Lord Joker Of FunLand Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 LOL, you can say 'it blows my mind' twice or three times or as many times as you want to try to cloud the issue and make yourself seem right, however, your premise is still flawed. By your logic all opinions are just 'modern day standards' and there's no point in discussing anything. Nice tactic to make yourself always seem right I suppose. You said 'fuck' twice which I guess is another device to make yourself appear correct and others wrong. It 'blows' my mind when people use these silly tactics...blows my mind. ;). Anyway, we live in modern day times so any opinion we apply to the series in any way is applying our current opinions to a fantasy series. You don't like that? Don't participate. Simple as that. The problem is, even in their world, laws change over time...we see that when a new king or new lords take over a new territory. And even among the Night's Watch, laws become more or less lenient depending on who is in charge, and are not always followed [hence why so many of them go to mole town]. So arguing against the maxim you gave that 'a law is a law' actually isn't just applying our modern morals to their world. Its applying their OWN morals to their world. So you're wrong anyway. No, it's just not logical to use modern day morals, and apply them to a world where beheading was a normal penalty for some crimes. If the penalty is death, and you do the crime...guess what, you deserve to die. You know the penalty, yet you do the crime. The question isn't "Is the penalty morallyjustified?"...it's "Did he deserve to die?"...in that world, with those laws, yes he did. It's a book series, we cannot change the laws and what they mean, no use at all debating that. He put those laws in this world for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. frontalis chiripepe Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 No, it's just not logical to use modern day morals, and apply them to a world where beheading was a normal penalty for some crimes. If the penalty is death, and you do the crime...guess what, you deserve to die. You know the penalty, yet you do the crime. The question isn't "Is the penalty morallyjustified?"...it's "Did he deserve to die?"...in that world, with those laws, yes he did. lol, you just made the statement that applying modern morals is illogical, and then one sentence later you do exactly that: apply our modern morals to their situation. And yes, the question is actually 'did he deserve to die' which is what makes it more interesting. You seem to be having a hard time separating 'laws' from what someone 'deserves'. They are often two extremely different things, even in their times, since we see the laws changing and sometimes the laws not be followed at all [such as the Mole Town visits]. So, actually, applying their OWN behavior to this situation, knowing that some of the people forced into joining the black performed little crime, or no crime at all, they may not 'deserve' death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Joker Of FunLand Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 lol, you just made the statement that applying modern morals is illogical, and then one sentence later you do exactly that: apply our modern morals to their situation. And yes, the question is actually 'did he deserve to die' which is what makes it more interesting. You seem to be having a hard time separating 'laws' from what someone 'deserves'. They are often two extremely different things, even in their times, since we see the laws changing and sometimes the laws not be followed at all [such as the Mole Town visits]. So, actually, applying their OWN behavior to this situation, knowing that some of the people forced into joining the black performed little crime, or no crime at all, they may not 'deserve' death. But the law hasn't changed. He was at the wall, decided to desert it for whores and gold, and got caught by someone who knows the laws of the Nights Watch and died for it. If you don't agree? Welll...that's what these forums are for. But to me, if you do the crime, you do the time...(Or well, lose all your time in this situation lol) How he died, is a different case. I've agreed Arya had no right, but he deserved it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. frontalis chiripepe Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 But the law hasn't changed. He was at the wall, decided to desert it for whores and gold, and got caught by someone who knows the laws of the Nights Watch and died for it. If you don't agree? Welll...that's what these forums are for. But to me, if you do the crime, you do the time...(Or well, lose all your time in this situation lol) How he died, is a different case. I've agreed Arya had no right, but he deserved it IMO. Ah, 'but to me, if you do the crime, you do the time'....see, you're applying more of your current modern moral standards to a fantasy series. See, you can't pretend everyone else is doing it, and not you. [sorry, I couldn't resist]. And still the point is not that clear cut, because 'doing the crime and doing the time' is a different animal when you consider that many of the brothers on the wall were either forced or coerced into accepting those terms. When you're forced into a situation of accepting extreme conditions, then the situation isn't as clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Joker Of FunLand Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Ah, 'but to me, if you do the crime, you do the time'....see, you're applying more of your current modern moral standards to a fantasy series. See, you can't pretend everyone else is doing it, and not you. [sorry, I couldn't resist]. And still the point is not that clear cut, because 'doing the crime and doing the time' is a different animal when you consider that many of the brothers on the wall were either forced or coerced into accepting those terms. When you're forced into a situation of accepting extreme conditions, then the situation isn't as clear.The whole point of a law...you do the crime, you pay for it. How is that modern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. frontalis chiripepe Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 The whole point of a law...you do the crime, you pay for it. How is that modern? lol, you really are trying hard to make your own opinions somehow not modern. ;). Alas, still, the law is often a very separate thing from 'what someone deserves' in any time. Which is the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Joker Of FunLand Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 lol, you really are trying hard to make your own opinions somehow not modern. ;). Alas, still, the law is often a very separate thing from 'what someone deserves' in any time. Which is the whole point. Maybe because the whole point of a law, is to be punished...how you think that's modern is beyond me. Keep trying though.... And yes, which comes down to personal opinion, agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. frontalis chiripepe Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Maybe because the whole point of a law, is to be punished...how you think that's modern is beyond me. Keep trying though.... And yes, which comes down to personal opinion, agree to disagree. you're still dodging the point that 'law' is often separate from 'deserved', which applies to any time. Keep trying though. Yes, agree to disagree. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Ah, 'but to me, if you do the crime, you do the time'....see, you're applying more of your current modern moral standards to a fantasy series. See, you can't pretend everyone else is doing it, and not you. [sorry, I couldn't resist]. And still the point is not that clear cut, because 'doing the crime and doing the time' is a different animal when you consider that many of the brothers on the wall were either forced or coerced into accepting those terms. When you're forced into a situation of accepting extreme conditions, then the situation isn't as clear. But not in Westeros. There is no exemption for 'had a bad life' or 'wasn't guilty' or 'my brother is going to war'. Once you take the vows you are in for life and the penalty is death. The situation may be morally grey, because of the wide variety of circumstances that brought people to the NW, but legally, there is no "out" for anyone once they are sworn brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. frontalis chiripepe Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 But not in Westeros. There is no exemption for 'had a bad life' or 'wasn't guilty' or 'my brother is going to war'. Once you take the vows you are in for life and the penalty is death. The situation may be morally grey, because of the wide variety of circumstances that brought people to the NW, but legally, there is no "out" for anyone once they are sworn brothers. Again, what the 'law' is, is not the same thing as 'what is deserved' as the OP question asks. And since many people on the black were forced into that pact, its a tricky situation to try and say they 'deserve' that extreme punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 That quote only shows what I already said: In order for a person to have judicial authority, he must hold a lordship, as "future-Bran" in Ned's tale does, on behalf of his brother (his direct liege) and his king (his liege's liege). It's not because of Bran's blood justice falls to him, but due to the fact he's holding a keep for his brother and his king. If he had been Bran Snow and held the exact same keep, he'd still get to deal out justice. I know that. I'm saying, that is Arya's mindset. She thinks herself to be the last Stark, and in her mind the duties of Lord/Lady Stark are hers. Is that not right legally or morally? Maybe. But Arya and Bran, while not being clueless to politics, are still children with minimal grasp of the Gentry. Dare I say they are entitled? They know they have "noble" blood, even if Arya has been acting as a commoner for the past two years to keep herself alive. Simply, in Arya's mind, [thats the important part, her own view] it was not only her right but her duty as the last Stark of Winterfell to execute a deserter. It has little to do with these over analyzed legal lines that are being drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Again, what the 'law' is, is not the same thing as 'what is deserved' as the OP question asks. And since many people on the black were forced into that pact, its a tricky situation to try and say they 'deserve' that extreme punishment. If he had helped Sam I might be willing to give him a pass on deserting, but since he could easily have earned the money that Sam and Maester Aemon needed, but he refused them....I'm inclined to lean toward that he got what he deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Reaver Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Well, to be perfectly honest, Arya's mind seems more than a little messed up, so you might be correct there. That doesn't excuse her for her murder, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. frontalis chiripepe Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 If he had helped Sam I might be willing to give him a pass on deserting, but since he could easily have earned the money that Sam and Maester Aemon needed, but he refused them....I'm inclined to lean toward that he got what he deserved. If Dareon had raped a girl, causing him to be forced into the night's watch, i'd agree with you. But according to his story, it was a consensual sexual act, and the woman [i can't remember her name], only claimed rape when her father found out about it. So, if he was forced into the Night's watch due to a lie, I can't in any way agree that he got what he deserved. I suppose we'll never know the facts of that case for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Did... did you just justify nobles killing innocent men because they are nobles and can do as they like? 1. If it's unjust, it's unlawful. If it's just Rowan calling it rape, it's illegal. Get over it, your daughter fucked the singer, now marry her to one of your knights before her belly swells. This makes little sense. Are you saying the testimony of the rape victim is irrelevant without having other witness testimony to say "I watched him force her"?2. He is not a soldier, he is an innocent man who is happy that he got away from an unjust punishment. Who would'nt be? How is it a point against him? He wanted to desert, he managed it, he is happy that he got it. It means exactly that. He should'nt be ashamed that he deserted, because it was unjust and he should'nt be afraid because it's Essos, and there is no way that anyone will touch him here (other than a psycho murderer).3. No, this is about Jon thinking he can trust Dareon, and Dareon betraying said trust. If you gave it as a reason why Dareon should die, it's about Jon. it's not a legitimate reason why Dareon should die, it's a reason why Jon should feel cheated. It's not a real reason logically, unless you mean that Jon is a tyrant and should kill people he does'nt like. He is a soldier, he took the vow of the night's watch. He could have chosen to accept the punishment for the rape he was convicted of and not joined the watch. His guilt or innocence of the prior crime is of no consequence after he said the words to pledge his life as a black brother. We have two versions, one paints Dareon as an inoncent man who was murdered, and the other as a rapist that was unlawfully killed.Since we cannot say that we know one is certain, we can't say that he deserved it. The only reason to say that he 100% deserved it, is to try and rational Arya's actions out of a fan's need to protect his fav.Again the proclamation of innocence from the rape becomes irrelevant after he takes the vow to become a member of the watch. He chose to go to the watch rather than accept what the punishment for the rape he was convicted of carried. He knew joining the watch was a lifetime commitment and desertion meant death. He was in braavos and felt he would be able to get away with desertion. It didn't work out that way for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 No, it's just not logical to use modern day morals, and apply them to a world where beheading was a normal penalty for some crimes. If the penalty is death, and you do the crime...guess what, you deserve to die. You know the penalty, yet you do the crime. The question isn't "Is the penalty morallyjustified?"...it's "Did he deserve to die?"...in that world, with those laws, yes he did. It's a book series, we cannot change the laws and what they mean, no use at all debating that. He put those laws in this world for a reason. 1. "Deserve" is a moral question, not a legal one. 2. The legal question hinges on jurisdiction, which Arya does not have. 3. You know who else deserted in the books? Jon Snow. I don't see either you or anyone else claiming that Mormont should't have turned a blind eye to something that was a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 How is a vow made under duress in any way binding? The point if a vow is that it is made of the oath takers own free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Joker Of FunLand Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 1. "Deserve" is a moral question, not a legal one. 2. The legal question hinges on jurisdiction, which Arya does not have. 3. You know who else deserted in the books? Jon Snow. I don't see either you or anyone else claiming that Mormont should't have turned a blind eye to something that was a crime. 1. If you break a law, you literally deserve to be punished. 2. I've already said how it happened was wrong, but that he died wasn't. It should have been a NW member. 3. Yes actually, i have said this. He just chose not to punish his favorite, using the "every guy does it for a night" excuse, Dareon was much longer than a night. All my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 If Dareon had raped a girl, causing him to be forced into the night's watch, i'd agree with you. But according to his story, it was a consensual sexual act, and the woman [i can't remember her name], only claimed rape when her father found out about it. So, if he was forced into the Night's watch due to a lie, I can't in any way agree that he got what he deserved. I suppose we'll never know the facts of that case for sure. But how does being innocent of rape absolve him of the wrong he did to Sam and Maester Aemon? He's earning good money singing in Braavos, but he won't use it to help them. This is despicable, especially if he's going to desert, the least he could have done was set them up properly for the rest of the journey. But, instead, he prefers to spend the coin on whores and booze. You could say that doesn't deserve a death sentence, but since he already is under a death sentence for deserting...I can't say I am really bothered by his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 How is a vow made under duress in any way binding? The point if a vow is that it is made of the oath takers own free will. So you would also then hold that Jamie Lannister's oath to Cat Stark was likewise void? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.