Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v.6

Recommended Posts

(...)

Tyrion will ride a dragon (a bold assumption).

(...)

This is yours, isn't it? http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/102076-danys-dragonriders/

Topic that you have even renamed "Tyrion will ride Viserion"in your signature block...

So as opposed to Confirmation Bias for us, what's in your shop? Disingenuous? Bad faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is yours, isn't it? http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/102076-danys-dragonriders/

Topic that you have even renamed "Tyrion will ride Viserion"in your signature block...

So as opposed to Confirmation Bias for us, what's in your shop? Disingenuous? Bad faith?

Hey, that is not fair using his own words against him. Are you suggesting hypocrisy is a bad thing? ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is yours, isn't it? http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/102076-danys-dragonriders/

Topic that you have even renamed "Tyrion will ride Viserion"in your signature block...

So as opposed to Confirmation Bias for us, what's in your shop? Disingenuous? Bad faith?

 

Yes, but it does not change the fact that it is still a bold assumption. Plus, the rest does not necessarily follow from it. There are many people who believe Tyrion will ride Viserion one way or the other but he does not have Targaryen blood nor it is needed to ride one. Not to mention, there is a dragonhorn in the neighborhood which looks real enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but it does not change the fact that it is still a bold assumption. Plus, the rest does not necessarily follow from it. There are many people who believe Tyrion will ride Viserion one way or the other but he does not have Targaryen blood nor it is needed to ride one. Not to mention, there is a dragonhorn in the neighborhood which looks real enough.

Ummm, your OP came up with a lot of clues supporting Tyrion riding Viserion. With all those clues, how can it be a bold assumption? It might not be correct (although in that regard I think you are correct), but not being correct does not make it a bold assumption. It merely makes it a fairly well-supported theory that turned out to be wrong. 

 

But more to the point, you suggest above that assuming Tyrion will ride a dragon is a tenuous conclusion (a bold assumption) -- while you reach this conclusion fairly strongly yourself. So the conclusion is not a "bold assumption" but a well-reasoned theory based on supportable clues (that you yourself list in your OP). And even more important, AJT does not depend on Tyrion being a dragon rider. They each have separate clues -- but given how the theories interrelate, the clues the support one theory indirectly thereby support the other theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the basis for him riding though? that hemade a supported harness for bran? and that he played white dragon in cyvasse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the basis for him riding though? that hemade a supported harness for bran? and that he played white dragon in cyvasse?

He also played with black dragons in other games, so I would hardly call that a hint towards Tyrion every riding Viserion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but it does not change the fact that it is still a bold assumption. Plus, the rest does not necessarily follow from it. There are many people who believe Tyrion will ride Viserion one way or the other but he does not have Targaryen blood nor it is needed to ride one. Not to mention, there is a dragonhorn in the neighborhood which looks real enough.

Its impossible to take someone seriously who could misinterpret a novel to this extent.  Saying Targ blood is not needed to ride a dragon is laughable, it does not follow the writing and it is just 100% wrong. And like UL said upthread, it is going to be hard for posters like this to show their faces after the next book is published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also played with black dragons in other games, so I would hardly call that a hint towards Tyrion every riding Viserion.

 

this is my question though. what is the basis for *clearly tyrion mounts and rides viserion to victory*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its impossible to take someone seriously who could misinterpret a novel to this extent.  Saying Targ blood is not needed to ride a dragon is laughable, it does not follow the writing and it is just 100% wrong. And like UL said upthread, it is going to be hard for posters like this to show their faces after the next book is published.

 

it's not targ blood, many valyrian houses did so as well. i was always under the assumption it was targaryen incest, which potenized whatever ingredients were in valyrian blood that made them hold more sway over dragons. but apparently thats wrong too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it's not targ blood, many valyrian houses did so as well. i was always under the assumption it was targaryen incest, which potenized whatever ingredients were in valyrian blood that made them hold more sway over dragons. but apparently thats wrong too.

 

True, there were 40 Dragonlord families in Valyria. However, the Targs are the only dragonlords to have survived the Doom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it's not targ blood, many valyrian houses did so as well. i was always under the assumption it was targaryen incest, which potenized whatever ingredients were in valyrian blood that made them hold more sway over dragons. but apparently thats wrong too.

As I noted upthread -- not all Valyrians could bond with a dragon -- only dragonlord families. After the Doom of Valyria (and its aftermath where dragonlords returned to try to reclaim but were never seen again), only Targs are left of the dragonlord families. The other surviving Valyrians are not from dragonlord families and cannot bond with a dragon. 

 

But if dragonlord blood is required -- as seems clear -- then incest is needed to prevent too much dilution of the blood. Some dilution is fine -- but over generations, without incest, the ability to bond with a dragon would go away. So the incest itself did not make the bond stronger -- it just avoided diluting the blood so much that bonding would become impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its impossible to take someone seriously who could misinterpret a novel to this extent.  Saying Targ blood is not needed to ride a dragon is laughable, it does not follow the writing and it is just 100% wrong. And like UL said upthread, it is going to be hard for posters like this to show their faces after the next book is published.

 

It is circular logic. You seem to forget that Ran admitted it as such too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I noted upthread -- not all Valyrians could bond with a dragon -- only dragonlord families. After the Doom of Valyria (and its aftermath where dragonlords returned to try to reclaim but were never seen again), only Targs are left of the dragonlord families. The other surviving Valyrians are not from dragonlord families and cannot bond with a dragon. 

 

But if dragonlord blood is required -- as seems clear -- then incest is needed to prevent too much dilution of the blood. Some dilution is fine -- but over generations, without incest, the ability to bond with a dragon would go away. So the incest itself did not make the bond stronger -- it just avoided diluting the blood so much that bonding would become impossible.

 

this is all i was saying though. why am i wrong? lmao. apparently it's not correct, and it's blood magic that causes the bond, specifically, int he targaryen household.

 

...man did i have egg on my face.

 

and, id crackpot the same is true on the other side of the world, craster's incest, had purpose. not specifically just his generation, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is circular logic. You seem to forget that Ran admitted it as such too.

No he didnt, he knows the novels. He has never said that non-targs can ride dragons, and why would that be????

Oh because it's never happened. what a waste of time to even discuss it, I am done. this is an AJT thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it's not targ blood, many valyrian houses did so as well. i was always under the assumption it was targaryen incest, which potenized whatever ingredients were in valyrian blood that made them hold more sway over dragons. but apparently thats wrong too.

 

 

 

True, there were 40 Dragonlord families in Valyria. However, the Targs are the only dragonlords to have survived the Doom.

yes that is what i mean, when we say Targ-blood now, we mean Valyrian dragonlord blood, as they are the only ones left alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just repost this interview:

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/29/secrets_of_game_of_thrones_george_r_r_martin_reveals_details_about_the_world_of_ice_and_fire/

 

 

Unlike the Lannisters, the Targaryens were incestuous for strategic reasons.

The practice of marrying brothers and sisters was common in the Targaryen homeland, Valyria, because the ability to tame dragons is inherited and they wanted to keep it in the family. But even those born with this aptitude didn’t have an easy time of it, as Dany’s own trouble controlling her dragons testifies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you -- I almost forgot about that interview (but have referenced it in the past). Yes, GRRM has confirmed this fact. How can it still be a matter of debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No he didnt, he knows the novels. He has never said that non-targs can ride dragons, and why would that be????

Oh because it's never happened. what a waste of time to even discuss it, I am done. this is an AJT thread.

 

Yes he did. Find their interview after TWOIAF is released. It was in Reddit.

 

 

First this is not an actual interview. It looks more like a summary of some facts chosen by Laura Miller after reading the World Book. Hell, she even states in the beginning that

 

“I learned even more about "GoT" from this fascinating new book than I did from interviewing the man himself”

 

Second, that Valyrians kept incest to have the ability of dragontaming is stated in the World Book too. But Ran will tell you that not everything written in the World Book is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you -- I almost forgot about that interview (but have referenced it in the past). Yes, GRRM has confirmed this fact. How can it still be a matter of debate?

I have no idea. Like i said; it means you have poor reading comprehension. Anyway it doesnt matter, we all know the truth so there's really no reason to keep feeding this pointless argument.

 

AJT is a much more interesting subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×