R+L=J v.118

[The Twinslayer]

"A son comes before an uncle, by all the laws I know."

"The children of a man's body comes before an uncle."

You conveniently ignore what the actual text says on the actual subject in favor of random interview quotes that may or may not have an actual bearing on this particular subject.

Which is why this argument is pointless and repetitive.

It is not repetitive, because neither you nor anyone else has responded to what GRRM said in the SSM or demonstrated in the books.

Moreover, there are two problems with your quotes. First, no one is interested in who was Rhaegar's heir. Rhaegar was never king. The question is who is Aerys' heir. So it isn't Aerys' son versus Aerys' uncle. It is Aerys' son versus Aerys' grandson.

Second, Jon is ignorant of Targ rules, since he also says that a daughter comes before an uncle. But the Targs set a precedent through a Great Council that males come before females -- demonstrating that Jon's "all the laws I know" do not include any rules relating to the Targ succession.

GRRM's SSM concerning precedence versus proximity is at the heart of the Aegon (or Jon) versus Viserys debate. I have yet to see anyone on this thread attempt to show why that lack of clarity would not apply here. The only response I have seen is the one you have given, which is to suggest that what GRRM really wants us to believe is that Westerosi laws of succession are set in stone and they reflect the practice of modern, rather than medieval, European monarchies. But that is the opposite of what he has said.

[Ser Creighton]

Well let's turn that around. How do you present the opposite case?Prosecution: M'lud, we demand this claim be stricken from the historical record.Judge: Present your case.Prosecution: Er... I just did.Judge: Very well. Would the defence like to cross-examine the witnesses?Defence: I would, your honour. However there appear to be none. We move that the case be dismissed on the basis of lack of evidence.Judge: Indeed.Seriously, there's a statement made in TWOIAF and people are dismissing it on the basis that nobody has corroborated it in the other books? Same applies to 90% of TWOIAF. Is this what we're missing?Oberyn: You raped her! You murdered her! You killed her children! Who had been previously disinherited by the king who's been dead for sixteen years!If there was actually some reason to assume it might be incorrect, I'd understand people discounting it. As far as I can see the only reason for discounting it so far given is that this minor historical footnote that only a historian would care about has only been mentioned by a historian. I really don't understand the issue here. It changes nothing, it's contradicted by nothing, why assume it must be incorrect?I'm gonna repost this from one of the TWOIAF spoilery threads:Robert: We have to kill that dragonspawn boy, Viserys!Eddard: He's just a kid. We've won the throne, do you need more?Robert: Damn it Ned, he's a symbol. He threatens everything, don't you see it?Eddard: Exile, then. It's really not an issue, Robert. He's got an army of what, one knight, couple of dozen men-at-arms and a small dog with a limp?Robert: You don't understand. He's the Targaryen heir.Eddard: Uh, yes. I know.Robert: No, you don't get it. I just heard. The mad king disinherited Aegon and named him heir. That makes him a threat.Eddard: Because now the people will rally around him rather than Aegon?Robert: Exactly.Eddard: Robert, you know how Aegon is dead?Robert: Ugly work, but it had to be done.Eddard: So if Aerys hadn't disinherited him, who would be heir now? Are you expecting Dorne to rise up and attempt to seat a dead baby on the Iron Throne?Robert: Well... you never know with those Dornishmen.Eddard: You're weird. You know that right, Robert?Robert: Don't you understand, Ned? This was my plan all along. If the Targaryen claim stays with Aegon, who's dead, they're stuffed. It was a brilliant plan. Gods damn Aerys for ruining it. I'll give him this, he was cunning. I never expected him to disinherit Aegon. I wonder how he knew.Eddard: What? Uh Robert, it doesn't work like that. I mean... well, you know how you became Lord when your dad died?Robert: Exactly! Now you get it. Aegon's dead, so he can't have kids when he grows up.Eddard: You really are retarded sometimes, Robert.Robert: You can't speak to me like that! I'm king! Look, I have a crown and everything. Now take the army, and take Dragonstone. That's an order!Eddard: Did you forget about Storm's End?Robert: Screw Stannis. Let him suffer a little longer. Maybe that'll teach him not to snitch on me to mum and dad all the time.Eddard: Your dead mum and dad? Robert, you're not twelve any more. And you're the king, remember?Robert: Doesn't matter. Stannis is such a mummy's boy. I've had enough of it, Ned! You hear me? Enough. He needs to learn a lesson.Eddard: So you want me to go to Dragonstone because you're really worried that Aerys disinherited a baby who's dead, and to teach your kid brother not to tell tales on you to your dead parents. I see. And what about Rhaegar? Maybe we should put him on trial for kidnapping Lyanna?Robert: Ah! See, that's why I keep you around, Ned. I totally forgot about that. I hope he demands a trial by combat, I want to kill him again.Eddard: And that's why I keep telling you to leave the battle plans to me. You're like a brother to me, Robert. Unfortunately an idiot brother who needs help tying his own shoe laces.Robert: You can't talk to me like that! You! Old guy. Percy-something!Pycelle: Pycelle, Your Grace.Robert: That's right. Purcell. Purcell, tell him he can't speak to me like that!Pycelle: Um... um... uh...You can't speak to him like that, My Lord. Please don't hit me.Eddard: That's it. I'm going to lift the siege at Storm's End.Robert: Dragonstone!Eddard: Yes, yes, fine. Whatever. I'm going to lift the siege at Dragonstone, and kill the little kid so that the dead baby becomes heir again.Robert: Ah! I knew you'd see sense in the end Ned. Good man.Eddard: I hate you Robert. You know that?

Yeah you see that's not how court works. There is an entire legal system and you don't need to call the judge M'lud. I don't think they would like it anyway. You would have an evidentiary hearing or preliminary hearing. Now a complaint has been filed by a prosecutor to see if their is enough evidence to go to trial. So it's over inheritance. So really all you need is a signed document by Aerys. Do have that or evidence that it exists? Do have any evidence outside of second or third hand sources which is known as hearsay, the information can not be substantiated at this time. The original order of inheritance applies. At some point if new information arises you would request another hearing. Until such point or time you are SOL.

However there is a credible witness named Ran and if you can get his testimony on said subject you would have an answer one way or another. You could just ask him. If it is just a bit of minor historical fact as you claim, he should have no problem giving you a direct answer. If he is unwilling to answer or gives you an obscure answer then you may have a problem. I have asked him about some things in the world book and gotten direct answers, I don't see how this is any different. This is his site get your evidence. If you have already tired and he has not answered then you already have you r answer.

No need to bring it hear just ask the man, he is a co author he does know some facts. By the way 90% of the world of ice and fire is not supported? Really? Where did you get that number? Most of it is already in the books. Because I have read the books I actually have more information then the world book. Sure a lot of the foreign stuff is new, and inconsequential for the most part as we are never going to those places. Most of it is already in the books and this just comes at if from a different perspective.

You want an answer to your question just ask Ran. See what kind of answer you get. I am not even sure why it didn't cross your mind. Also you understand from page one you are given information that is wrong and you know it is wrong because you already read the books. People question it because not only is their a lot of bad information in it, but it is also written by an unreliable narrator with bias who can get bad information as well. That is all part of that style.

So why would people question a fictional history written by an unreliable third party narrator using possibly unreliable sources who we know has given false information in the world book? Well because it is an unreliable 3rd party narrator who has been known to give wrong information and gets his information from other unreliable narrators who have just as much bias if not more than anyone. Plus history is often unreliable and Martin has talked about that several times. So basically I am not going to trust an unreliable narrator with information if that information is not substantiated at all. I am not asking for a lot of evidence, just a pinch man, a pinch of evidence, a suggestion, an implication, a minor reference.

My own opinion of the world book is you have to figure out how to discern the truth from it using the information you have acquired from Martin and the actual series. Like most of Martins stuff you can't just take what is given you have to piece the truth together. I know enough to know Martin embeds information and layers it and does it for a reason. Why would this be any different? Is it the truth is it an approximation of the truth, is it a half truth is it misinformation? Which is why I would like a second source.. I have never written a theory without multiple sources, facts, evidence and repetitive phenomenon. You know I support my argument. That's the whole idea.

What your having a problem understanding is the reference to the series or lack there of and why people are assuming that is strange. This is actually known as evidence of absence, it actually really common and admissible in court. It's also called modus tollens in logic. It is actually a form of logic. It's actually very normal and logical for a person to come to this conclusion.

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

So here you have a person claiming this happened in the world book and people naturally go to the series to investigate it to find evidence to support the claim. When you don't find the support you have modus tollens or the evidence of absence which is a form of evidence.

So when dealing with a sneaky ass writer like Martin, who uses unreliable narrators, misdirection, manipulation, deceit, lies, rumors, bias, and I have the evidence of absence occurring then I am logically going to question it, and think it actually is the right thing to do because I am using an actual form of logic. It's actual propositional logic being applied. So yes logic is the answer I am using logic and the Monkey seems confused :) Now he may be a King Monkey but the logic is clearly confusing the monkey.

Just to point out that the two counters that have been made by you and RumHam are to attempt to shift the burden proof onto the opposition and to argue from ignorance both are fallacies. The natural counter is Evidence of absence. You know you want me to prove it is wrong instead of you proving it is right. The argument from ignorance you are assuming it is true because it is not proven false. It's a logic fallacy, on the other hand evidence of absence is not a fallacy.

[Ygrain]

I do believe Viserys mentioned he was the rightful heir of the Iron Throne in the books.

Well, yes, because he was, as the only known surviving male; Aegon would have been the heir for about a fortnight. The peculiar thing is that no-one mentions jumping Aegon in the line of succession.

[teej6]

It is not repetitive, because neither you nor anyone else has responded to what GRRM said in the SSM or demonstrated in the books.

Moreover, there are two problems with your quotes. First, no one is interested in who was Rhaegar's heir. Rhaegar was never king. The question is who is Aerys' heir. So it isn't Aerys' son versus Aerys' uncle. It is Aerys' son versus Aerys' grandson.

Second, Jon is ignorant of Targ rules, since he also says that a daughter comes before an uncle. But the Targs set a precedent through a Great Council that males come before females -- demonstrating that Jon's "all the laws I know" do not include any rules relating to the Targ succession.

GRRM's SSM concerning precedence versus proximity is at the heart of the Aegon (or Jon) versus Viserys debate. I have yet to see anyone on this thread attempt to show why that lack of clarity would not apply here. The only response I have seen is the one you have given, which is to suggest that what GRRM really wants us to believe is that Westerosi laws of succession are set in stone and they reflect the practice of modern, rather than medieval, European monarchies. But that is the opposite of what he has said.

As sj4iy already pointed out you are taking GRRM's quote out of context and applying it to fit your interpretations. The only possible explanation for Yandel referring to Viserys as heir is that Aerys made this decision unilaterally and except for him and a few of his cronies no one else knew about it. And you're wrong about the rules of sucession in medieval Europe. There might have been instances where uncles usurped the crown like Richard III but there is a clear instance when the crown prince's son became king after the death of his grandfather, the king. Richard II became crown prince (and later became king though only a minor) after the death of his father, Edward, the black prince. Richard II inherited the crown after the death of his grandfather, Edward III inspite of the fact that Edward III had other adult sons who survived him.

[Ygrain]

It is not repetitive, because neither you nor anyone else has responded to what GRRM said in the SSM or demonstrated in the books.

:bs:

You just keep dronning the same non-argument over and over and totally ignore what doesn't fit.

[markg171]

It is not repetitive, because neither you nor anyone else has responded to what GRRM said in the SSM or demonstrated in the books.

Moreover, there are two problems with your quotes. First, no one is interested in who was Rhaegar's heir. Rhaegar was never king. The question is who is Aerys' heir. So it isn't Aerys' son versus Aerys' uncle. It is Aerys' son versus Aerys' grandson.

Second, Jon is ignorant of Targ rules, since he also says that a daughter comes before an uncle. But the Targs set a precedent through a Great Council that males come before females -- demonstrating that Jon's "all the laws I know" do not include any rules relating to the Targ succession.

GRRM's SSM concerning precedence versus proximity is at the heart of the Aegon (or Jon) versus Viserys debate. I have yet to see anyone on this thread attempt to show why that lack of clarity would not apply here. The only response I have seen is the one you have given, which is to suggest that what GRRM really wants us to believe is that Westerosi laws of succession are set in stone and they reflect the practice of modern, rather than medieval, European monarchies. But that is the opposite of what he has said.

It's also willfully twisting the text like he always does. He dismisses Arya saying the eldest son inherits the kingdom, which is what the text also says, then spouts his two quotes as if that settles everything and is the only thing mentioned in the text.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Regarding the issue of inheritance laws, looking at them as "laws" in the modern sense doesn't make much sense, IMO. There is no independent judiciary to judge claims and lay them against legal precedent. In the end, the validity of claims is based on what the King (or the Lord Paramount or whoever) rules. If the King or lord's bannermen object strongly enough then that can certainly affect such decisions but to a certain extent that is due to the threat of rebellion (or an appeal to the crown, if it's not the king's decision being objected to).

As such, it's probably more appropriate to looks at these laws as customs. That said, by customary succession, the eldest son's sons (if the eldest son predeceases his father) come before the second son. This is certainly true for the Iron Throne. It is strongly implied, if not outright stated, that Valarr (Baelor Breakspear's son) was Daeron II's heir before Aerys I. Likewise it is directly and explicitly stated that Aelor (Rhaegel's son) was Aerys I's heir ahead of Maekar (in that case it's a deceased elder brother's son over a younger brother).

If Aerys made Viserys his heir it was by decree and explicitly ignored the customary succession. So any decree Aerys may have made is completely irrelevant as far as arguments about Jon's legitimacy go (and whether the Kingsguard were defending their rightful king) unless it can be shown that the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy could be reasonably assumed to be aware of any such decree. In the absence of such knowledge, they should be expected to operate under the customs of succession.

And really, doesn't it seem like something that GRRM would do, where the Kingsguard thought they were defending the true heir and that Viserys wasn't the heir at all due to their ignorance of a proclamation made by the king they asserted their own loyalty to? Characters act upon incomplete information all the time. Why should we assume that these Kingsguard, in the middle of nowhere, are acting upon complete information?

[Kingmonkey]

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

And this is exactly where the argument that the information is false falls down. "In some circumstances." Why should it be assumed that this is one of those circumstances?

If Yandel had claimed that Robert had lost a leg at the Trident, this could easily be dismissed on the basis that someone would have mentioned it. Why would anyone have mentioned this? RumHam keeps asking people to suggest where, in the books, it would have been odd for someone not to mention Viserys having been named heir a couple of weeks before Aegon was killed and he became heir anyway. Nobody has yet given an answer.

I've got your modus tollens right here:

If Viserys had been named heir as stated by Yandel then...er... erm... nothing would change.

Er... um... well...

So we don't know.

Want it formal?

P->Q

If Q, then P

if !Q, then !P

Right? That's the modus tollens. Now what those of us who are wondering why people are so dead set against this idea keep asking is "what's Q?" The proposition is lacking a propositional constant. There's your monkey logic for you. It's not confused logic, it's formal logic. Confused logic would be something like:

P->?

therefore !P

That's the case I'm arguing against.

Just to point out that the two counters that have been made by you and RumHam are to attempt to shift the burden proof onto the opposition and to argue from ignorance both are fallacies. The natural counter is Evidence of absence. You know you want me to prove it is wrong instead of you proving it is right. The argument from ignorance you are assuming it is true because it is not proven false. It's a logic fallacy, on the other hand evidence of absence is not a fallacy.

All very well, except that you've totally inverted the case.

Evidence for: Yandel, an untrustworthy source, says so.

Evidence against: Zero. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

The argument from ignorance here is assuming it is false because it is not proven true. "We don't know that Yandel is correct, therefore he's not correct". That's exactly what's being claimed here.

Proposition: Yandel is incorrect, or lying.

Challenge: Er... why do you say that?

Counter-challenge: PROVE I'M WRONG!

Nope, no sir (or ser, if you must), it doesn't work that way. I'm not trying to prove Yandel is right. He's an untrustworthy source, we all know that. I have no interest in him being right. I'm asking why some people are so convinced that he's wrong. Nobody seems to have any real answer.

What reason is there to disbelieve Yandel's account? I really have no idea. Inform me! Help me out here! Presumably there must be one, or people wouldn't be doubting it. So, let us know what it is. What is the Q in your modus tollens? The only one I am aware anyone has offered is Ygraine saying that someone would have mentioned it. RumHam challenged this with the simple point that as Aegon died very soon afterwards, it's been a moot point for a decade and a half (approximately 99.5% of the time since it did or didn't happen) by the time AGOT started. Thus it's hard to see why anyone would bother mentioning it. He asked where in the books it would seem out of place that it wasn't mentioned. What's the answer to that question?

[finger]

I don't think we can say "again," because we are still waiting for someone who believes that the succession rules are firmly settled to reconcile that view with the SSM I quoted and all the various wars and rebellions we see in the series. I'd say we are still waiting to have that discussion for the first time.

I would start with this question from GRRM: "What if there are no children, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity more important?"

GRRM's answer is: "There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history."

What is yours?

:agree:

More so when the suitor is a baby in arms.

A newborn Danaerys had a feeble claim, a grown up Danaerys leading an army on dragonback has a strong claim. F**k genealogists.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

If Aerys had named Viserys his heir while Aegon was still alive, then Viserys would have been told, most likely, right?

Which would be rather important for Viserys, especially in his later years, when he had so much going against him.. it would make him the rightful ruler of the 7K, in the eyes of his father, the king..

And yet, according to Dany, had Aegon lived, Aegon would have ruled as Aegon VI.. which he wouldn't have been able to do if Viserys had been named heir..

[finger]

Well, yes, because he was, as the only known surviving male; Aegon would have been the heir for about a fortnight. The peculiar thing is that no-one mentions jumping Aegon in the line of succession.

I wouldn't spoil TWOIAF, but there are instances when a council is called to name a new king, or when the rules are not fully respected. Not to say when the old king didn't state clearly his will and left the succesion issue open to interpretation.

If Targ blood means legitimacy, I guess any Targ can present a claim. The problem is that the incumbent king or queen wouldn't hand the IT over easily.

Otherwise said, give me a good army, with dragons if possible, and f**k legitimacy. Tyrion noticed it long ago.

[Ygrain]

And yet, according to Dany, had Aegon lived, Aegon would have ruled as Aegon VI.. which he wouldn't have been able to do if Viserys had been named heir..

BINGO.

ETA: “Which King Aegon?” Dany asked. “Five Aegons have ruled in Westeros.” Her brother’s son would have been the sixth, but the Usurper’s men had dashed his head against a wall. (ASOS)

[BearQueen87]

If Aerys had named Viserys his heir while Aegon was still alive, then Viserys would have been told, most likely, right?

Which would be rather important for Viserys, especially in his later years, when he had so much going against him.. it would make him the rightful ruler of the 7K, in the eyes of his father, the king..

And yet, according to Dany, had Aegon lived, Aegon would have ruled as Aegon VI.. which he wouldn't have been able to do if Viserys had been named heir..

Yes. And Viserys would have mentioned it....a lot.

BINGO.

ETA: “Which King Aegon?” Dany asked. “Five Aegons have ruled in Westeros.” Her brother’s son would have been the sixth, but the Usurper’s men had dashed his head against a wall. (ASOS)

:cheers:

[Han Snow]

If Aerys had named Viserys his heir while Aegon was still alive, then Viserys would have been told, most likely, right?

Which would be rather important for Viserys, especially in his later years, when he had so much going against him.. it would make him the rightful ruler of the 7K, in the eyes of his father, the king..

And yet, according to Dany, had Aegon lived, Aegon would have ruled as Aegon VI.. which he wouldn't have been able to do if Viserys had been named heir..

I award you 5 internets!!!

Bam!!!

:cheers: :bowdown:

[Kingmonkey]

And yet, according to Dany, had Aegon lived, Aegon would have ruled as Aegon VI.. which he wouldn't have been able to do if Viserys had been named heir..

This is wholly, unarguably true.

But...

Which would be rather important for Viserys, especially in his later years, when he had so much going against him.. it would make him the rightful ruler of the 7K, in the eyes of his father, the king..

Why would it be important? He was the "rightful ruler" either way. Aegon's dead, remember? We're discussing the difference between Viserys becoming rightful heir at the age of 7 years and a few months old, and Viserys becoming rightful heir at the age of 7 years and a few months plus maybe a couple of weeks old. It changes nothing.

If Aerys had named Viserys his heir while Aegon was still alive, then Viserys would have been told, most likely, right?

And it all comes down to "most likely" which is purely speculative. If anyone had bothered to tell Viserys this moot point, and if Viserys had mentioned this moot point to Dany, and if Dany had remembered this moot point, then yep. If not, then nope.

I completely get the point as to why this might be false information. I remain mystified by why anyone would be convinced it is.

[Alia of the knife]

Im only on episode 4, what happened to Twisty? No don't tell me. Totally ruined now. I'll just re watch season 1 of Hemlock Grove now.

Oh Geeze SC, sorry about that, its still good though :).....

[Alia of the knife]

Okay, a question.

Rhaegars line descends from Egg, would any of Aerion Brightflames descendents trump Rhaegars children if it could be shown that "the possibility of madness,"(because lets face it, that could be any Targaryen including Rhaegar, as well as Viserys and Dany), was no lawful reason to pass over Aerions line?

And I'm thinking this is where the Varys, Illryio, Serra, "faegon" connection comes in.

Brightflame and Blackfyre.

[Ser Creighton]

And this is exactly where the argument that the information is false falls down. "In some circumstances." Why should it be assumed that this is one of those circumstances?

If Yandel had claimed that Robert had lost a leg at the Trident, this could easily be dismissed on the basis that someone would have mentioned it. Why would anyone have mentioned this? RumHam keeps asking people to suggest where, in the books, it would have been odd for someone not to mention Viserys having been named heir a couple of weeks before Aegon was killed and he became heir anyway. Nobody has yet given an answer.

I've got your modus tollens right here:

If Viserys had been named heir as stated by Yandel then...er... erm... nothing would change.

Er... um... well...

So we don't know.

Want it formal?

P->Q

If Q, then P

if !Q, then !P

Right? That's the modus tollens. Now what those of us who are wondering why people are so dead set against this idea keep asking is "what's Q?" The proposition is lacking a propositional constant. There's your monkey logic for you. It's not confused logic, it's formal logic. Confused logic would be something like:

P->?

therefore !P

That's the case I'm arguing against.

All very well, except that you've totally inverted the case.

Evidence for: Yandel, an untrustworthy source, says so.

Evidence against: Zero. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

The argument from ignorance here is assuming it is false because it is not proven true. "We don't know that Yandel is correct, therefore he's not correct". That's exactly what's being claimed here.

Proposition: Yandel is incorrect, or lying.

Challenge: Er... why do you say that?

Counter-challenge: PROVE I'M WRONG!

Nope, no sir (or ser, if you must), it doesn't work that way. I'm not trying to prove Yandel is right. He's an untrustworthy source, we all know that. I have no interest in him being right. I'm asking why some people are so convinced that he's wrong. Nobody seems to have any real answer.

What reason is there to disbelieve Yandel's account? I really have no idea. Inform me! Help me out here! Presumably there must be one, or people wouldn't be doubting it. So, let us know what it is. What is the Q in your modus tollens? The only one I am aware anyone has offered is Ygraine saying that someone would have mentioned it. RumHam challenged this with the simple point that as Aegon died very soon afterwards, it's been a moot point for a decade and a half (approximately 99.5% of the time since it did or didn't happen) by the time AGOT started. Thus it's hard to see why anyone would bother mentioning it. He asked where in the books it would seem out of place that it wasn't mentioned. What's the answer to that question?

Actually you have gotten it wrong. Seriously wrong. You assume I think the information is wrong, and what gives me that right? Well I don't assume the information is anything. I know for a fact the narrator is unreliable, this is stated by both co authors. It's an unreliable narrator that's the writing form. So it is perfectly valid to question the claims made by the narrator.

I am not inverting anything, I am using the clear fact as stated by the writers, that this is an an unreliable narrator. You are claiming he is reliable. That is actually not a fact, he isn't that's actually a fact, it's a very specific writing style. You are an advocate for Yendal' claim as such it is on you to supply the facts. Which you have not done.

Once it is established that he is unreliable which he is, the questioning is valid. So if I investigate which I have and so have others including you we find zero evidence to support the claim. The evidence of absence is applied. And why? Because the one fact we have is Yendal is unreliable as stated by the authors.

It's simple induction also that is not the formal form of Modus Tollens.

In formal, P -> Q means P implies Q. -Q means not Q. And whenever P->Q - Q is placed together which is your claim then the rule of inference applies, -P can be placed on the subsequent line. It is a rule of inference.

Why can I do this? Because I have the fact that the the antecedents can be in error here because the narrator by fact is unreliable. See for my argument that actually exists, it is the chosen writing form of the author. You are making the assumption the information is reliable. I am using the fact that the narrator is unreliable and thus it can not be assumed his information can be wrong. When this is the case I seek more information to find out if Yendal in this case is right or wrong. It's not about seeking one or the other, just more information. When none appears a rule of inference is applied and you get the evidence of absence. This particular form of inference is applied because in this case the unreliable narrator made an as yet unsubstantiated claim with zero evidence given.

I have not done anything to change the logic I placed the one fact on the field that exists, the unreliable narrator. You place the unreliable narrators claim, and your argument is assuming it is correct. The fact that he is unreliable means the antecedents can be in error which allows me to apply a rule of inference in order to preserve the truth, given there is zero support for the claim I have to use the evidence of absence. I am making a valid argument. I am not questioning the information, I am questioning the source, his information can in fact be in error because he is an unreliable narrator, this is known, this is a fact and this allows for the use of a rule of inference. It's not the only rule I tried but it is the only rule that held up as valid given the unreliable source and lack of supporting evidence for his claim.

You think I am assuming he is unreliable, I am not it is a known fact. So I know he can be in error and thus seek more evidence, non of which exists.

Here simply stated. Because by fact Yendal is unreliable, the antecedents can be inn error. To find the truth you apply a rule of inference, because there is no supporting evidence the inference rule of evidence of absence is applied using the law of contrapositive to validate the inference. That's it, I mean it's not simple but it is valid.

Monkey you understand you asked this question not me? "As far as I can see the only reason for discounting it so far given is that this minor historical footnote that only a historian would care about has only been mentioned by a historian. I really don't understand the issue here. It changes nothing, it's contradicted by nothing, why assume it must be incorrect?"

I am answering the question as to why someone might think it is incorrect. For this I used logic, to show it is a perfectly valid argument to think Yendal can be wrong and placed the single fact given on the board, Yendal is an unreliable narrator. That is the question I am answering. You claimed people were assuming, I wasn't and I gave you a clear example why using formal logic. I am not trying to prove Yendal is right or wrong, I am trying to prove it is perfectly logical to question Yendal. Which I think I have, using nothing but logic and 2 facts. 1 he is unreliable and 2 there is no other information. So who is making assumptions here? Rule of inference? Evidence of absence. Law? Contrapositive. That's all I did, rule and law.

There is no assumption being made on my part, I am using what is given. I have not made a claim, I answered a question you asked, I repeat, you asked. Yendal made a claim, you advocated the claim based on assumption, and you asked a question. All I answered was the question, you are jumping to your own conclusions. I am simply using formal logic and facts to answer your question which you are saying is wrong. You say I am arguing from ignorance. What am I arguing? You are supporting a claim, I am simply answering a question. Your making the argument not me. I am not debating the information, I am answering your question which you are turning into a debate from some reason. How can people think Yendal is wrong? And I showed you how using logic. Seriously what the hell, I am not asking you to prove he is right, you and RumHam asked that we prove him wrong. You asked, it's in your text, you tried to shift the burden of proof there.

I didn't try to prove Yendal was wrong, I showed that he could be questioned, logically. Because you asked how someone could do that. Again you asked. Then you tried to rewrite the law of contrapositive, I mean really? It's a logic law and you don't get to rewrite it. Just like you don't get to change a rule of inference because you want it suit your argument. "No, no, no prove it" Prove what? Logic? Really? Don't ask questions you don't want answers too.

[Ser Muradin the Small]

Okay, a question.

Rhaegars line descends from Egg, would any of Aerion Brightflames descendents trump Rhaegars children if it could be shown that "the possibility of madness,"(because lets face it, that could be any Targaryen including Rhaegar, as well as Viserys and Dany), was no lawful reason to pass over Aerions line?

And I'm thinking this is where the Varys, Illryio, Serra, "faegon" connection comes in.

Brightflame and Blackfyre.

If the reason was judged to be unlawful, the integrity of almost all the past Great councils would likely be questioned. So I don't think even if they prove to be of Aerion's l(which many will doubt), any Targaryen loyalist is likely to back Dany rather than children from a line that was passed over....

Of course, if she dies, then thats a completely different matter....

Edit: Has the possibility that Varys & co are descended from Aerion been discussed anywhere? The latest speculation I read was that Varys and Serra were descended from Daemon Blackfyre, the cousin of Maelys the monstrous who had command of the golden company before being killed by his infamous cousin

[Jon Weirgaryen]

New thread (have been away, need to catch up) and you seem to be busy playing blood of the dragon family tree and succession bingo.