theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 He says that there is no evidence and he's right. There is no evidence that she's pregnant, only your conjecture. Show us an Ygritte POV where she knows she's pregnant and we might have reason to believe she was. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume it. no he is not right. GRRM tells us that jon snow releases his seed inside her at the cave. not sure if you have ever done this or know what can result but well... i don't require a quote like " and ygritte whispered, jon snow im pregnant. What?! Lord Snow's bitches better be using jimmies..." to be able to guess whats going on... there are plenty of reasons to assume it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortspear Rick Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 no he is not right. GRRM tells us that jon snow releases his seed inside her at the cave. not sure if you have ever done this or know what can result but well... i don't require a quote like " and ygritte whispered, jon snow im pregnant. What?! Lord Snow's bitches better be using jimmies..." to be able to guess whats going on... there are plenty of reasons to assume it... Yeah, I understand how procreation works. Congratulations for you on figuring it out as well. As many people can tell you, intravaginal ejaculation does not automatically mean pregnancy. Catelyn even states to Robb that not all women get pregnant on the first attempt. Yes, I know they do it more than once, but that's still not evidence of pregnancy, it's evidence of fucking. As someone else has told you already, there's no reason to get all uppity in your response. Them having sex does not mean she is pregnant. Do you assume Asha is automatically pregnant since Karl came in her? Did Shae get pregnant after Tyrion spent his seed in her a million times? I could go on. In other words, it's a flimsy premise for stating it like it were fact and getting mad at others when they tell you that you may be wrong. Perhaps if Jon noticed she was suffering from symptoms of morning sickness or any other actual signs that she may be pregnant. You say there are plenty of reasons to assume it, but you present only one, and even that one is circumstantial at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yeah, I understand how procreation works. Congratulations for you on figuring it out as well. As many people can tell you, intravaginal ejaculation does not automatically mean pregnancy. Catelyn even states to Robb that not all women get pregnant on the first attempt. Yes, I know they do it more than once, but that's still not evidence of pregnancy, it's evidence of fucking. As someone else has told you already, there's no reason to get all uppity in your response. Them having sex does not mean she is pregnant. Do you assume Asha is automatically pregnant since Karl came in her? Did Shae get pregnant after Tyrion spent his seed in her a million times? I could go on. In other words, it's a flimsy premise for stating it like it were fact and getting mad at others when they tell you that you may be wrong. Perhaps if Jon noticed she was suffering from symptoms of morning sickness or any other actual signs that she may be pregnant. You say there are plenty of reasons to assume it, but you present only one, and even that one is circumstantial at best. so i went from having " no evidence that she was pregnant", to you defending why you " think " she isn't despite taking his seed multiple times... my premise isn't flimsy and despite what you may say i do not get mad when others disagree with me. like my first response tried to humorously address, i don't require the same amount of evidence as " you " might need to confirm certain aspects of the story.. i have already considered the novel from many perspectives just trying to help others pick up stuff they might have missed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eira Seren Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 yet ygritte tell's jon they have the same " blood " before their first sexual encounter... just food for thought... I guess they could be somehow related, probably distantly. I'm thinking it is more along the lines that some of my family comes from the border of England and Wales, and have a little Welsh in them. So when I meet someone from Wales, we could say that we share "blood." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eira Seren Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 really? tell me which book has a Ygritte point of view and i will admit you are correct... It's a fair point, though, about Jon not being "petty". Emo, yes, but petty? What do you think about Jon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortspear Rick Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 so i went from having " no evidence that she was pregnant", to you defending why you " think " she isn't despite taking his seed multiple times... my premise isn't flimsy and despite what you may say i do not get mad when others disagree with me. like my first response tried to humorously address, i don't require the same amount of evidence as " you " might need to confirm certain aspects of the story.. i have already considered the novel from many perspectives just trying to help others pick up stuff they might have missed... I'm not defending why I think she isn't, I'm challenging your opinion that she is and pointing out that contrary to what you may believe you have absolutely no evidence. You merely present a situation where it is possible and then go on the assumption that since there isn't anything to contradict you in the text that you must be right. Once again, show ANY evidence that Ygritte is pregnant. Do you know what forming an argument based on no tangible evidence is? It's called making something up. Imagination. Fan fiction. Whatever you want to call it, if there is no evidence whatsoever to support it something cannot be considered confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashtibram Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 so i went from having " no evidence that she was pregnant", to you defending why you " think " she isn't despite taking his seed multiple times... my premise isn't flimsy and despite what you may say i do not get mad when others disagree with me. like my first response tried to humorously address, i don't require the same amount of evidence as " you " might need to confirm certain aspects of the story.. i have already considered the novel from many perspectives just trying to help others pick up stuff they might have missed... You're being unclear at best, but it kind of still sounds like your only point is that Jon and Ygritte had sex, therefore Ygritte was probably pregnant, and that's just idiotic. Plenty of people have pointed out the flaws in this argument to you already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 You're being unclear at best, but it kind of still sounds like your only point is that Jon and Ygritte had sex, therefore Ygritte was probably pregnant, and that's just idiotic. Plenty of people have pointed out the flaws in this argument to you already. actually what " they " have been pointing out, is what " they " perceive to be a flaw in my theory... I on the other hand disagree with their assumptions... I think this thread is called Jon killed Ygritte, not Jon fucked Ygritte. not my only point if you know how to read/comprehend the OP... kinslaying & kingslaying with a little bit of epic tragedy thrown in ties together the 3 main pov's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 I'm not defending why I think she isn't, I'm challenging your opinion that she is and pointing out that contrary to what you may believe you have absolutely no evidence. You merely present a situation where it is possible and then go on the assumption that since there isn't anything to contradict you in the text that you must be right. Once again, show ANY evidence that Ygritte is pregnant. Do you know what forming an argument based on no tangible evidence is? It's called making something up. Imagination. Fan fiction. Whatever you want to call it, if there is no evidence whatsoever to support it something cannot be considered confirmed. the night is dark and full of terrors & the shadows on the wall are my children. I gave the narrative or history or collection of quotes/events from the arrow in his leg to the burning of her body. If you are unable to follow how I developed this theory from a logical sequence of events... well it is not me who needs to re-read the novels... alas I feel sorry for you but no further time will be spent responding to your obvious attempts/challenges so that you have somebody to argue with... show ANY evidence that she is not... come on pull a quote where it says she took moon tea... o wait she doesn't! there is an instance where the person you have chosen as you avatar counsels our young black crow on these things. iffc he tells him if she wants to have an abortion she will go to a woods witch and get moon tea... but she never does/has the chance... that evidence enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dios_achilleus Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 yet ygritte tell's jon they have the same " blood " before their first sexual encounter... just food for thought... Cousins don't count. No one suggests that Robert is a kinslayer for killing Rhaegar, even though the Baratheon line is a branch off of the Targaryens. You might throw back at me that Lord Karstark states Robb will be cursed as a kinslayer, but Karstark and Stark are more distantly related than Baratheon and Targaryen, so how could Robb be cursed and Robert not? Quid pro quo, kinslaying doesn't bring down a curse on anyone. (Btw, kinslaying is hated by both the old gods and the new, so you can't use that argument either.) Technically, every single human is of the same "blood" because we all come from the same initial group of homo sapiens. And if you really want to be disagreeable, then species distinctions are purely a human construct and have no bearing on reality. Therefore, we could say we're all the same "blood" because we trace back to the first single-celled organisms. really? tell me which book has a Ygritte point of view and i will admit you are correct... Incorrect. The null hypothesis is that Ygritte was not pregnant. You have made the claim that Ygritte was pregnant. The burden of proof lies on you, not us. my premise isn't flimsy Yes it is. i don't require the same amount of evidence as " you " might need to confirm certain aspects of the story.. Apparently you need none, because that's what you've presented. Evidence comes in a variety of forms, from the strong to the weak, and any time you must rely on simple word connections, I highly doubt anything of significance is present. Did you know that Val has two different eye colors based on which chapter you're reading? Turns out, GRRM just couldn't remember nor be bothered to look it up. So he guessed and was sort of correct. This kind of inattention to detail is what drives fan theories wild, because they think GRRM puts his heart and soul into every single word that he chooses. This simply isn't the case. Scenes are carefully constructed, but there are only so many ways to describe someone or something before you're repeating material. Go check out the "KotLT" theory currently circulating on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/1yzhgz/spoilers_all_songs_lies_and_stupidity_epic/). One of his central points is based on Arya using the phrase "stupid princess." It is significantly more likely that GRRM is characterizing Arya by having her repeat the phrase every time it comes up than it is that GRRM is trying to hide some crazy theory. I place almost all incidental word-connections like this in the "non-existent" stack as far as evidence is concerned, and rightly so. Unfortunately, a majority of your "evidence" is non-existent. I have stated numerous times, as have others, exactly what you need to show in order for your hypothesis to be given more consideration. Your mockery and callous remarks and inability to present more substantial evidence is petty and underlines how flimsy your hypothesis is. It reads as a "pet theory" that you want desperately to be true so that you can claim to have added something to the ongoing discussions of these five books that have had every single page dissected. Surely there's something that someone has missed! but it isn't that Ygritte was pregnant; it isn't that Jon killed Ygritte; it isn't that the COTF have a connection to the direwolves (it is known). We have taken the time and effort to parse out your poorly written diatribes and to give you constructive criticism. We have offered you meaningful ways to make your thoughts stand out as original or vaguely convincing. You have thrown these suggestions in our face. actually what " they " have been pointing out, is what " they " perceive to be a flaw in my theory... I on the other hand disagree with their assumptions... I think this thread is called Jon killed Ygritte, not Jon fucked Ygritte. not my only point if you know how to read/comprehend the OP... kinslaying & kingslaying with a little bit of epic tragedy thrown in ties together the 3 main pov's We have no assumptions. We begin with the null hypothesis on everything: if it isn't explicitly said in the text by a reliable narrator, it is false (this includes R+L=J). However, with enough convincing (read: strong) evidence, we can believe there is something more going on (this includes R+L=J). You have made the assumptions. You have made several claims:1) Jon killed Ygritte;2) Ygritte was pregnant; and3) Jon is now a kinslayer. You have failed to demonstrate that 2 or 3 is true, and your best evidence for 1 is a single argument: That since Jon had an empty quiver at least twice, he was using more than his own arrows. This is the only point you've made that actually makes sense. If you would take our advice and demonstrate that 2 or 3 is true, then we would be more inclined to take you seriously. Hell, you could just show that 3 is true and get 1 and 2 for free. But you continue to decline to present a cohesive, well-written, well-thought-out argument, and so we cannot help you. I expect you will mock this post and make quips to ignore me. I will be pleasantly surprised if you instead come back with quotes from the text, discussion of their significance, and a well-written piece tying it all together. But my hopes are not that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 " I might get her with child. Aye, I'd hope so. A strong son or a lively laughing girl kissed by fire, and where's the harm in that? words failed him for a moment. The boy the child would be a bastard. Are bastards weaker than other children? More sickly, more like to fail? No but... You're bastard born yourself. And if Ygritte does not want a child, she will go to some woods witch and drink a cup o' moon tea. You do not come into it, once the seed is planted." SOS Jon well here is the needed post for some to understand the story. I can't believe I had to go and find this one but the constant scream for proof required me to do so... any of you who have previously posted I now require that you show a quote that she did indeed go to a woods witch and get moon tea if you want to continue posting on this thread... the absence of proof is not proof yet I have plenty depending on your ability to understand the text and its implications... the importance of this quote is that the two hearts have yet to " actually " beat as one and Jon Snow is unsure if he should break his vows for this woman. After he meets the Mance, he then fucks her for the first time and gives her his seed despite the warning from Longspear Ryk that he wouldn't be in control of her womb once he has done so. Thus the importance of this conversation will have future implications if put into the proper context... which i did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Folks, there is no use arguing with this guy. He recently brought the same concept into Heresy and instantly ran headfirst into a brick wall for all the same reasons, using the same logic, that he did here. His current position in Heresy is that Nagga was a godlike CotF whom the ironborn killed in order to acquire limitless power and iron... and that Nagga had a weirwood grove on Old Wyk for which all the trees were stripped of branches and somehow arched uniformly, thus forming an apparent ribcage ("Nagga's bones"). None of us can understand that one either, no doubt due to our failure to understand the text and its implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 " I might get her with child. Aye, I'd hope so. A strong son or a lively laughing girl kissed by fire, and where's the harm in that? words failed him for a moment. The boy the child would be a bastard. Are bastards weaker than other children? More sickly, more like to fail? No but... You're bastard born yourself. And if Ygritte does not want a child, she will go to some woods witch and drink a cup o' moon tea. You do not come into it, once the seed is planted." SOS Jon well here is the needed post for some to understand the story. I can't believe I had to go and find this one but the constant scream for proof required me to do so... any of you who have previously posted I now require that you show a quote that she did indeed go to a woods witch and get moon tea if you want to continue posting on this thread... the absence of proof is not proof yet I have plenty depending on your ability to understand the text and its implications... the importance of this quote is that the two hearts have yet to " actually " beat as one and Jon Snow is unsure if he should break his vows for this woman. After he meets the Mance, he then fucks her for the first time and gives her his seed despite the warning from Longspear Ryk that he wouldn't be in control of her womb once he has done so. Thus the importance of this conversation will have future implications if put into the proper context... which i did. So, then you must be insisting that Catelyn was pregnant with Ned Jr, unbeknownst to all. She desperately wanted Ned's seed to quicken, very early on in GoT. Not every exchange of bodily fluids results ina pregnancy, even though the possible pregnancy may be discussed or mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 So, then you must be insisting that Catelyn was pregnant with Ned Jr, unbeknownst to all. She desperately wanted Ned's seed to quicken, very early on in GoT. Not every exchange of bodily fluids results ina pregnancy, even though the possible pregnancy may be discussed or mentioned. hold up a minute here... posters were asking for " proof " that she was pregnant. does my previous post mean nothing now? i have shown that prior to them having sex for the first time, their was a discussion of her becoming pregnant. This quote kind of makes my case... you now want me to discuss/connect/compare the fertility of an old women and a young wildling women kissed by fire? nope not gonna do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Folks, there is no use arguing with this guy. He recently brought the same concept into Heresy and instantly ran headfirst into a brick wall for all the same reasons, using the same logic, that he did here. His current position in Heresy is that Nagga was a godlike CotF whom the ironborn killed in order to acquire limitless power and iron... and that Nagga had a weirwood grove on Old Wyk for which all the trees were stripped of branches and somehow arched uniformly, thus forming an apparent ribcage ("Nagga's bones"). None of us can understand that one either, no doubt due to our failure to understand the text and its implications. despite what you come to these threads to do, I actually am not fond of arguing. But I do like helping people understand the text as I see it... actually i smashed that brick wall and caused you to go crying with your tail between your legs... and lets not forget your master Crow did agree with me. go ahead look up the post history he backs me up... once again if you want to discuss this with me I have no problem whatsoever trying to help you understand something that I believe is important to the text... and where are you getting limitless power from? killing the cotf is the exact opposite of gaining power. they gained control over the Iron Isles resources and the weather which helped their seafaring adventures (fire and blood and song)... once again wood can be carved so if they want their " hall " to look like a ribcage. also the height of ribs doesn't matter. we have a weirwood that takes up an entire village so they can grow to whatever size they want... anywhere from 8,000 to 5,000 years ago this took place. do you know what wind and seawater can do if given that length of time? a little hint is that they can change the appearance of things, like a certain grove of 44 on the crown of the hill at Old Wyk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Er, no I don't agree with you on this, or on the business of Nagga. On this I flatly disagree. On Nagga, bearing in mind that this is a work of fiction I do believe that notwithstanding the perceived problems GRRM is pointing to a dead weirwood grove and basing the seastone chair on the central deature of Sea Henge. That's as far as it goes. I certainly do not subscribe in any shape or form to your theory that Nagga was one of the Children of the Forest or that the Ironborn were the progenitors of the Andals or any of your other theories relating thereto. You are perfectly at liberty to hold and defend those theories, but not by invoking my name or support. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 OP have you considered the conversation above showed progression of thought by Jon.One thing that had bothered him was his status as a bastard.That him being comfortable spilling his seed in her is an emotional leap for Jon in that he no longer cared.The whole struggle with your inner self GRRM is speaking off.Honestly, we can use the suggestion of moontea, its the exact same logic you are following by insisting dhe was pregnant.This same type of logic formed the whole Jeyne Westerling pregnancy which was nought.Plus you have to proove Jon is cursed as a Kinslayer.How do you weigh that. Hey if so every woman who has ever drunk moontea is a Kinslayer if we use your logic. You have still yet to proove Jon with his own arrow did the deed.This not even circumstantial, it is fanfic.Plus BC has his own path to Nagga's bones , not all that stuff you were saying.Don't be upset but seriously this is nit evidenced based, it is an interpretation among many.Something has to be there.If Ygritte was dhowing signs of sickness that Jon could speak of, or anything I'd give you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amoracchius Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 despite what you come to these threads to do, I actually am not fond of arguing. But I do like helping people understand the text as I see it... With all due respect, they manner in which you have been trying to "help people understand the text" lately has been rude and hostile. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but that is how it has come across to me and a number of other people on these forums. Please try to tone it down a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Er, no I don't agree with you on this, or on the business of Nagga. On this I flatly disagree. On Nagga, bearing in mind that this is a work of fiction I do believe that notwithstanding the perceived problems GRRM is pointing to a dead weirwood grove and basing the seastone chair on the central deature of Sea Henge. That's as far as it goes. I certainly do not subscribe in any shape or form to your theory that Nagga was one of the Children of the Forest or that the Ironborn were the progenitors of the Andals or any of your other theories relating thereto. You are perfectly at liberty to hold and defend those theories, but not by invoking my name or support. Thank you. Thank you for following my thread! You were the direct reason I created this thing, so it pleases me that you show interest in some of my ideas... :cheers: ( not sure how I come across but I do respect your knowledge and your creating of the Hersey Thread... I read your ideas first like 3 years ago and that is what caused me to want to become an " expert " on the text... I agree, that sentence means exactly what it says; that there are 44 stone ribs rising up like tree trunks. The question that may arise from that though is whether they are indeed dragon (or whale thingey) bones or are man made - as in the ribs of a boat - or a hall built in the form of an upturned boat After swithering back and forth I think that this was a weirwood grove, but a spectacularly desecrated one; the trees forming the circle stripped of their branches and the heart-tree uprooted and rammed back in upside down in an act of almost sexual defilement. No wonder the three-fingered lot called down the hammer of the waters on it and those who carried out this defilement. As to the legend I really don't see a Child of the Forest having any direct connection with it, but rather it being the work of men drowned by the hammer. Apart from anything else we've seen no evidence of individual leaders, priests or greenseers amongst the Singers, they seem a pretty collegiate bunch. it seems you change you mind quite frequently so given time I hope I can convince you about some of my more " heretical " notions... Thanks TRJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theREALjonsnow Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 With all due respect, they manner in which you have been trying to "help people understand the text" lately has been rude and hostile. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but that is how it has come across to me and a number of other people on these forums. Please try to tone it down a bit. I sincerely apologize to anybody I have offended. :dunce: I do understand that I must try a less hostile approach when I discuss things if I want others to understand what I am trying to explain and not get upset... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.