assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Put it into context. He is talking about his claim to the Iron throne. His undeinable targaryen blood is a plus, even though he is so lowborn. i understand it that way. We don´t know. we have no previous studies on the characters from the story. Hugh hammer must have 6 or 7 references in the whole story.You can´t expect me to bring forth his family tree. Non of the dragonseeds parents are discussed. Neither is Addam´s in TpatQ. in the World book he is.. You still have not answered my question, other than to say you don't know. Which is kind of the entire freaking point. Without knowing what this conclusion is based on or how it was reached, who's to say that Hugh is actually a Targaryen? And if it all boils down to, "He's undeniably a Targaryen because he tamed a dragon" (and bottom dollar this is the reason), then it goes right back to the circular logic. You're not exactly demolishing my point here, you realize. "He's undeniably a Targaryen because someone says he was" is not an answer, especially if it's based on a fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 This same Maester left Aegon the second's fate in doubt for almost half the story trying to up the tension and sacrifices objectivity for the benifet of being a storyteller. As to GRRM's intentions, since when has he not left things in doubt on a constant basis? My point exactly.. GRRM cuts the story and doesn´t talk about things he doesn´t want us to know. But he doesn´t lie us about Aegons fate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 You still have not answered my question, other than to say you don't know. Which is kind of the entire freaking point. Without knowing what this conclusion is based on or how it was reached, who's to say that Hugh is actually a Targaryen? And if it all boils down to, "He's undeniably a Targaryen because he tamed a dragon" (and bottom dollar this is the reason), then it goes right back to the circular logic. You're not exactly demolishing my point here, you realize. "He's undeniably a Targaryen because someone says he was" is not an answer. all the information we have in asoiaf comes from some unreliable narrator (save SSM).. You can challenge every single piece of it. These Maesters write and study preparing for some peer review.. If he says that X is undeniable Y.. its because he understand there is no controversy.. Otherwise he would say something similar to all those controversies between Mushroom and the septon (can´t remember who) that disagree about everything in Rogue Prince.. If he believes that Hugh is undeniably dragonseed, we must understand that there is some sort of consensus among his colleagues on these issue. Of course if you are into the Great Citadel Conspiracy, you could present the case of some sort or secret society that wants future generations to believe Hugh was a dragonseed when he actually wasn´t.. It would be hard to pull, since they would have to coordinate with a lot of historians.. but fine.. Then you should explain why the same level of certainty isn´t present with the rest of the dragonseeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 all the information we have in asoiaf comes from some unreliable narrator (save SSM).. You can challenge every single piece of it. These Maesters write and study preparing for some peer review.. If he says that X is undeniable Y.. its because he understand there is no controversy.. Otherwise he would say something similar to all those controversies between Mushroom and the septon (can´t remember who) that disagree about everything in Rogue Prince.. My point is that it's possible that the metric they're using to claim that Hugh was definitely a Targaryen is based on a circular-logic fallacy, in which case, it's not actually a reliable metric. Which is why I kept asking you how it was they came to that conclusion, and you eventually admitted that you didn't know. That's the entire damn idea. If it all comes down to, "Hugh was undeniably a Targaryen because he rode a dragon," and the answer to, "How can Hugh ride a dragon?" is "Because he's a Targaryen," then it's circular logic, not actual evidence. Which, again, is why I pressed you for any other indication in the novella that he's a Targ, besides the dragonriding. And near as I can tell, there is none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 My point is that it's possible that the metric they're using to claim that Hugh was definitely a Targaryen is based on a circular-logic fallacy, in which case, it's not actually a reliable metric. Which is why I kept asking you how it was they came to that conclusion, and you eventually admitted that you didn't know. That's the entire damn idea. And for all you know its not circular in any way. That is just the way you explain it, but for all you know there is some real certainty behind it. like i say, in GRRM world, historians do debate about these issues. Among these dragonriders were Addam of Hull- a brave and noble youth who was brought by his mother, Marilda of Hull, to try for a dragon along with his brother Alyn. She revelead that the boys were the sons of Laenor Velaryon - a fact that many found remarkable, but which Lord Corlys did not question when he adopted them both into House Velaryon.Mushroom puts forward a more plausible possibility on Addam and Alyn´s parentage: that it was Lord Corlys himself who fathered both boys, back when he spent many of his days at the shipyards of Hull where Marilda´s father was a shipwright. The boys had gone unacknowledged, kept far from court, while the fiery-tempered Queen Who Never Was lived. But after her death, Lord Corlys took the opportunity to acknowledgethem..after a fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 And for all you know its not circular in any way. That is just the way you explain it, but for all you know there is some real certainty behind it. Which, yet again, is why I'm asking for some indication besides the dragon that this guy is a Targaryen. And you haven't given me any indication because there isn't one. Which, yet again, is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 If it all comes down to, "Hugh was undeniably a Targaryen because he rode a dragon," and the answer to, "How can Hugh ride a dragon?" is "Because he's a Targaryen," then it's circular logic, not actual evidence. Which, again, is why I pressed you for any other indication in the novella that he's a Targ, besides the dragonriding. And near as I can tell, there is none. He never says, "Hugh was undeniably a Targaryen because he rode a dragon".. that is something you say... The Maester just brings background information (his undeniably dragon blood) to counter his low birth with regards to his claim.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 He never says, "Hugh was undeniably a Targaryen because he rode a dragon".. that is something you say... The Maester just brings background information (his undeniably dragon blood) to counter his low birth with regards to his claim.. Lacking any other indication that Hugh is a Targaryen besides the dragon, what conclusion am I supposed to reach? I have asked you repeatedly to explain how the maester would have arrived at the conclusion that Hugh is a Targaryen, and you keep evading it or saying you don't know. So if you take issue with my conclusion that he's "undeniably" a Targaryen simply because he has a dragon, then give me something else to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 all the information we have in asoiaf comes from some unreliable narrator (save SSM).. You can challenge every single piece of it. These Maesters write and study preparing for some peer review.. If he says that X is undeniable Y.. its because he understand there is no controversy.. Otherwise he would say something similar to all those controversies between Mushroom and the septon (can´t remember who) that disagree about everything in Rogue Prince.. If he believes that Hugh is undeniably dragonseed, we must understand that there is some sort of consensus among his colleagues on these issue. Of course if you are into the Great Citadel Conspiracy, you could present the case of some sort or secret society that wants future generations to believe Hugh was a dragonseed when he actually wasn´t.. It would be hard to pull, since they would have to coordinate with a lot of historians.. but fine.. Then you should explain why the same level of certainty isn´t present with the rest of the dragonseeds. We must? How so? If there is lack of information to build on, how do we know that it is not just the maester's personal bias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Lacking any other indication that Hugh is a Targaryen besides the dragon, what conclusion am I supposed to reach? We have like 2 lines of information of him.. one of which says he is undeniably a dragonseed.. How can you expect anything more? I have asked you repeatedly to explain how the maester would have arrived at the conclusion that Hugh is a Targaryen, and you keep evading it or saying you don't know. YOU are the one challenging the information we have.. you should be bringing forth any indication that the maester is wrong about this.. not me on the inverse.. That is like saying "i dont like these piece of information, so i call BS... bring me Hugh´s family tree, otherwise i´m right".. So if you take issue with my conclusion that he's "undeniably" a Targaryen simply because he has a dragon, then give me something else to work with. No, i believe he is undeniably targaryen, because historians in Westeros studied his background and reached that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 We must? How so? If there is lack of information to build on, how do we know that it is not just the maester's personal bias? Is there lack of information? in TpatQ sure.. but in-universe, not really.. at least not that we know of.. in other cases we are explcitly told about controversies or lack of information.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 He never says, "Hugh was undeniably a Targaryen because he rode a dragon".. that is something you say... The Maester just brings background information (his undeniably dragon blood) to counter his low birth with regards to his claim.. I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about Apple's question. From reading the exchange, it appears as if you took the maester's passage about Hugh as gospel truth and were completely blindsided by the possibility that it's BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 We have like 2 lines of information of him.. one of which says he is undeniably a dragonseed.. How can you expect anything more? YOU are the one challenging the information we have.. you should be bringing forth any indication that the maester is wrong about this.. not me on the inverse.. That is like saying "i dont like these piece of information, so i call BS... bring me Hugh´s family tree, otherwise i´m right".. No, i believe he is undeniably targaryen, because historians in Westeros studied his background and reached that conclusion. What indication is there, other than Hugh riding a dragon, that he is "undeniably" a Targaryen? WHY do the maesters say he's undeniably Targaryen? You can't answer those questions, which is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me support it. Your services are no longer needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Is there lack of information? in TpatQ sure.. but in-universe, not really.. at least not that we know of.. in other cases we are explcitly told about controversies or lack of information.. Now, which in-universe example are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about Apple's question. From reading the exchange, it appears as if you took the maester's passage about Hugh as gospel truth and were completely blindsided by the possibility that it's BS. Because he seems certain. And he has no reason to lie to future generations about Hugh specifically.. Even if you believe he is trying to perpetuate the idea of some dragonblood requirement to ride dragons... you must acknowledge he should do the same with all other dragonseeds..and he doesn´t. and BTW, why would he? Dragons are extinct at that time.. Then again.. i´m fine with challenging information we are given,. Everything comes from unreliable people.. just give me a reason why i should. Otherwise i´m just going to believe what we are told as undeniable.. because if don´t, then I should challenge every single piece of information in the stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minstral Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 My point exactly.. GRRM cuts the story and doesn´t talk about things he doesn´t want us to know. But he doesn´t lie us about Aegons fate... Dude that is bollocks. It underscores the fact that he wishes to tell a story and make Aegon into something of a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 What indication is there, other than Hugh riding a dragon, that he is "undeniably" a Targaryen? WHY do the maesters say he's undeniably Targaryen? You can't answer those questions, which is exactly my point. Why he says that.. i already answered.. because he is countering he lack of noble birth for his ambitions. it´s like.. "ok everyone was outraged by his ambition.. but hey.. he did have undeniably some dragonblood, besides he was a good fighter" that is why he brings the comment.. nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for helping me support it. Your services are no longer needed. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Because he seems certain. And he has no reason to lie to future generations about Hugh specifically.. Actually, he has very good reasons to lie about them all: If word got out that a blacksmith's bastard, a soldier and Nettles were able to ride dragons despite having no confirmed Targaryen lineage, people can start getting ideas. Maybe the Targs aren't the god-like figures they've been leading people to believe they are, etc. He can't lie and make up Targaryen appearances for them, because that can be easily disputed by people who were there. But he can be evasive about their backgrounds and lay it on a little too thick (see: Hugh being "undeniably" Targaryen because the maester says so that's why). It's also possible that the maesters genuinely believed the seeds were Targs and, as far as they know, aren't lying, but are still relying on circular logic ("They're Targs because they ride dragons and they ride dragons because they're Targs"). Either scenario is plausible, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 it´s like.. "ok everyone was outraged by his ambition.. but hey.. he did have undeniably some dragonblood, besides he was a good fighter" that is why he brings the comment.. nothing more, nothing less. ... For pete's sake. WHY DID HE UNDENIABLY HAVE DRAGON BLOOD?! And if your answer is, "Because the maester thought he did," why did the maester think he did? EDIT: I have to side with J. Starg here. I'm baffled as to what is so confusing about this. You cannot say, in effect, "He undeniably had dragon blood because he undeniably had dragon blood" and expect me not to call bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Now, which in-universe example are you talking about? Addam hull for instance. the maester says his origins are controversial and we have evidence of certain "academic" debate on the issue. on this issue it appears that the maester is certain his peers would agree, that is why i guess he says undeniably... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.