R+L=J v. 88

IceFire125 · July 16, 2014

About those 3 kingsguard we were making a playful fun at earlier... here's something to laugh at? :D ^_^

http://i.imgur.com/10nvaTM.jpg

From the 1987 movie 'Three Men and a Baby'

JonCon's Red Beard · July 16, 2014

About those 3 kingsguard we were making a playful fun at earlier... here's something to laugh at? :D ^_^

http://i.imgur.com/10nvaTM.jpg

From the 1987 movie 'Three Men and a Baby'

Also, this: http://media.tumblr.com/275d0f60edc067d6863673d5b67631f5/tumblr_inline_mm4nsoR9MA1qz4rgp.gif

Ygrain · July 16, 2014

Four pages of spoon-feeding information to someone who has been to several incarnations of the pinned thread as well as to other related threads for quite some time, yet still acts as if he's never seen the source material? I say the underbridge dweller is fat enough.

assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar · July 16, 2014

Four pages of spoon-feeding information to someone who has been to several incarnations of the pinned thread as well as to other related threads for quite some time, yet still acts as if he's never seen the source material? I say the underbridge dweller is fat enough.

Makes me almost yearn for the poster that kept insisting that Wylla was Jon's mother and she was the fisherman's daughter. Almost.

Ygrain · July 16, 2014

Makes me almost yearn for the poster that kept insisting that Wylla was Jon's mother and she was the fisherman's daughter. Almost.

Don't whistle for the devil, please.

I've saved those hilarious suggestions about the three KG and a baby. Years ago, I drew some silly stuff for Tolkien fandom, perhaps I can dust the skill (or rather lack of). I don't promise anything, though :P

Ser Creighton · July 16, 2014

Headcon was a lovely idea...

Remember when I asked you if it was reasonable to use your own assumptions as the basis for further assumptions?
--Fan fiction

I also asked if was ok to include your conclusion in your premise...
--Not reasonable

I assumed the answers would be "no."

I don't think you ever answered it though.

Well now that is interesting, but if I may. Assumption is an interesting word, and gets tossed around a lot, though it is the context within which the assumption is given that matters. Is it ok to base an assumption off an assumption? That actually depends on the context and support of the assumption rather than the definition of the word.

Was the assumption based on support, education and knowledge? Was it part of a theory? A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. Given that the books are a work of fiction and given over to being an art form and craft then emperical evidence can also be used in said idea.

Are these assumptions or conditional probabilities? As such not including the prior probability would actually make it a fallacy but doing so would not as the condition is now based off something.

I mean I might conclude from your own arguments that you are making an argument from ignorance. It was you asking for the information right? You did not supply it yourself?

You might say this last post of yours is quoting out of context, perhaps to slant the argument.

Ignoratio elenchi are you familiar with this? As it stands not many people are sure exactly what you are debating or stating?

Moving the goal posts? Yes this I am sure you did this multiple times. No matter what was presented it just was not good enough for you and you kept requiring more evidence.

It's not to say either of you is right or wrong, but rather... Don't act like your **** don't stink, you are not the only one who has studied logic and your argument lacks any real substance and you are making your own assumptions.

corbon · July 16, 2014

So giving up is probably wise.

Too late. With a collection of people studiously feeding his open mouth on demand he has grown fatter and larger and ever more demanding..

FrozenFire3 · July 16, 2014

Too late. With a collection of people studiously feeding his open mouth on demand he has grown fatter and larger and ever more demanding..

Short, sweet and to the point LOL :whip:

Ygrain · July 16, 2014

We have such a nice folk story. about very poor childless parents, who want children so much that they carve themselves a wooden baby boy from a conveniently shaped stump. The baby becomes animated and is very hungry, so the happy parents start bringing him all food they can find. The boy is growing and growing, and still yells for food. When there is nothing left, he eats his parents, and goes around the village, eating anyone he encounters (first he tells them a rhyme about everything he has eaten, ending with "and I'll eat you, too!") - a maid with a wheelbarrow of grass, a shepherd with the whole herd... until he happens on an old granny hoeing cabbages. As he starts eating her cabbages and is about to eat her, too, she punctures his belly with the hoe, he drops dead and all the eaten folks jump out of his belly. He is called "Otesánek" ("cut-out" because the father shaped the stump with his axe).

- Now, why was I telling this?

Rhaenys_Targaryen · July 16, 2014

You are doing well. Here is the actual data. Daenerys was born nine months after her mother fled King's Landing, therefore we know that GRRM is using 9 month gestation.

Daenerys was conceived on the night that Chelsted was roasted, because Jaime tells us about it, and we know that both Aerys and Rhaella avoided each other as much as possible. We know that Jonothor Darry was with Jaime that night,

Ok she was conceived before the news of the battle on the Trident reached KL.

No, seriously. Chelsted was burned while Jon Darry was still in KL. Jon Darry left with Rhaegar for the Trident. So Dany was conceived before the Battle of the Trident even happened.

and that Rossart was Hand for a fortnight before being killed by Jaime.

Was hand from news of defeat at the Trident reached KL until death.... 2 weeks

Making Rossart indeed Hand for 2 weeks. But Rossart is named Hand while Rhaegar is still in King's Landing, as Jon Darry, who would leave together with Rhaegar, is still in KL hours after Chelsteds burning.

horrible math... in the link... Rhaella as pregnant when the news arrived. That means she had 8 months left till birth.

When news of Rhaegar’s death and the defeat of the royalists reached King’s Landing, the newly-pregnant Queen Rhaella and her son Prince Viserys were sent to Dragonstone (I: 25). http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion

(given a 9 month pregnancy) Jon's birth was the earliest 1 month before the news of Rhaegar's death reached King's landing (Dany's birth -8) and the latest when news of Raegar's death reached King's Landing, (Dany's birth-9)

In hindsight, Rhaella must have been pregnant when leaving KL. Explain otherwise how she gave birth to Aerys' daughter. Rhaella, at the time of hier flight, would be so newly pregnant that no one could have picked up on it yet.

got it... no conflating... just researching..

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion

places time of birth in relation to known events...

there is no need to determine time of conception... or time when pregnancy was known... it is just a given date

is it acceptable?

The time of conception is given in the books, no need to determine that. But the time where the pregnancy became known is a time we don't know, because it's never stated anywhere.

Unclear is not unknowable... we are given a ballpark:

This much has been clarified;

Death of Rhaegar- puts Jon born (9 months before Dany).. on the death of Raegar. Jon born (8 months before Dany) is one month after the death of Rhaegar.

Sack of KL--puts Jon born (9 months before Dany) during the sack (two weeks after trident)-- Jon born (8 months before Dany) is 1 month after sack. (6 weeks after Trident)

Maximum range is between the Trident and 6 weeks after the Trident.

I was new to headcanon--and its distinction from fan fiction--... and to extra canon...

I accepted them.... and asked for a clarification on their use

I am not attacking your theory... i am seeing what the ground rules are.

Death of Rhaegar- puts Jon born (9 months before Dany).. on the death of Raegar. Jon born (8 months before Dany) is one month after the death of Rhaegar.

Sack of KL--puts Jon born (9 months before Dany) during the sack (two weeks after trident)-- Jon born (8 months before Dany) is 1 month after sack. (6 weeks after Trident)

Jon's birth was no earlier than Rhaegar's death and no later than 6 weeks after Rhaegar's death---

I provided a link... to one of the sources you cited.

My question was is that canon to you?

Obviously, you still aren't getting the timeline, even though, besides me, several other people have tried to explain it to you. If you're not getting it after this post, you probably won't get it ever:

In Red: Chelsted is burned. Aerys sleeps with Rhaella and Rhaella becomes pregnant with Daenerys.

In Green: 9 months later. On Dragonstone, Daenerys is born.

Now, Jon was born 8 to 9 months before Dany, as per GRRMs own words (that can be read in the SSM that I quoted and linked earlier).

That gives the following options:

for Jon's birth taking place 8 months prior to Dany's:

In Green: On Dragonstone, Daenerys is born.

In pink: Jon would have been born on the end of the first month of Rhaella's pregnancy of Dany if Jon's birth took place 8 months before Dany's

for Jon's birth taking place 9 months prior to Dany's:

In Green: On Dragonstone, Daenerys is born.

In pink: Jon would have been born in the beginning of the first month of Rhaella's pregnancy of Dany if Jon's birth took place 9 months before Dany's (because that's what happens with pregnancies lasting 9 months, ya know?)

So as we can see here, Jon was born either around the time that Rhaella became pregnant, or the month that followed.

Do take note, that Rhaella became pregnant before Rhaegar left for the Trident.

This should eliminate the "Jon was born 2 months before Ned arrived at TOJ, because he was born 1 month before Rhaegar died"

But let's zoom in, shall we? Zooming in on that period of time during which Jon could have been born. The numbers show the days, with Rhaella becoming pregnant being day 1. Day 30 is where Jon's window of being born ends. It thus lasts from day 1 until day 30.

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |

1: Rhaella becomes pregnant when sleeping with Aerys. Aerys slept with Rhaella because he was aroused by burning Lord Chelsted. Lord Rossart becomes Hand, beginning the countdown of 14 days until the Sack

7: With an army marching from KL to the Trident, meeting another army in battle, and that other army marching back from the Trident to KL in 13 days, they will have been marching for an average of 6,5 days each. The Battle of the Trident took thus place in the middle of that fortnight, on day 8. So day 8 is when Rhaegar died.

14: The Sack of King's Landing occurs. Rossart, Hand for a fortnight, is killed. Eddard Stark arrives in KL

15: Robert Baratheon did not travel with Eddard, but arrived later. The one day later is an absolute minimum. It is even possible that Eddard and Robert have their quarrel this day.

16: Eddard leaves King's Landing in anger. Since we've seen that the distance between KL and the Trident can be marched by an army twice in a fortnight, we might conclude that it can be marched once in 7 days time. With the distance between KL and the Trident, and KL and SE being about the same, the traveltime will have been the same. So starting day 16, Eddard and army travel for 7 days to SE to lift the Siege.

22: Eddard and army arrive at SE. Stuff is being sorted out, commands given, a castle relieved from captivity. It is unknown how long Eddard remained at SE. The earliest he could have started his travels further south, is the next day.

23: Eddard Stark leaves SE to travel to TOJ. The distance between SE and TOJ seems to be between twice the distance, and 1,5 times the distance of KL to Trident. If KL to Trident takes 7 days, 1,5 to 2 times that distance will take 1,5 to 2 times as much times: 10.5 to 14 days.

And thus Ned arrives at TOJ either day 33 or day 36.

I hope that with this visualization, the timeline is now completely clear for you, State. Jon could not have been born a month before Rhaegar died, and this shows why.

Ygrain · July 16, 2014

That should be a hoe enough.

Watching Rains of Castamere, and there is an interesting exchange between

Robb and Talissa, about the custom of bedding - it is supposed to be a proof that the marriage has been consumated, after which she puts her hand on her pregnant belly and says that there are other ways to prove that. Makes me think about another marriage that would have needed such proof.

stateofdissipation · July 16, 2014

Well now that is interesting, but if I may. Assumption is an interesting word, and gets tossed around a lot, though it is the context within which the assumption is given that matters. Is it ok to base an assumption off an assumption? That actually depends on the context and support of the assumption rather than the definition of the word.
Was the assumption based on support, education and knowledge? Was it part of a theory? A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. Given that the books are a work of fiction and given over to being an art form and craft then emperical evidence can also be used in said idea.
Are these assumptions or conditional probabilities? As such not including the prior probability would actually make it a fallacy but doing so would not as the condition is now based off something.
I mean I might conclude from your own arguments that you are making an argument from ignorance. It was you asking for the information right? You did not supply it yourself?
You might say this last post of yours is quoting out of context, perhaps to slant the argument.
Ignoratio elenchi are you familiar with this? As it stands not many people are sure exactly what you are debating or stating?
Moving the goal posts? Yes this I am sure you did this multiple times. No matter what was presented it just was not good enough for you and you kept requiring more evidence.
It's not to say either of you is right or wrong, but rather... Don't act like your **** don't stink, you are not the only one who has studied logic and your argument lacks any real substance and you are making your own assumptions.

Remember when I asked you if it was reasonable to use your own assumptions as the basis for further assumptions?

--Fan fiction

I also asked if was ok to include your conclusion in your premise...

--Not reasonable

Assumption is an interesting word, and gets tossed around a lot

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assumption

A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof:

I mean I might conclude from your own arguments that you are making an argument from ignorance. It was you asking for the information right? You did not supply it yourself?

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I was asking for information because I am unable to find it. I did not say it does not exist. I am asserting only that I do not have the information.

Ignoratio elenchi are you familiar with this?

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,^[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi.

Like giving the link to a fever when I asked for a source to the time of Jon's birth. The link was completely valid but had nothing to do with the question. Yes i am familiar with this.

As it stands not many people are sure exactly what you are debating or stating?

---What is your source for Jon's time of birth?

assuming you intended the fever to put the birth at 3-10 days before Lyanna's death

---What is your source for Lyanna's time of death?

Moving the goal posts? Yes this I am sure you did this multiple times.

You cited and provided for a link to the fever..Multiple (once each for a total of 2) times.

No matter what was presented it just was not good enou.gh for you and you kept requiring more evidence.

What you provided was--Ignoratio elenchi.. I have not asked for more evidence... some would be quite fine.

stateofdissipation · July 16, 2014

Four pages of spoon-feeding information to someone who has been to several incarnations of the pinned thread as well as to other related threads for quite some time, yet still acts as if he's never seen the source material? I say the underbridge dweller is fat enough.

Puerperal fever-- in four pages you have spoonfed-- 1 source to estalish Jon's time of birth

you are no attempting

.

Four pages of spoon-feeding information

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

If you keep saying you already provided the information enough times... I will stop pointing out that you have not.

I say the underbridge dweller is fat enough.

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent

yet still acts as if he's never seen the source material?

A link... a page number... what is your source for the time of Jon's birth?

If you would like to assert 3-10 days after Lyanna's death fine.

A link... a page number... what is your source for the time of Lyanna's death?

1 to 4 numbers... or copy and paste...

Jon Weirgaryen · July 16, 2014

That should be a hoe enough.

Watching Rains of Castamere, and there is an interesting exchange between
Robb and Talissa, about the custom of bedding - it is supposed to be a proof that the marriage has been consumated, after which she puts her hand on her pregnant belly and says that there are other ways to prove that. Makes me think about another marriage that would have needed such proof.

Well, thinking on it... and taking Walder Frey and Oberyn Martell as examples for the same thing meaning bastardy.

Neither would deny their offspring to be his.

Frey is married and since polygamy is out of the question, has bastard children.

Oberyn Martell is not married iirc but also names his children base born.

So it is not the same conclusion in every case.

BearQueen87 · July 16, 2014

That should be a hoe enough.

Watching Rains of Castamere, and there is an interesting exchange between
Robb and Talissa, about the custom of bedding - it is supposed to be a proof that the marriage has been consumated, after which she puts her hand on her pregnant belly and says that there are other ways to prove that. Makes me think about another marriage that would have needed such proof.

1) such a sad episode.

2) I'm holding out for a certain wedding cloak.

stateofdissipation · July 16, 2014

No, seriously. Chelsted was burned while Jon Darry was still in KL. Jon Darry left with Rhaegar for the Trident. So Dany was conceived before the Battle of the Trident even happened.

Making Rossart indeed Hand for 2 weeks. But Rossart is named Hand while Rhaegar is still in King's Landing, as Jon Darry, who would leave together with Rhaegar, is still in KL hours after Chelsteds burning.

In hindsight, Rhaella must have been pregnant when leaving KL. Explain otherwise how she gave birth to Aerys' daughter. Rhaella, at the time of hier flight, would be so newly pregnant that no one could have picked up on it yet.

The time of conception is given in the books, no need to determine that. But the time where the pregnancy became known is a time we don't know, because it's never stated anywhere.

Obviously, you still aren't getting the timeline, even though, besides me, several other people have tried to explain it to you. If you're not getting it after this post, you probably won't get it ever:

| month 1 | month2 | month 3 | month 4 | month 5 | month 6 | month 7 | month 8 | month 9 |

In Red: Chelsted is burned. Aerys sleeps with Rhaella and Rhaella becomes pregnant with Daenerys.

In Green: 9 months later. On Dragonstone, Daenerys is born.

Now, Jon was born 8 to 9 months before Dany, as per GRRMs own words (that can be read in the SSM that I quoted and linked earlier).

That gives the following options:

for Jon's birth taking place 8 months prior to Dany's:

| month 1 | month2 | month 3 | month 4 | month 5 | month 6 | month 7 | month 8 | month 9 |

In Green: On Dragonstone, Daenerys is born.

In pink: Jon would have been born on the end of the first month of Rhaella's pregnancy of Dany if Jon's birth took place 8 months before Dany's

for Jon's birth taking place 9 months prior to Dany's:

| month 1 | month2 | month 3 | month 4 | month 5 | month 6 | month 7 | month 8 | month 9 |

In Green: On Dragonstone, Daenerys is born.

In pink: Jon would have been born in the beginning of the first month of Rhaella's pregnancy of Dany if Jon's birth took place 9 months before Dany's (because that's what happens with pregnancies lasting 9 months, ya know?)

So as we can see here, Jon was born either around the time that Rhaella became pregnant, or the month that followed.

Do take note, that Rhaella became pregnant before Rhaegar left for the Trident.

This should eliminate the "Jon was born 2 months before Ned arrived at TOJ, because he was born 1 month before Rhaegar died"

But let's zoom in, shall we? Zooming in on that period of time during which Jon could have been born. The numbers show the days, with Rhaella becoming pregnant being day 1. Day 30 is where Jon's window of being born ends. It thus lasts from day 1 until day 30.

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |

1: Rhaella becomes pregnant when sleeping with Aerys. Aerys slept with Rhaella because he was aroused by burning Lord Chelsted. Lord Rossart becomes Hand, beginning the countdown of 14 days until the Sack

7: With an army marching from KL to the Trident, meeting another army in battle, and that other army marching back from the Trident to KL in 13 days, they will have been marching for an average of 6,5 days each. The Battle of the Trident took thus place in the middle of that fortnight, on day 8. So day 8 is when Rhaegar died.

14: The Sack of King's Landing occurs. Rossart, Hand for a fortnight, is killed. Eddard Stark arrives in KL

15: Robert Baratheon did not travel with Eddard, but arrived later. The one day later is an absolute minimum. It is even possible that Eddard and Robert have their quarrel this day.

16: Eddard leaves King's Landing in anger. Since we've seen that the distance between KL and the Trident can be marched by an army twice in a fortnight, we might conclude that it can be marched once in 7 days time. With the distance between KL and the Trident, and KL and SE being about the same, the traveltime will have been the same. So starting day 16, Eddard and army travel for 7 days to SE to lift the Siege.

22: Eddard and army arrive at SE. Stuff is being sorted out, commands given, a castle relieved from captivity. It is unknown how long Eddard remained at SE. The earliest he could have started his travels further south, is the next day.

23: Eddard Stark leaves SE to travel to TOJ. The distance between SE and TOJ seems to be between twice the distance, and 1,5 times the distance of KL to Trident. If KL to Trident takes 7 days, 1,5 to 2 times that distance will take 1,5 to 2 times as much times: 10.5 to 14 days.

And thus Ned arrives at TOJ either day 33 or day 36.

I hope that with this visualization, the timeline is now completely clear for you, State. Jon could not have been born a month before Rhaegar died, and this shows why.

I accept all that is in bold as accurate and provable.

Do take note, that Rhaella became pregnant before Rhaegar left for the Trident.

Now, Jon was born 8 to 9 months before Dany, as per GRRMs own words (that can be read in the SSM that I quoted and linked earlier).

I accept that Rhaella became pregnant before Rhaegar left for the trident. Should you continue to assert it,

Jon was born before Rhaegar left for the trident-- at 9 months older than Dany. Jon was born a month after that-- at 8 months older than Dany

So as we can see here, Jon was born either around the time that Rhaella became pregnant, or the month that followed.