Daeron the Daring

Just now, SeanF said:

I think that Jews have quite a good reason, in the light of history, to believe people who say that they want to kill them.

Remind me why does any palestinian want to kill an israeli in 2023.

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It has everything to do with it. Jews have a long history of violence against them and disregarding that completely ignores why they feel the way the do.

I don't handwave away anything, but regarding the religious freedom in Israel in 2023, it doesn't bear any meaningful significance. If it does, it shouldn't. Historical grudges, as per you too, aren't a good thing to hold onto. 

My nation too holds historical grudges very close to their heart, semi-rightful. It is mass-communicated to this day (WW1 stuff), and a central idea to right-wing propaganda. That's what they're good for, sadly.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you going to claim… with a straight face… that Russia… is an “anti-imperial” power?  

Exercise irony. Plus, the subject was the USA, not Russia or any of its predecessors.

35 minutes ago, Ran said:

Oh, Russia knows all about imperialism. Feel free to ask Tibetians about Chinese imperialism, too. When it comes to making prosperity, the U.S. has just been better than everyone else at it. For good and for ill.

The prosperity of the US (like many other 'western' countries, of course) is inseparable from its past and present of imperialistic exploitation. So allow me to care about that when you gloss over that, and not the unfortunate subjects of russian or chinese imperialism.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

There's a reason far more people would like to live in the United States than in Russia or China.

The high ground of prosperity which was created by no means of imperialism?

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

There are more Muslim citizens of Israel with full civil and religious rights than there are Jews in all of the Middle East and Europe combined because of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the ancient Jewish communities in those lands. You could not be more wrong. The current government is propped up by historically fringe parties with insane right wing ideologies, and certainly dragging Israel in the wrong direction, but Israel past and present is not comparable to the religious oppression of its neighbors or even democratic European countries. The sustained protests against that government, even by people who voted for it, attest to the democratic nature of Israel and most its population. Even Israel's most right wing governments protect a status quo that gives Muslims more rights at the holiest Jewish site than Jews have, something inconceivable in any neighboring country, where few Jews remain at all.

The former expulsion of jews from arabic countries is irrelevant in this scenario. It happened, it was unjust.

That doesn't make Israel religiously more free than it is right now, nor is it an excuse to not be.

Radicalisation of the citizens of Israel didn't start with Netanyahu, people were becoming more and more radicalised before too (jews and arabs alike), for various reasons. (Edit: Altough it is, obviously, a relevant escalator of the situation)

You can actually find evidence for these in surveys that are pretty easy to find. You can look into it yourself (to give more validity to your research), but I can provide links too.

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

As you pointed out this is a problem that many countries have. There is a strong right-wing religious element in Israel as there are in many countries.

Well, yes, of course. But Israel's level of religious freedom is comparable to that of its neighbouring muslim countries, not the Western World, which you would call democratic.

My other examples were to show that being constitutionally secular doesn't mean much alone.

24 minutes ago, Darryk said:

It's really a secular country.

Which in practice can mean a lot of things. 

In reality, Israel is a religiously very tense country, and without a doubt discriminative based on religion.

Denmark is not secular, meanwhile countries like Turkey or Russia are. Or the vocally very anti-immigrant Poland and Hungary. Or my own country, Romania.

Being secular doesn't disqualify a country of moving on the spectrum of religious freedom, and religious discrimination. And Israel is not a shining beacon of religious freedom, to say the least. 

It feels especially strange because Robert is currently in a race for the Vale with..... noone. He has to run a marathon, sure, but he has the time of his life for that.

Now, of course, Littlefinger may need immediate and more extensive control over the Vale for some reason we are yet to be told, but Harry's also a pretty fucking wild card, if you ask me. I mean, it could work, and he might indebt him with Sansa for eternity, but still.

Sansa's 'marriage' to Tyrion is no big deal thou. Note that Petyr intended Tyrion to be executed for poisoning Joffrey, but he still has time to have Tyrion dead, or at least considered as such. Dissolvement is pretty possible thou with a lack of consummation, but it's a risk (with Tyrion alive, especially), and Petyr doesn't like that.

This situation, however is just strange. It seems similar to that of Roose "I legitimize my bastard I'd let inherit over my dead body" Bolton, since Harry is a nobody, and a betrothal to Robert with a secret promise to Harry would be a much safer bet. That is, if Petyr's unwilling to get rid of Sweetrobin himself, which would be sus either way. It's just another knot on an issue that has a clear solution.

On 10/2/2023 at 6:26 PM, Craving Peaches said:

And I never claimed you did. I was saying that what you said gave the impression that someone could never be a psychopath due to genetics alone.

Yea, sure, I get it. But your impression's not on me, nor anyone's.

On 10/2/2023 at 6:26 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Source? I asked someone working in that area and they said it was impossible for someone to be a psychopath due to just genetics, but where are you getting a 50/50 from? I want to read more on the topic.

I haven't read all that many psychology books (maybe 3), so I kinda rely on people I know with my opinion here.

A more nailed down version of my viewpoint (I base on what some said to me), is that genetical factors are equally important compared to the effect of nurture, but they alone don't make nobody a psychopath or anything alike. (Take this as a technical absolute, not a theoretical one.)

On 9/24/2023 at 4:35 PM, Craving Peaches said:

When you say there is no such thing as a natural born 'psychopath', it implies that one could not be a psychopath purely due to genetics and resulting biology, which I disagree with.

What I said has not referred to genetical factors being nonexistent. 

We all assume a tone to what we read, based on several factors. You made a wrong assumption, maybe because of the opinions I expressed previously, maybe not, but you did.

On the other hand, noone can be a psychopath purely because of genetics. It's really a 50/50. And Joffrey's not considered one by the one person that created him. Goodnight.

On 9/25/2023 at 10:43 AM, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

@Lee-Sensei @Lord Varys @Craving Peaches @SaffronLady@Daeron the Daring

I wanted to get everyone involved in the psychopath conversation, if I missed anyone I am sorry.

Sorry I averted the discussion. It's really on me.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

That's why I said it 'kind of' is. This point you make here:

Quote

No such thing exists.

Makes it sound as though you are totally excluding that someone could be a 'psychopath' due to genetic/biological factors rather than upbringing and that it is based entirely on upbringing, which I disagree with.

My point referred to the idea of people naturally being born as psychopaths. You tought more of it than I expressed, because I never said or implied that genetics cannot be a factor. It very much is.

10 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

It kind of does though. You can be born with aberrations in the connection(s) between the amygdala and the frontal lobe(s), which can lead to displays of 'psychopathic' behaviour.

Psychopathic behaviour is not psychopathy, mostly because it does not necesarilly lead to psychopathy. Period.

Children cannot be psychopaths. The term is exclusive to adults. Period.

Look up conduct disorder. It's what you'd call psychopathic behaviour in children, and can be a precursor of actual psychopathy.

5 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

I'm kind of curious, if this is your stance, how do you explain Venables and Thompson?

I'm new to the incident, but it seems to me that the very study that established/establishes the meaning of the words you use shies away/forbids the use of these terms on children, including the two persons you mentioned. Psychology specifically looks into what psychopathic symptoms in children mean.

And it's not like psychopathy/sociopathy is just about cruelty and a lack of remorse. 

Plus, not even GRRM calls him anything more than a classic bully from school, and explicitly nothing more. Take this with a grain of salt thou, sometimes I disagree with George too (mainly when he doesn't know the meaning of the terms he uses, but this is completely irrelevant), so I'm not the best candidate to champion with his words.

I had my peers back in upper elementary 'play' with street dogs, cats, chickens and turkeys in a way that would sometimes lead to the animals' death. It was animal cruelty of criminal level. Many of them are assholes nowadays, but I wouldn't call any of them psychos or anything close to that today, altough they grew up to be adults now.

5 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Natural-born psychopaths

No such thing exists.

On 9/18/2023 at 12:17 PM, Craving Peaches said:

I think this all comes down to the nature vs nurture debate. There are things such as the cat incident which suggest to me that Joffrey did have something intrinsically 'wrong with him', but it is also clear that Cersei was an awful parent who imparted many bad 'lessons' onto Joffrey. Cersei, at the very least, exacerbated what was already there in a negative manner, by encouraging and rewarding Joffrey's bad behaviour. I think with a better parent Joffrey would not be so quick to act on whatever antisocial 'urges' he has, at least.

As someone who spends quite some time with kids: Don't underestimate the cruelty and hatred they can harbor, and how well they can hide it in front of certain people (their parents, most frequently).

As somone who knows insanely misnurtured people: Don't underestimate the toll nurture has on you.

As a former kid myself: Don't rely on a kid's common sense. Joffrey made the asumption that he should have Bran killed because of what Robert said. Kids make assumptions in the same fashion, not because they are bad (not claiming Joffrey isn't), but because they lack the ability to realise the weight of certain actions and words coming from adults or done by themselves.

The 'something wrong' Joffrey had in him wasn't anything more than an insane level of misnurture/lack of nurture. If you let loose the most privileged kid of the Seven Kingdoms, it might turn out this way. Not necesarilly, and I'm not the right person to seek for an answer on why (or if) certain kids have a bigger tendency for being troubled any or many ways, but that doesn't make a child a rotten apple, because children are children, and the mental disorders some and most people put on Joffrey as a tag are unrealistic in nature, because they are modern concepts that cannot be applied on children in the modern world, as far as I'm aware.

And Joffrey wasn't a rotten apple. That's my opinion, I guess.

(This is a completely separate topic, somewhat reflecting at the original post, but) In a much wider range, I think, Joffrey is part of an issue that's represented on many levels in George's work: That the things we love are often evil in nature as well, which makes our love or hatred for anything hipocrytical. And I'm guilty of that too.

Am I really allowed to hate Joffrey while reading a book set up in a never ending feudal world, with the best and worst exploiting millions, often at the same level?

In that sense, the only character I feel I have the right to hate is Euron. What he aims at is uncomparable to the level of exploit feudalism throws at people. People like Ramsay just add a few hundred/thousand to a list of millions. 

I mean, it could be that there was just simple hesitation. Aerys clearly found everyone unfit to marry his son (until he was somewhat forced to settle for someone), and it may have been common sense to think that Tywin will propose a marriage between the two, so people just didn't want to step in the way. 

But Rhaegar was in a similar situation to Edmure. Neither him, nor Hoster was in a rush to find a match for the heir to the Riverlands, altough he was the last male in line, and much older than Rhaegar was.

Situations like this in medieval times weren't the rule, but they certainly weren't rare.

If I had to put the big six in order (it's gonna be big 6 for me, because I like Sansa's character) it would be like this: Jon, Daenerys, Sansa, Tyrion, Arya, Bran.

But in reality, right now, I would get the most excited about a new Bran POV chapter. That I guess tells how much I like all of them.

The secondary characters I can't stop appreciating (as characters, not as good persons) are Jaime, Littlefinger, Doran, and Asha and Benjen. Maybe in that order.

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

They aren't his nephews or his niece. He owes them nothing. You guys have this strange idea that the Baratheons should just accept Cersei's treasonous paternity fraud. It's very odd.

You're playing a dirty game.

12 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

They aren't related to Renly

Okay, I will go that low.

That's not the important part. The important part is if Renly rebelled/plotted in mind with the tought that he inevitably has to step over the dead bodies of 3 bastards or the bodies of his niece and two nephews. (Both are insanely bad)

You wanna bet which one was it? 

Quote

That's my line, buddy.

Buddies share lines.

On 9/14/2023 at 1:04 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Here it looks like you are implying that all acts should be excused

I guess it's on me that I wasn't specific enough, and took it granted that the message comes through the way I intended.

I didn't mean to imply that acts/crimes should be disproportionately excused, but that Joffrey deserves to be treated according to his age just as well, like everyone else. 

On 9/14/2023 at 1:04 PM, Craving Peaches said:

You can excuse some acts for age and not others.

Well, if you mean that age should either be a severing or mitigating factor, then I agree.

On 9/14/2023 at 1:04 PM, Craving Peaches said:

In my opinion, at least where I live, Joffrey's age and background would probably be taken into account more when sentencing, rather than in deciding how accountable he was, because he is old enough to be considered criminally responsible (he is 13, you have to be 10 in England and Wales and 12 in Scotland).

Well, it's certainly new to me that people can be criminally charged at such young ages. I am somewhat familiar with the legal systems of a couple Eastern European countries, but when I mentioned that I would take role models from a couple developed countries, I was thinking more of Nordic countries than the UK (or God save, the US of A).

The problem is that Joffrey, in my opinion, is in fact villified too much. I laid down well enough (I think) why. We can disagree. 

But I am a hipocryte, I hate Joffrey too (as much as I can hate or love fictional characters. And it dwindles day to day. I am becoming more and more numb and indifferent to the story. It's time, and the only thing easing this is my sister having watched the show recently (I regularly drop book spoilers on her until she status reading them)). George did a good job. But I know there's a higher road, and it sounds really bad (because people hyperfocus on it, when you say it out loud), but Joffrey was a victim of many things, first and foremost her mother.

On 9/16/2023 at 12:27 AM, Lee-Sensei said:

Cersei's kids aren't his relatives

They are to him. If you fail to realise this much, maybe you should resort to fan fictions.

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

It depends what the child is guilty of.

What? It literally doesn't. Or rather: It shouldn't.

Just because you do evil stuff as a 12 yo, it doesnt make you older, nor should it make you be considered older. 

You're basically saying that Joffrey, or anybody else, loses their right to being (considered) a child for doing (bad) stuff most kids don't.

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

To a large extent, Joffrey is treated as an adult, within the book universe

Which makes 0 differene. I tought you were trying to prove me that everybody should be held accountable for what they do. I very much believe that adults should be held accountable for obeying the orders given to them, and also for obeying a child, when they should not have. (That doesn't make Joffrey not guilty of ordering the stuff he did.)

16 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

You don't just excuse all things, regardless of what they are, for age though. It never works like that.

I don't remember saying that. I remember saying that Joffrey should always be considered an 11-13 year old boy when measured. Because that's his basic right as much as Sansa's or anyone else's.

If you want my perspective on how much he should be held accountable then I can confidently rely on the legal systems of some developed countries, where his childhood background and age would certainly be major factors.

But I'm not saying that his murder was unjust, not a necessity, or a bad thing, in the given setting.

And if you guys feel like I'm not aware of what Joffrey did, and what Sansa did in comparison, maybe you should stop arguing with me, since I must be entirely out of touch then. If not, then stop throwing it at me like they're arguments.

11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't understand how it is double standards. Double standards would, to my knowledge, be giving Sansa a pass for doing X but not giving Joffrey the same.

No. Double standards is lifting someone from the burden of their acts at a certain age, meanwhile not doing the same with someone the same age. You don't let go of the 'crimes' of X just because X's are much better than Y's. Which they are, obviously, and Sansa's not even a comitter of crimes, in my opinion.

What I'm saying is that if one is entitled to the excuse of being naive due to age, so does the other. And that's not just Joffrey and Sansa, but every 12 year old.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Cersei's bastards aren't his nephews either.

Which, I guess absolves him of the societal expectiations of being a nice and good person to anyone.

Is that how you behave with your 'alleged' cousins and relatives?

They gotta prove to you the relation first, to expect anything humane from you?

Allow me to go ahead and assume that's not the case.

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't know, they just don't seem remotely comparable to me. But I know you feel differently.

Never meant to spread the implication of comparability of the two. It's just double standards.

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I would expect even a young child to realise cutting open a pregnant cat was wrong...

Who doesn't? 

The problem is ignoring what this indicates.

We just so happen to have our OP elaborate on why we need to use modern standards on the questions we face in the novels.

What I'm saying is that George punishes the reader for hating on Sansa. Instantly. But Joffrey is a victim of his surroundings as well, perhaps of even more. And the realisation can't and shouldn't be as emotional as it is with Sansa (or at all), but there's a point when it's just due.

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yeah, people throw around claims that Sansa 'betrayed' her family and destroyed the Starks or something. Sansa is a child who had no idea what Cersei would do.

People hold accountable Joffrey at the same age. 

I'm saying they both shouldn't be, okay?