"The Sacrifice" Asha

[thehandwipes]

What does it define as aid? Also, it was words given in private that ended in Stannis dealing with Ironmen. Stannis came to the Wall, and Jon can't turn him away even if he wanted to.

Interpreting the letter of the law, then as now, was the purview of the courts.

Straw man. I've said several times now that Jon is under no obligation to turn Stannis away, saying instead that he is within his rights to grant him castles along the Wall for him to defend. And yet you continue to make the same irrelevant straw man argument.

If Cregan claimed guest right that would have created a lot of problems. Yet, Sigorn isn't loyal to Stannis and never fought for him.

Rather, it could be argued that the Karstarks had no business bringing Jon into the mix. It is all about making sure you don't make the first strike which is the reason for the Lincoln comparison, putting your enemies in a position where they would be the ones breaking the peace.

Atwell said regarding the situation: "I think Jon was in the right there. Alys had guest right, Cregan bore arms against him."

Like what exactly? Deciding what to serve him for dinner? Guest rites are an obligation to both the guest and the host. "Sigorn isn't loyal to Stannis." More nonsense pulled entirely out of your ass without a shred of evidence supporting it. Also its irrelevant. Your question was how did Jon repeatedly provoke the Boltons? By throwing a northern lord, and a Bolton ally, in an ice cell and marrying his betrothed to a wildling chieftain, a man sworn to a rebel king.

It can and has been argued that the world is flat and evolution is a hoax perpetrated by scientists burying dinosaur bones deep into the earth. Cregan Karstark wasn't looking for Jon's council, he was trying to retrieve his betrothed. Jon involved himself by riding south to meet them before they could claim guest rites.

Are the Karstarks enemies of the Night's Watch? Well I guess they are now.

I'd be interested to hear from your friend himself, also in knowing how you phrased the question to him. Your friend makes two very irrelevant points in one short sentence. Nobody is arguing Jon isn't within his rights to extent Alys guest rites. As I've pointed out to you several times, Cregan wasn't seized for firing on Jon, Jon rode south to reach him before he could claim guest rites, so he could seize. Whether he sought out a Lincoln-esque justification or not, Cregan is a Bolton man and the Karhold is a northern seat. This action could not help but provoke the Boltons, because they are the Wardens of the North.

You're basically stating your personal opinion as fact in a disrespectful manner.Then why should I respect your opinion if you won't respect mine? It's a two-way street.

It does constitute an action against the Boltons. It could be treason, but then again, "Arya" was forced against her will into the marriage, and she was kidnapped by the Lannisters in the first place.

Never said you just hear what he says and shut up.

Kidnapping is a crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. "Arya Stark" is an essential part of the Bolton claim to be the legitimate successors to the Starks. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Kidnapping another man's wife, one who is an essential part of their claim to rule is likely to provoke them. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Jon Snow tried to kidnap "Arya Stark." That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It could be treason, but it wouldn't provoke them?

Never said you said that.

Where have I argued differently?

Oathbreaking is defined as breaking the oath of the NW: wearing a crown, abandoning the NW or taking a wife. Although with the vows of chastity, Mormont allows some leeway at Mole's Town with a few sons fathered by NW men on a few whores, no doubt. Jon feels he broke his vows with Ygritte. Jon found himself backed into a corner with the Pink Letter.

The struggle is to remain true to one's vows while maintaining a certain level of pragmatism that deals with the harsh realities in a bad political climate. Basically, finding the balance between the Tywin and the Ned's approaches.

Pragmatism? So Jon supports the claim of a rebel king with almost no remaining support in the Seven Kingdoms in a campaign against the Boltons, because, you know, pragmatism. Then he makes an enemy of the Karstarks, further provoking the Boltons, by involving himself in a matter that is none of his concern, because, you know, pragmatism. Finally, he tries to kidnap the Warden of the North's daughter-in-law, because, you know, pragmatism.

All this time I thought that Jon was a hero, following in the footsteps of his "father" and brother. It seemed as though Jon always wanted to do what was right and help those that couldn't help themselves. Like Sam, Craster's wives, the old man he was ordered to kill. Admirable, but lacking the pragmatism needed to truly be a great leader.

But perhaps you're right, Jon isn't a hero, he's an idiot. I'm surprised GRRM didn't foreshadow Jon's tenure as LC by having him get kicked by his horse while pragmatically pulling on its tail, or falling off the Wall while pragmatically dancing too close to its edge.

[Fire Eater]

Interpreting the letter of the law, then as now, was the purview of the courts.

Straw man. I've said several times now that Jon is under no obligation to turn Stannis away, saying instead that he is within his rights to grant him castles along the Wall for him to defend. And yet you continue to make the same irrelevant straw man argument.

GRRM did say the time period was ruled mor eby men than laws

I was saying that giving Stannis food and shelter could be defined as aid, and Stannis demanded Jon come and give his advice.

Like what exactly? Deciding what to serve him for dinner? Guest rites are an obligation to both the guest and the host. "Sigorn isn't loyal to Stannis." More nonsense pulled entirely out of your ass without a shred of evidence supporting it. Also its irrelevant. Your question was how did Jon repeatedly provoke the Boltons? By throwing a northern lord, and a Bolton ally, in an ice cell and marrying his betrothed to a wildling chieftain, a man sworn to a rebel king.

It can and has been argued that the world is flat and evolution is a hoax perpetrated by scientists burying dinosaur bones deep into the earth. Cregan Karstark wasn't looking for Jon's council, he was trying to retrieve his betrothed. Jon involved himself by riding south to meet them before they could claim guest rites.

Are the Karstarks enemies of the Night's Watch? Well I guess they are now.

I'd be interested to hear from your friend himself, also in knowing how you phrased the question to him. Your friend makes two very irrelevant points in one short sentence. Nobody is arguing Jon isn't within his rights to extent Alys guest rites. As I've pointed out to you several times, Cregan wasn't seized for firing on Jon, Jon rode south to reach him before he could claim guest rites, so he could seize. Whether he sought out a Lincoln-esque justification or not, Cregan is a Bolton man and the Karhold is a northern seat. This action could not help but provoke the Boltons, because they are the Wardens of the North.

No, obviously Cregan would try to seize Alys, and guest right prevents the hosts from harming him, and that would be problematic when trying to stop him from taking Alys. Cregan also bore arms against Jon, and nothing prevented Cregan from trying to talk to Jon under a peace banner. Calling something "nonsense entirely pulled out your ass" is very rude and fresh. If you don't want to have a mature, respectful conversation, please argue somewhere else.In the mean time, please show some self-restraint and maturity. Otherwise, I have seen mods to come for using that exact same phrase, and I don't think you want that kind of trouble. Do you think Sigorn is truly loyal to Stannis with his oath when he forced him to burn a piece of weirwood, and was left with no other choice but death? By that token, all the wildlings who bent the knee are loyal to Stannis. You have nothing to support that Sigorn supports Stannis. He isn't even mentioned as offering to fight alongside him.

Alys and Harry aren't, and Cregan had a crossbow fired at Jon's party. Here's the link to what I asked.

The Boltonms would be pissed, but I do wonder about Jon's snubbed invitation to the wedding.

Kidnapping is a crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. "Arya Stark" is an essential part of the Bolton claim to be the legitimate successors to the Starks. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Kidnapping another man's wife, one who is an essential part of their claim to rule is likely to provoke them. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Jon Snow tried to kidnap "Arya Stark." That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It could be treason, but it wouldn't provoke them?

Never said you said that.

Where did I argue that kidnapping isn't legal? It wasn't technically kidnapping since the victim comes along willingly. The Boltons would call it "kidnapping" since they wouldn't want their bannermen to know that Ned's girl ran from them, or they would be more inclined to help her.

The Boltons would want her back, clearly, however.

Pragmatism? So Jon supports the claim of a rebel king with almost no remaining support in the Seven Kingdoms in a campaign against the Boltons, because, you know, pragmatism. Then he makes an enemy of the Karstarks, further provoking the Boltons, by involving himself in a matter that is none of his concern, because, you know, pragmatism. Finally, he tries to kidnap the Warden of the North's daughter-in-law, because, you know, pragmatism.

All this time I thought that Jon was a hero, following in the footsteps of his "father" and brother. It seemed as though Jon always wanted to do what was right and help those that couldn't help themselves. Like Sam, Craster's wives, the old man he was ordered to kill. Admirable, but lacking the pragmatism needed to truly be a great leader.

But perhaps you're right, Jon isn't a hero, he's an idiot. I'm surprised GRRM didn't foreshadow Jon's tenure as LC by having him get kicked by his horse while pragmatically pulling on its tail, or falling off the Wall while pragmatically dancing too close to its edge.

Okay, no offense, but for some reason, I get the feeling you are not trying to have a conversation, but being vitriolic with this one instead of the intelligent thoughtful discussion regarding ethics, grayness and politics in the last part. Make like an Other and chill out. :smoking:

Stannis is at the Wall, and he helped the NW, Jon didn't send him any men, and the Lannisters were likely going to be pissed at him for guilt by association such as giving him food and shelter, no matter if Stannis came to aid them.

Jon does things with his power Robb and Ned likely would have never done. He shows a deeper level of pragmatism. Unlike Robb he chooses duty over the girl, and unlike Ned, he is more active with his authority, doing what he can to learn about the politics and players in the environment.

Jon isn't an idiot, smarter men then Jon have made dumber decisions.

[mormont]

[mod] Let's not get personal, people. Discuss things politely. [/mod]