Jump to content
Canon Claude

Spare one of these villains from execution and explain why

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Life? I'm sorry but to me Ser Strong is not "alive". It's clearly stated that he doesn't eat nor drink nor go to the toilet… It's a zombie, not a human living.

Sure, if you want to quibble that he has not been brought back to life then fair enough. No argument here, but no other Maester has been able to make a zombie (or whatever Clegane is). No medic in our own medieval times has been able to make a zombie. 

In the chosen field of bringing people back to life/creating zombies through experimentation he is the most skilled person we have seen. This qualifies him as a genius. 

Quote

In his field? With the exception of the NK, no one in Westeros is busy making zombies from poisoned corpses… It's easy to be the winner when you're the only one to compete!

Sure. But he is all the same the designated leader in his field, something that even had someone done something similar in modern medicine they would be labelled a genius. 

6 hours ago, Orphalesion said:


So? Cutting living people apart and creating undead, mostly mindless, shambling zombies isn't exactly a field that's very desirable or  useful.
It's like saying praising somebody's skill in devising and admonishing novel torture techniques. 

I didn't create the word and word genius is not just applied to fields that are desirable  and useful, though in this case it is incredibly useful as Kevan Lannister points out that Cersei's life and Tommen's crown is entirely dependent on Qyburn's resurrection.  

By the definitions of the word he is a genius. His chosen field, even if you want to label it as necromancy, is something none of his peers have been able to do, something he has discovered pretty much all on his own. 

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We expect from the "Realmsmen" to know better. So I guess the Weeper has the best chance. I know that the Ironborn share many of the values of the Wildlings, but Euron has gone beyond even the Ironborn culture rules. For example, if there was Craster instead of the Weeper, it would be even harder pardoning anyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I didn't create the word and word genius is not just applied to fields that are desirable  and useful, though in this case it is incredibly useful as Kevan Lannister points out that Cersei's life and Tommen's crown is entirely dependent on Qyburn's resurrection.  

By the definitions of the word he is a genius. His chosen field, even if you want to label it as necromancy, is something none of his peers have been able to do, something he has discovered pretty much all on his own. 

 

I'm not commenting on whether Qyburn is a "genius" or not, only that creating zombies is neither a skill you want someone to have nor a skill that can benefit anybody but the most ruthless of people (like CerseI). So it's nothing admirable nor should it factor into a hypothetical scenario where Qyburn is pardoned. On contrary, it should condemn him more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

I'm not commenting on whether Qyburn is a "genius" or not, only that creating zombies is neither a skill you want someone to have nor a skill that can benefit anybody but the most ruthless of people (like CerseI). So it's nothing admirable nor should it factor into a hypothetical scenario where Qyburn is pardoned. On contrary, it should condemn him more.

That is the amazing thing about science, no one really knows what the science will be used for. I imagine Einstein never considered that his special theory of relativity would indirectly make the the atomic bomb possible, the single most dangerous weapon in human history. 

It is possible that some of the methodology that was used to bring Gregor back could not be used for the betterment of human kind in other ways. His last two 'managers' have been Cersei Lannister and Vargo Hoat, two people who have been happy to look the other way, allowed him full carte blanche. A more ethical leader could impose stricter guidelines but still allow him to experiment within reason. 

Of the 5 he is the one who could would be the most useful to a leader, think of the Nazi scientists who were recruited by the States in Operation Paperclip and helped advance American science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 4:24 PM, Clegane'sPup said:

A Clash of Kings - Arya X    Though he wore maester's robes, there was no chain about his neck; it was whispered that he had lost it for dabbling in necromancy./

I had not heard the word necromancy until I read it in Martin’s tale. Then, I googled it. .Necromancy supposedly is something along the lines of -----magic

Hmm, that's an interesting quote. Thanks for providing that Clegane'sPup. :thumbsup:

-----

While certainly not substantial enough to definitively conclude that magic was used on Gregor, this is the only hint we've been given in regards to the subject of studies Qyburn was pursuing. Given the other examples of the dead being revived; Thoros, reviving Beric; Beric, reviving Cat; and the Others, reviving fallen men as wights, I think it's quite fair to assume that magic may have been involved in the process used by Qyburn. 

If one is of the belief that magic was indeed involved, we shouldn't conclude that Qyburn is any more a genius than Thoros, Beric, or any other Other, that has the ability to use necromancy.

These other examples we have, are also proof that Qyburn's accomplishments are not as unprecedented, and rare as is being posited on this thread by others.

If one is of the mind that magic was not involved, we still have insufficient information to make a judgement as to whether Qyburn is a genius. The argument that this feat has never been accomplished, isn't conclusive, as we don't know what scientific principles Qyburn is using. Sure, they could be ground breaking and innovative, but they could just as likely be advanced scientific principles (or even basic principles) already known to the Citadal - just that these methods have never been put to practice in the morally repulsive manner employed by Qyburn (of which he has been experimenting with his entire career).

As well, all though by different means, this accomplishment of Qyburn's is still not as ground breaking and as rare of a feat, as is being portrayed. Necromancy has been a relatively common occurrence in and around the realm as of late. And I would say that Qyburn's results are sub-par compared to the work done by Thoros, and not nearly on as vast of a scale as the Others have done.

...And I'm still waiting for someone to explain, what are these unique, extraordinary skills and abilities that Qyburn apparently possesses, or to provide evidence of his exceptional intelligence, that would make him a genius according to the rudimentary, and highly contested definition (of what constitutes the criteria used to classify one as being genius) provided:

Quote

The Cambridge definition of the word Genius. 

very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this

The Oxford dictionary definition of the word Genius

An exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity

And no, Qyburn's results do not constitute as a skill or ability, they are just that - they are results, which are not equivalent to the skills or abilities, that produced those results.

Eta: It should also be noted that many scientific discoveries have been stumbled upon accidentally, and often, where results of an experiment were unanticipated, and hypothesised as not possible. Although many of these have been unprecedented, and ground breaking discoveries, the persons responsible for the discoveries are not credited with being geniuses.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

If one is of the belief that magic was indeed involved, we shouldn't conclude that Qyburn is any more a genius than Thoros, Beric, or any other Other, that has the ability to use necromancy.

Why should we not? Are you under the impression that geniuses are only limited to science? They are not and Qyburn has made a breakthrough that none of his peers are able to do, and none seem to know how he did it. This qualifies him as a genius. 

7 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

These other examples we have, are also proof that Qyburn's accomplishments are not as unprecedented, and rare as is being posited on this thread by others.

Please list them. In an entire continent there seems to be no other living Westerosi citizen who has deliberately tried to ressureect someone and succeeded. Qyburn's skills in his field are exceptional. 

7 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

If one is of the mind that magic was not involved, we still have insufficient information to make a judgement as to whether Qyburn is a genius.

Whether 'magic' was involved or not does not really change the English definition of the word. He is still a genius by the definition. 

7 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

The argument that this feat has never been accomplished, isn't conclusive, as we don't know what scientific principles Qyburn is using.

How does that change anything? 

Has everyone who has been labelled a genius given full transparency to their methodology? When has this ever been a criteria for someone being a genius?

I'm sorry dude, but you don't get too change the meaning of a word just because you want to win a meaningless argument on the internet. 

15 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Sure, they could be ground breaking and innovative, but they could just as likely be basic, or maybe even advanced scientific principles already known to the Citadal - just that these methods have never been put to practice in the morally repulsive manner employed by Qyburn (of which he has been experimenting with his entire career).

Which makes Qyburn a leader and incredibly skilled in his field, a genius by the very definition of the word. 

15 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

As well, all though by different means, this accomplishment of Qyburn's is still not as ground breaking and as rare of a feat, as is being portrayed.

Yeah, it is. 

lol and I thought you were going to put me on ignore, consider my huge surprise when I  came across your direct quotation from one of my posts. Good to see that you have gotten over your past overreaction, I welcome the debate.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Sorry, that is not a strawman argument. You in fact, made this very argument:

Oh no you caught me...making the argument I just said I argued instead of the one you accused me of. I didn't argue he was a genuis that will only come about a thousand years if ever because he was just intelligent(as you implied) At most I  argued his resurrection of Gregore and his beating of death show him to be such a mind that would come around 1000 years if ever. 

12 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

You then, in an attempt to back this assertion of yours, stated

Um no. In the attempt to back up the declaration of him being  genuis I stated this:" We do not need a literal IQ score to realize to be as good a healer as his Archmaestor shows Qyburn to be very and I do mean very intelligent to a point where'd it'd be a disservice to recognize the man as a genuis. 

In this in direct response to you brushing off as showing nothing about his Qyburn' intelligence. 

12 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Unless, with this statement, you are recanting your assertion that there is evidence to suggest Qyburn is a genius, and are now claiming that he is only very intelligent (as opposed to being a genius), my argument is valid, and not a strawman.

 

No it is not valid. You seem to have quite literally cut my sentence short to get the argument you wanted to hear; if not I'm sure it was simple mistake to which now that I have pointed out you will give me show me some  courtesy and apologize for having misread what I wrote.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

So, if you would like to confirm that you agree your post was not evidence as to Qyburn being a genius, I will gladly concede that my response was a strawman - although unintentional, and due to a lack of clarity on your part.

If you'd gladly concede you had made an error I will gladly let it go as although a strawman argument was by no means intentional-it was simply a small mistake on your part.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of beating a dead horse, and I apologize for veering off topic, but I would also like to comment on the example provided by my very good friend Berniemac - of whom should have familiarized himself with the career and works of Nicola Tesla, should he have wanted to avoid using such an unsuitable candidate, in an attempt to prove his point.

Not only were the principles behind Tesla's research known and understood, they were so much so, that many other advances in the field at that time (by other scientists and inventors) were direct continuation of Tesla's research.

His status as a genius was also a very debated and contested matter. Not only was he not considered a genius by many, and had most of his accomplishments overshadowed by others in the field - who put his research to practical applications - but many considered him a "crackpot", as he wasted his time on research and inventions with no practical uses, intended to impress and woo the average, uneducated man into believing as to the fantastic wonders of his discoveries.

I think it's fair, now in modern times, to consider Tesla a genius, as many of his discoveries are still the core principles behind electrical theory. But again, these principles are fully understood, and not some unexplained mystery that nobody understands. As well, we are aware of his uncanny ability to solve complex formulas in his head.

Eta: Besides, the point here, that is lost on Berniemac, and making his rebuttal irrelevant, is not that others do not comprehend Qyburn's methods. It's that we, the reader, have no insight at all as to whether or not the process involved is remarkable and ingenuitive or not. Using basic principles in a deplorable and unethical manner, which others are not willing to do, does not make one a genius, it makes them a monster.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol and I thought you were going to put me on ignore, consider my huge surprise when I  came across your direct quotation from one of my posts. Good to see that you have gotten over your past overreaction, I welcome the debate.  

First off, I didn't know that quoting definitions from the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary was a direct quote of you, or an attempt to address you. My pardons.

Secondly, it's kind of cute, in a sad way, that you think I am in any way beholden to you. But if it has a chance to sate your narcissistic accusations, I will tell you, I changed my mind about adding you to the ignore list, as I am fully aware that you will continue to quote my posts, and out of context, slander me. I feel it's in my best interests that I have the option to defend myself, if I feel it's warranted.

...and besides, I don't need a site function, in order to ignore your posts.

So long, and all the best to you, as well.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

First off, I didn't know that quoting definitions from the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary was a direct quote of you, or an attempt to address you. My pardons.

You took the quote from two of my posts, it is a straight copy and paste, I know as I copy and pasted it from my original post the second time I used it. 

Are you that unwilling to accept the truth that you are now denying quoting the definitions from my posts? Come on man, you are better than that. 

Quote

Secondly, it kind of cute, in a sad way, that you think I am in any way beholden to you.

I don't. I have never thought or posted something to suggest that. Please stop taking things so personal, you are overthinking some of what is being posted. 

Quote

 

But if it has a chance to sate your narcissistic accusations, I will tell you, I changed my mind about adding you to the ignore list, as I am fully aware that you will continue to quote my posts, and out of context, slander me.

When have I slandered you?

And sure, I knew you were not being genuine as I recall the time you said the same to Lord Varys and could not help yourself from replying. I think you have even said the same to me in the past. You can only cry wolf so many times. 

Quote

 

I feel it's in my best interests that I have the option to defend myself, if I feel it's warranted.

Sure. You do realise that no one asked you to make the bogus claim that you were going to ignore me, you made that on your own volition. I am more than happy that you are still part of the debate. 

Quote

...and besides, I don't need a site function, in order to ignore your posts.

Sure, so why say you were going to use it? It makes you look disingenuous when you claim you are going to do something and don't do it. It makes it look like you will make any claim just to try and win an internet argument. There is simply no need for it. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

I think it's fair, now in modern times, to consider Tesla a genius, 

He was considered a genius in his own life time, even by the  hoi polloi  who did not understand his methodology,, Same for Einstein, many people take it for granted that he is a genius without the need to understand how he came to his conclusions. 

And, once again, you seem to have deflected from my question; "Has everyone who has been labelled a genius given full transparency to their methodology? When has this ever been a criteria for someone being a genius?"

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Eta: It should also be noted that many scientific discoveries have been stumbled upon accidentally, and often, where results of an experiment were unanticipated, and hypothesised as not possible. Although many of these have been unprecedented, and ground breaking discoveries, the persons responsible for the discoveries are not credited with being geniuses.

What does this have to do with Qyburn? He promised Cersei he would deliver her champion and he delivered. He quite clearly did not stumble into it, accidentally reanimate/bring back to life Gregor Clegane, it was his intention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh no you caught me...making the argument I just said I argued instead of the one you accused me of. I didn't argue he was a genuis that will only come about a thousand years if ever because he was just intelligent(as you implied) At most I  argued his resurrection of Gregore and his beating of death show him to be such a mind that would come around 1000 years if ever. 

Um no. In the attempt to back up the declaration of him being  genuis I stated this:" We do not need a literal IQ score to realize to be as good a healer as his Archmaestor shows Qyburn to be very and I do mean very intelligent to a point where'd it'd be a disservice to recognize the man as a genuis. 

In this in direct response to you brushing off as showing nothing about his Qyburn' intelligence. 

No it is not valid. You seem to have quite literally cut my sentence short to get the argument you wanted to hear; if not I'm sure it was simple mistake to which now that I have pointed out you will give me show me some  courtesy and apologize for having misread what I wrote.

If you'd gladly concede you had made an error I will gladly let it go as although a strawman argument was by no means intentional-it was simply a small mistake on your part.

No, my exclusion of the last portion of your comment was not an intent to misrepresent you. If you feel it was, then I do apologize, that was not on purpose.

The reason I cut it, was I felt it was irrelevant, and didn't change the premise of your point by having not included it - and it in fact, further supports my interpretation, as you literally state he should be recognized as a genius.

So no, unless you want to admit that your point was not meant to, and does not support that Qyburn is a genius, I will not concede that my argument was a strawman.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2018 at 0:51 AM, Bernie Mac said:

What does this have to do with Qyburn? He promised Cersei he would deliver her champion and he delivered. He quite clearly did not stumble into it, accidentally reanimate/bring back to life Gregor Clegane, it was his intention. 

It has nothing to do with Qyburn. It points out the fallacy in your argument, and your lack of understanding as to what criteria is used to classify one as a genius. That's the problem with every single reply you make; Your responses never have anything to do with what the person you quote is talking about, and you constantly ignore anything that refutes your unfounded assertions. Seriously dude, stop quoting me with such clueless and irrelevant rebuttals, that have not a thing to do with the point being made.

And sure, throughout Qyburn's career wherein he was experimenting in this field, even back when he was a maester, it was by Cercei's request. /s :rolleyes:

Well, actually no. Qyburn has been pursuing this goal for many years - by his own incentives - and you don't know when or how he made the assumed breakthrough discovery that made his accomplishment possible. It is completely plausible that a part of this process was an accidental or chance discovery, made while pursuing other endeavours and/or while expecting completely different results.

And per your usual tactic, yet another of your many strawman arguments, as I never claimed it wasn't Qyburn's intention to reanimate Gregor, or that he did so accidentally.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

It has nothing to do with Qyburn.

So then what is your point? 

Infact why are you so obsessed with this topic? You have not answered OP's question, you have ignored it and, seemingly, have just came into argue with the two people in this forum you seem to love arguing with. 

I just don't understand how you are so passionate about this subject, you seem to have posted in this topic more than anyone else, and yet you have not even answered OP's question. You just seem to be present to tell people you don't like that they are wrong. It's weird. 

On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

It points out the fallacy in your argument, and your lack of understanding as to what criteria is used to classify one as a genius. That's the problem with every single reply you make;

lol every single reply? You have read every single reply I have made? You remember every single reply I have made? If I knew you were not saying such horseshit for attention I'd be flattered. Sadly, like your claims that you were no longer going to reply or that you were putting me on ignore I am going to have to take this claim as more attentions seeking. 

Dude, if it makes you happy then long may it continue. It's not hurting anyone. 

On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Your responses never have anything to do with what the person you quote is talking about, and you constantly ignore anything that refutes your unfounded assertions.

lol that is so rich considering that there have been three times in this debate were you mistakenly accused my of saying something someone else has said. 

Here are the examples of you attributing statements to me that I had not actually said

Not only do you have no clue as to what Qyburn did, but all of these others that you claim couldn't do the same, were not willing to use the same methods used by him.

It is a fallacy to claim he is smarter than them

I never said he doesn't deserve recognition for what he's accomplished. My point is, considering the very limited information we have, it's quite premature and presumptuous to claim:  "...he's a genuis to which the world would be lucky to see again in a thousand years if ever."

So there we go, three time when you yourself in this debate have responded to something that the other person has not said. Please show the evidence where you think I have done the same and I will gladly go over it with you. 

 

On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Seriously dude, stop quoting me with such clueless and irrelevant rebuttals, that have not a thing to do with the point being made.

What is the point being made? Please explain?

On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

And sure, throughout Qyburn's career wherein he was experimenting in this field, even back when he was a maester, it was by Cercei's request. /s :rolleyes:

Where did I say the above? Please read what I actually wrote

"He promised Cersei he would deliver her champion and he delivered. He quite clearly did not stumble into it, accidentally reanimate/bring back to life Gregor Clegane, it was his intention. "

I was more than clear. Nowhere does that say or suggest that he began his experimentation because Cersei asked him to. You know that buzzword you are so fond of, STRAWMAN, this is a clear example of it. 

On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

Well, actually no. Qyburn has been pursuing this goal for many years

Who has claimed otherwise in  this discussion? Please quote the person you think has said that he has only recently been perusing this goal?

On 10/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

And per your usual tactic, yet another of your many strawman arguments, as I never claimed it wasn't Qyburn's intention to reanimate Gregor, or that he did so accidentally.

lol if so then I apologise. Can I ask who was this about? 

Quote

Eta: It should also be noted that many scientific discoveries have been stumbled upon accidentally, and often, where results of an experiment were unanticipated, and hypothesised as not possible. Although many of these have been unprecedented, and ground breaking discoveries, the persons responsible for the discoveries are not credited with being geniuses.

 Which character were you suggesting stumbled into something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

So you didn't say this?

On 09/02/2018 at 10:33 PM, Bernie Mac said:

They are not and Qyburn has made a breakthrough that none of his peers are able to do,

Eta: Or this?

Quote

No other Maesters seem to have this ability

How do you know? Do you know of a maester that has tried and failed, to do what Qyburn did? Do you want to finally tell me what this exceptional ability that allowed him to perform necromancy was?

Quote

You're trying to deny your implication by arguing semantics. You claim he is a genius, therefore - by the definition you provided - exceptionally intelligent. If you are so desperate to falsely accuse me of a strawman, in order to deflect from the irrelevance and fallacies in your argument, I will retract my statement of: "It is a fallacy to claim he is smarter than them", and rephrase it as: It's a fallacy to claim he has exceptional intelligence (or is a genius) relative to his peers, based on accomplishing something by means that none of those peers were willing to use.

Quote

I never said that you said that. You had quoted my response to that argument, and out of context, made a ridiculous, irrelevant rebuttal to my comment, that had nothing to do with what I was saying (as you do, every time you quote me.) I quoted that comment, by Varysblackyre321, to show the context of what my argument was in response to; As you had ignored the context, and misrepresented my comment. (surprise, surprise)

18 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I was more than clear. Nowhere does that say or suggest that he began his experimentation because Cersei asked him to. You know that buzzword you are so fond of, STRAWMAN, this is a clear example of it. 

If that was not your implication, then it only makes your statement even more pointless and irrelevant than it already was.

ETA: At least with you implying such, you're attempting an argument - albeit, a weak, strawman argument - but without the implication, you are just rambling on about irrelevant, basic, undisputed facts, that everyone is aware of; For some strange, pointless reason. 

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So you didn't say this?

Yep. What does that have to do with any of the below? 

And how is the statement false? He does seem to have made a breakthrough that no other Maester has done. 

Quote

 

You're trying to deny your implication by arguing semantics.

No, I am not. You are making up arguments that I have never made in this discussion. Please post the comment were you think I have stated that Qyburn is smarter than his colleagues. I have said no such thing. 

Quote

 

You claim he is a genius, therefore - by the definition you provided - exceptionally intelligent.

In a specified field. Please read the actual definitions, you took the time to copy and paste them from me (despite you pretending that you put me on ignore) He, as far as we know,  is more advanced in his field than any other Maester. If you have actual evidence from the books that this is not the case then I am happy to hear it. 

Once again you are making up arguments that I have never made. 

Quote

 

If you are so desperate to falsely accuse me of a strawman,

I'm not desperate. I find it amusing as it is your fall back when you can't think of a decent counterpoint, it is to call it a strawman when you yourself are often guilty of it. 

 

Quote

in order to deflect from the irrelevance and fallacies in your argument, I will retract my statement of: "It is a fallacy to claim he is smarter than him", and rephrase it as: It's a fallacy to claim he has exceptional intelligence (or is a genius) relative to his peers, based on accomplishing something by means that none of those peers were willing to use.

eh? Where is it stated that there must be a certain number of people in a field or area? Qyburn fits the dictionary defintion

 or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity.

As far as we have seen he does have an exceptional skill. Few, if anyone else, has shown this skill he has. It is exceptional. 

Quote

I never said that you said that.

So why say it in a reply to me? Why ask me about that claim and put in in quotation marks as if I had made that point?

You made a mistake, you clearly thought I had said something that someone else had. There is no point denying it as you have proved in this very thread that you have no problem making up lies. 

Quote

You had quoted my response to that argument, and out of context, made a ridiculous, irrelevant rebuttal to my comment, that had nothing to do with what I was saying (as you do, every time you quote me.)

 

Sure I do. In this example how did it have nothing to do with what you were saying? 

Quote

 

I quoted that comment, by Varysblackyre123, to show the context of what my argument was in response to.

 

What has that got to do with me? Can you not see how misleading that is?

Quote

If that was not your implication, then it only makes your statement even more pointless and irrelevant than it already was.

Explain why? 

edit: Wow, you have edited a whole lot of your post. 

Quote

How do you know? Do you know of a maester that has tried and failed, to do what Qyburn did?

Do you not understand what 'seem' means? 

Quote

Do you want to finally tell me what this exceptional ability that allowed him to perform necromancy was?

 

No. What does this have to do with conversation? Bringing back someone from the dead is an exceptional skill, which, under the dictionary criteria, classifies it as a work of genius. 

Neither of us have to know how it was done to recognise that it was exceptional. Maesters are not bringing people back from death

Quote

As you had ignored the context, and misrepresented my comment. (surprise, surprise)

Why would you expect me to answer you? You thought I had said something someone else and asked me to defend a claim I never made. Why are you surprised that I did not answer it? It had nothing to do with my argument. 

Quote

ETA: At least with those implications, you're attempting an argument - all be it,

Albeit?

Quote

a strawman argument

lol your favourite buzzword once again. By all means explain why it is a strawman (or resort to buzzword no 2). 

 

Quote

- but without the implication, you are just rambling on about irrelevant, basic facts that everyone knows; For some strange, pointless reason. 

Excellent, you agree with me then. 

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 8, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Bernie Mac said:

"How many women has he raped or killed or stolen?"
"Three of mine own ilk," said Old Flint. "And he blinds the girls he does not take."
 
The Weeper's methods are backed up by Mance, an ally of the Weeper
 
The wildling's own eyes narrowed. Grey eyes, brown eyes; Melisandre could see the color change with each pulse of the ruby. "Cutting out the eyes, that's the Weeper's work. The best crow's a blind crow, he likes to say. Sometimes I think he'd like to cut out his own eyes, the way they're always watering and itching. Snow's been assuming the free folk would turn to Tormund to lead them, because that's what he would do. He liked Tormund, and the old fraud liked him too. If it's the Weeper, though … that's not good. Not for him, and not for us."

Yeah I think he was just  playing devil's advocate man; the way a lawyer might representing his or her client. 

If so pretty ok case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Walder is the only one of these who acted in the interest of the kingdom.  He followed the orders of King's Landing to remove the leader of the rebels from the north and bring a halt to the war.  It became the War of the Four Kings, thanks to Black Walder's help.  He gets a pardon from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×