a god does not exist to anyone anymore than you have to prove leprechauns do not exist. The people making the claim do. It’s a patently absurd thing to demand someone prove a negative and being smug they can’t and pretending as if that in it of itself makes them on equal footing. You’ve also seem to have adopted this idea that religion in itself justifying this idea of human superiority. This is false. Plenty of religions throughout history have placed humans as a part of the world-but not an exceptionally important part. Your case for why it’s impossible to reasonably to do good act without religion must something “divine” is also simplistic but sadly not exactly new or rarely used.It relies on wanting humans to be special. “We want these things true right? So it’s only logical we should believe them” It’s not rational, it merely supposes that it must be true. There are a whole heap of philosophical and theorists who’ve given compelling arguments for human superiority-a lot of the time pursuant to our sentience. This idea of “you cannot differentiate yourself between a bug and human baby if you don’t believe in a god” really isn’t one of them. Also “love” and “hope” aren’t beliefs. This is idea is quite frankly too ridiculous to even pretend to have the chance at being remotely true. They’re emotions. No one literally believes in “love” anymore they believe in “tiredness” or “hate” they feel it regardless of what they believe. Atheists do not have to deny the existence love, or hope or whateverbecause they do not believe in some form of a god. Because these emotions don’t showcase that there is someone. They could(and probably are), a totally natural by product that emerged due to the species evolution. Or you could say magic leprechauns infected us in our sleep. You’d have a strong case for why it’s stupid for “leprechaun skeptics” to deny the things that make they’re oh so clear lol.The existence of those those don’t prove god. Actual displays of affection between members of the same are by no means rare in the animal kingdom. A monkey could help out another monkey. Fuck your idea of Atheists being hypocrites if they act like humans and theighn to feel emotions, and have the audacity to show care for another. Again more excuses/justifications for racism. responsible with their rescources and smart(because they were often ostracized and persecuted) =/ Jews in general “biologically more greedy than any other demographic. There is and never has been rational reason Jews for perceived as more greedy. Prejudice doesn’t work off of only real attributes like you seem to want to frame it doing. I’m holding to your actual words because they’re flat-out contradictory. You’ve touted you love getting offended at things for entertainment, you actively try to, and can’t enjoy something unless it does-now you’re you’re saying people shouldn’t be offended. . Pick one argument and stick to it. Yeah no. A lot of things you’ve disagreed with have hideous implications. Like touting out I should be wary of condemning white supremachists as bad people because I haven’t “lived in their shoes”. Or some such none sense. And I don’t respect/accept your sentiments on this for the sake of “variety”. I don’t respectfully disagree. You’re wrong if you don’t see people who advocate genocide and ethnic cleansing as bad people for doing just and my thinking white supremachist are bad for being white supremachists is just due to my “limited” experience. You’ve argued you shouldn’t be offended by any ideas-actually give a defense why someone should not be offended at ideas like genocide or ethnic cleansing cleansing being espoused or concede you were mistaken.
  14. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yeah, a character’s sexuality shouldn’t being the thing that determines he or she is relatable. And, 4-5 percent is the amount of people who have freckles. It’d be rather ridiculous to complain about the fact a character like Ygritte has freckles when only have such a thing. Shouldn’t you think the author should do what he or she feels is right regardless of what offense it may cause who are offended at the level of depiction of certain groups? If he or she wants to write a character having the trait of being gay without it’d being majorly important why should they care if jives with the reader? Or you could make them gay and not waste time having to justify showcasing a biological trend in nature of members of the same-sex, copulating. There no more reason for why sexuality should be justified than other traits that aren’t shown by the majority. No not really. Renly, Loras, and Yara’s sexuality aren’t things that they use to assert power over others. It’s just presented as a part of them. No, Jews aren’t naturally greedy, atheists aren’t naturally evil, and not all gay men are feminine. If you think all ideas could be treated with tolerance when they’re espoused then you’re being naive at best. Some ideas such, as genocide, ethnic etc are deplorable. The people who think they are good ideas are deplorable and people aren’t wrong at finding offense at the idea it’s ok to mistreat someone because of their race, sex or sexuality. So, since you haven’t even seen part of the movie I referenced or seemed to have cared to give a quick google search of it, perhaps you could theighn not to get aggrevied people got offended and called it racist without having read the minds of the people who made it. Just a thought. This is basically apropos to nothing to you’re quoting. You’ve said don’t think people should find any type of ideas offensive. That’s patently absurd. Point to 4 threads declaring Martin some sort of bigot in its title or the OP is centered around specifically calling Martin a bigot. If you merely meant post despite, you’re insistence on total censorship of those who express anti-leftist sentiment the fact that I am able to quote this post at all kinda negates your point.
  15. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yes. I disagreed with her. Not all those who’ve suffered sexual abuse will arrive at the conclusion on things regarding it I could just as easily cite survivors who agree my sentiments. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/ok-sexual-violence-game-thrones-gone-far/ And I’ve talked with other survivors who expressed similar sentiments to the author. I’m not going to accuse you of acting wrongly if you disagree with the author for having an opposing view towards your in it of itself in regards to this scene No, Jamie isn’t some helpless duckling especially at this juncture of his life where he shortly after helps Tyrion(someone who Cersi thinks murdered their son) escape. He did not stop when Cersi began to weep or try to push him off. He did not obey her all things. And, still no to this idea of her not resisting more making this not rape. No their relationship being taboo, doesn’t actually mean it’s generally not consensual.This scene was a break from how they typically act. They’re relationship being taboo that doesn’t mean all sex, regardless of what the other says or does is consensual. Yeah, no. Pressuring someone to cave into your sexual desires, isn’t rape in it of itself, but proceeding to act on your sexual desires regardless of being told no and being shown physical resistance is. Which is what Jamie did. Cersi in the end did not accept this. Hence her begging Jamie to stop, and trying to physically resist. crying afterwards. Jamie did not have her Consent when he began fuck her. Whatever her reasons for refusing-she did. It’s not less of an assault by virtue of you not seeing as good enough reason for her refusal. The fact is she refused him, and Jamie didn’t stop. And once again having relationship with Whether they do or don’t it really wouldn’t make the scene that had been depicted prior them not rape. Probably.
×