Tagganaro Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Because they're honorable men? Well they at least many of them would like to see themselves as such. And being a traitor doesn't really square with the perception they would want to see themselves as at this point. Who are honorable men? Beric and Thoros? Most of the Brotherhood make no claim to being honorable nor do I see how you can read into the "perception they would to see themselves as?" What does that mean? How do you know? Quote They chose to go on after Ned died mostly because Beric refused who cited their mission-he was after all their commander still. And he's come back from the dead which surely elevates him to higher plane in their eyes. And Beric is now dead and they are led by a "grimmer shadow" as stated by Thoros himself. Quote Killing Mycha legally was not crime; the boy was found to have assaulted the crown prince by Sandor's superiors who was ordered to fetch this fugitive; Sandor was under no requirement to exhaust himself anymore than had to fufill his task; If Sandor himself acted unjustifiably he would have not needed a trial to determine if he is deserving of death. Killing Mycah would be a crime if Mycah never struck Joffrey, as Arya says out loud. That's what the Brotherhood trial is about. Hence them asking Sandor "Did you see him [Mycah] strike the prince?" That's at least their pretext for putting him on trial. Quote He killed Mycha. He admits this. No one not even Arya is disputing his rebelling of why, which clearly frames him of having not committed an actual crime; hell Ned himself doesn't even think of trying to seek the hound's execution or thinks Sandor has committed a crime. Again reread that scene. They are not trying Sandor over whether he killed Mycah. He admits to that. They are putting him on trial based on Arya's claim that it was her who struck the prince and not Mycah. Quote In the end they were going to put the guy on trial for something no matter what; they just landed Mychah ultimately it sounded the least ridiculous reason someone brought up(which given the others being related to a guy whose committed crimes and serving a house the brotherhood dislikes isn't saying much). If they didn't elect to try him for Mychah they'd probably just settle upon trying him for Gregore's butchering of Rheagar's family; most of them in this instance weren't much in actually imparting justice as much exacting vegence; and showed they could not distinguish the two. It may be a thin pretext for a trial but that's what they settled on. Quote I think the brotherhood in general didn't care who ordered Sandor to fetch Mychah or the context in which the boy was killed; they just wanted to rob someone and murder said someone for being in any way connected to those they don't like while looking good; much like the Knights Sandor lays into for being hypocrites. They may just be seeking a pretext but they are still committed to doing so- it sure does not seem like they are ready to condemn Sandor when he responds to them with his points on their earlier pretexts. Quote They never stopped claiming they were seeking the king's justice under Beric's tenure as their leader. They were protecting Robert's realm, Robert's people, for King Robert(thus their use of king's men). Robert is cited as their main reason and justification for their actions. Doesn't the bolded mean they are protecting the smallfolk? That is their main mission at this point, that's exactly what Beric says it is. Harwin says the same. He says they became outlaws and needed to defend the realm from the Lions savaging the smallfolk once they couldn't fight for Robert anymore. Quote I did not say they weren't traitors-I said they can do what they want by pretending to excercise Robert's will without fearing they are traitors. What? Quote Big diffrence. The lie is important going to many of them; hench continuously repeating it, especially in response when someone points out their unlawful actions. How do you know the lie is important to them? Why is it important to them? Who is pointing out their unlawful actions and why are they defending themselves from this? Quote It allows them to see themselves as being honorble even they're doing dishonorable things. The only one who seems to think they are being honorable is when Beric is in charge. That is clearly NOT the case in AFFC when Stoneheart is. Quote Lol, Thoros was totally on board with the whole lets murder someone for being related to Gregore; Arya IV . "Do you deny that House Clegane was built upon dead children? I saw them lay Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenys before the Iron Throne. By rights your arms should bear two bloody infants in place of those ugly dogs." And working for Tywin; "You serve the Lannisters of Casterly Rock," said Thoros And then what happened? They listened to the Hound's responses and agreed with them, then waited for a better reason to present itself. Quote How exactly is what the brotherhood doing now that much more egregious than what they and Thoros already wanted to do in ASOS? Thoros says it is. He calls Stoneheart a grimmer shadow, says the Brotherhood is now broken, says they were King's men but now they don't have a king. He says they were about justice when Beric led them, but now the war has made monsters of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Quote Killing Mycah would be a crime if Mycah never struck Joffrey, as Arya says out loud. That's what the Brotherhood trial is about. Hence them asking Sandor "Did you see him [Mycah] strike the prince?" That's at least their pretext for putting him on trial. No it wouldn't be a crime if Mycah was totally innocent It's not Sandor's place to question his betters nor his obligation; their decree is enough. Mycah actual guilt is inconsequential to whether his killing was a crime; all that really matters is whether or not the hound act within the parameters of his orders from the royal family; which he clearly did. No one actually disputed that. And Arya does not say killing Mycah would be a crime if he never struck Joffery. Doubtful she'd wouldn't still see killing as murder even Mycah did strike Joffery for the boy was her friend. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Again reread that scene. They are not trying Sandor over whether he killed Mycah. He admits to that. They are putting him on trial based on Arya's claim that it was her who struck the prince and not Mycah. Again Arya's claim that the story Sandor was told by his superiors is a lie adds nothing. Whether or not she's telling the truth doesn't matter to whether or not the Hound is actually guilty of anything. I did not say they were trying Sandor over whether or not he killed Mycach; I did point out were the brotherhood was putting the hound trial to determine if the boy's killing was legally justified; which it clearly is. Again Ned Stark(who was displeased to see the boy dead), never thought to try getting the hound legally punished. A headsman isn't guilty of a crime by virtue of taking the head of someone deemed by his lord guilty of murder even if said said someone is totally innocent. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: may just be seeking a pretext but they are still committed to doing so- it sure does not seem like they are ready to condemn Sandor when he responds to them with his points on their earlier pretexts. Quote They already condemned Sandor; they've told him flat out he's guilty. He in their eyes is guilty of the crimes of his house(for having been born into it) and house lanisters(for having served), the brotherhood had already made clear they had thought those were good enough to put Sandor on trial; them not taking his life immediately was simply was an attempt at feeling rightous while planning to murder a guy they didn't like but not really guilty of any crime that they know of and rob him. Thoros said straight up at the start "You will die soon enough dog" 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Doesn't the bolded mean they are protecting the smallfolk? That is their main mission at this point, that's exactly what Beric says it is. Harwin says the same. He says they became outlaws and needed to defend the realm from the Lions savaging the smallfolk once they couldn't fight for Robert anymore. Did anyone say they weren't protecting the smallfolk? They say they are sprotecting the small folk for Robert, they are fighting in his memory, are fighting for his realm; they are still king's men; Robert is there stated justification and main motivation for their actions-they didn't stop fighting for Robert after he died by their words atheir actions are in his name. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Who are honorable men? Beric and Thoros? Most of the Brotherhood make no claim to being honorable nor do I see how you can read into the "perception they would to see themselves as?" What does that mean? How do you know? Quote Beric and Thoros, and all the Knights in the brotherhood ( which are most of their members given Beric knighted them) would at least want to be honorble. Being a knight is the most honorable thing can be in these men's culture's so stand to reason they'd want to be honorble and see themselves as such-else why be knighted by Beric who cannot promise them a lavish lifestyle? 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: How do you know the lie is important to them? Why is it important to them? Who is pointing out their unlawful actions and why are they defending themselves from this? Quote Because they continuously tout it out. Because it helps justify their dishonorable acts as well as enlarge their egos. And people the brotherhood Rob for the cause are going to point out their unlawful acts largely no? Like Arya for instance Arya pushed back from the table and got to her feet. "You're no king's men, you're robbers." "If you'd ever met a true robber, you'd know they donot pay, not even in paper. It's not for us we take your horses, child, it's for the good of the realm, so we can get about more quickly and fight the fights that need fighting. The king's fights. Would you deny the king?" As to why they they're defending themselves; because they don't want to be thought as common outlaws probably. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: And then what happened? They listened to the Hound's responses and agreed with them, then waited for a better reason to present itself. Quote No they didn't agree with the Hound. Where are you getting that any of them did? There was no concessions of any of his points being valid, the only real response to his defense was simply citing more crimes committed by house lanisters or Gregore at the behest of House lanister, not truly awknowleging Sandor's point of him not being guilty for the crimes of others.A Storm of Swords - Arya VI "Aye," said the Mad Huntsman, "and a kinder fate than you deserve for all your kind have done. Lions, you call yourselves. At Sherrer and the Mummer'sFord, girls of six and seven years were raped, and babes still on the breast were cut in two while their mothers watched. No lion ever killed so cruel." "I was not at Sherrer, nor the Mummer's Ford," the Hound told him. "Lay your dead children at some other door." Thoros answered him. "Do you deny that House Clegane was built upon dead children? I saw them lay Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenys before the Iron Throne. By rights your arms should bear two bloody infants in place of those ugly dogs." The Hound's mouth twitched. "Do you take me for my brother? Is being born Clegane a crime?" Murder is a crime. who did I murder? Lord Lothar Mallery and Ser Gladden Wylde," said Harwin. Tom Sevenstrings took up the count. "Alyn of Winterfell, Joth Quick-bow, Little Matt and his sister Randa, Anvil Ryn. Ser Ormond. Ser Dudley. Pate of Mory, Pate of Lancewood, Old Pate, and Pate of Shermer's Grove. Blind Wyl the Whittler. Goodwife Maerie. Maerie the Whore. Becca the Baker. Ser Raymun Darry, Lord Darry, young Lord Darry. The Bastard of Bracken. Fletcher Will. Harsley. Goodwife Nolla—" "Enough." The Hound's face was tight with anger. "You're making noise. These names mean nothing. Who were they?" "People," said Lord Beric. "People great and small, young and old. Good people and bad people, who died on the points of Lannister spears or saw their bellies opened by Lannister swords." If Arya hadn't jumped when she did likely the brotherhood would have simply continued citing crimes Sandor had nothing to do with paying no real heed to the Hound's words. Theres no real implication of Sandor's words having gotten through to anyone, Arya recounts nothing of anyone even looking like they may change their mind on the hound deserving to die for the crimes of Gregore and house lanisters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 5 hours ago, Tagganaro said: He calls Stoneheart a grimmer shadow, says the Brotherhood is now broken, says they were King's men but now they don't have a king. He says they were about justice when Beric led them, but now the war has made monsters of them all. Yes he does. That doesn't really answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 On July 7, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Bernie Mac said: Beric believed it and as their leader they follow his cause regardless if what he says contradicts to their actions. Given Beric is shown to be not entirely all there, he is likely focusing on the last goal he had, to defend Robert's kingdom. You know looking back he refers to Joffery as "Prince Joffery" at Sandor's trial. Perhaps his mind really is that stuck in the point in time to where he was sent out to execute Gregor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagganaro Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Yes he does. That doesn't really answer my question. Yes...it does. You asked how is what the Brotherhood is doing now worse than it was doing before- Thoros specifically says it is. The books specificially say it is. "War has made monsters of us all." 11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: No it wouldn't be a crime if Mycah was totally innocent It's not Sandor's place to question his betters nor his obligation; their decree is enough. Mycah actual guilt is inconsequential to whether his killing was a crime; all that really matters is whether or not the hound act within the parameters of his orders from the royal family; which he clearly did. No one actually disputed that. And Arya does not say killing Mycah would be a crime if he never struck Joffery. Doubtful she'd wouldn't still see killing as murder even Mycah did strike Joffery for the boy was her friend. Again Arya's claim that the story Sandor was told by his superiors is a lie adds nothing. Whether or not she's telling the truth doesn't matter to whether or not the Hound is actually guilty of anything. I did not say they were trying Sandor over whether or not he killed Mycach; I did point out were the brotherhood was putting the hound trial to determine if the boy's killing was legally justified; which it clearly is. Again Ned Stark(who was displeased to see the boy dead), never thought to try getting the hound legally punished. A headsman isn't guilty of a crime by virtue of taking the head of someone deemed by his lord guilty of murder even if said said someone is totally innocent. They already condemned Sandor; they've told him flat out he's guilty. He in their eyes is guilty of the crimes of his house(for having been born into it) and house lanisters(for having served), the brotherhood had already made clear they had thought those were good enough to put Sandor on trial; them not taking his life immediately was simply was an attempt at feeling rightous while planning to murder a guy they didn't like but not really guilty of any crime that they know of and rob him. Thoros said straight up at the start "You will die soon enough dog" You're doing that thing where you selectively quote stuff to attempt to bolster an argument you can't make based on the book. Again, reread that scene. When Arya speaks up, Lord Beric questions the Hound. He asks if he denies killing Mycah. The Hound admits it but said he was following orders because Mycah struck Joffrey. Then Arya calls him a liar. Then Lord Beric continues to question the Hound about this incident. Then he converses with Thoros and accuses him of murder, saying "but no one knows the truth or falsehood of the charge." It couldn't be clearer that he is on trial for killing Mycah. Quote Did anyone say they weren't protecting the smallfolk? They say they are sprotecting the small folk for Robert, they are fighting in his memory, are fighting for his realm; they are still king's men; Robert is there stated justification and main motivation for their actions-they didn't stop fighting for Robert after he died by their words atheir actions are in his name. You did... the whole point of this thread seems to be your view that the Brotherhood is hypocritical for not turning themselves in and serving Joffrey. But that is not their mission purpose- they are protecting the smallfolk of the realm. Quote Beric and Thoros, and all the Knights in the brotherhood ( which are most of their members given Beric knighted them) would at least want to be honorble. Being a knight is the most honorable thing can be in these men's culture's so stand to reason they'd want to be honorble and see themselves as such-else why be knighted by Beric who cannot promise them a lavish lifestyle? Give me names...you keep trying to say these guys want to be seen as honorable, which sure, but do they really care that much? Do you think Lem Lemoncloak gives a shit about being a knight by the time AFFC comes around? Or Tom O' Sevens? Everything we know of them says they don't, yet you keep saying otherwise. Quote Because they continuously tout it out. Because it helps justify their dishonorable acts as well as enlarge their egos. And people the brotherhood Rob for the cause are going to point out their unlawful acts largely no? Like Arya for instance Arya pushed back from the table and got to her feet. "You're no king's men, you're robbers." "If you'd ever met a true robber, you'd know they donot pay, not even in paper. It's not for us we take your horses, child, it's for the good of the realm, so we can get about more quickly and fight the fights that need fighting. The king's fights. Would you deny the king?" As to why they they're defending themselves; because they don't want to be thought as common outlaws probably. Again, this is before AFFC. Quote No they didn't agree with the Hound. Where are you getting that any of them did? There was no concessions of any of his points being valid, the only real response to his defense was simply citing more crimes committed by house lanisters or Gregore at the behest of House lanister, not truly awknowleging Sandor's point of him not being guilty for the crimes of others.A Storm of Swords - Arya VI Reread that scene again. he is put on trial for the murder of Mycah. Don't know how I can keep saying this. Quote If Arya hadn't jumped when she did likely the brotherhood would have simply continued citing crimes Sandor had nothing to do with paying no real heed to the Hound's words. Maybe, but that very specifically and explicitly doesn't happen, so why talk about it? He is very clearly put on trial for the murder of Mycah. s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 They are without banners now and it means they do not answer to any authority except theirs. They protect the small folk, yes. But they carry out justice as they see fit. Vigilantes and extortionists are what they are. They killed the Freys even after the ransom was paid. They are nothing more than road bandits and criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: You did... the whole point of this thread seems to be your view that the Brotherhood is hypocritical for not turning themselves in and serving Joffrey. But that is not their mission purpose- they are protecting the smallfolk of the realm. Quote When? Where did I say they weren't protecting the smallfolk? I'm genuinely asking here, clearly that would be mistake on my part. One to which I'd apologize for if pointed out. Yes they are protecting smallfolk; they state they are protecting the smallfolk of the team in Robert's name, again he's cited as their main motivation and justification for their actions repeatedly under Beric's tenure. They're actions contradict their words in this regard. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Quote Reread that scene again. he is put on trial for the murder of Mycah. Don't know how I can keep saying this. I don't really know either. This doesn't actually respond to what I said; who changed his or her mind about the hound having been guilty for the all stuff they said he is? Who even looked like they were about to withdraw their claim of him having to pay for the sins of others or even might of? Yes Sandor was put on trial to determine whether or not Mycah's killing was legally justified; My point is it's clear the majority of the brotherhood doesn't actually care what Sandor was specifically Sandor was put on trial for and killed for-all that really matters is that he gets killed and they get to feel self-rightous while doing it-Sandor could be hanged for the murder any one of the people Gregore or house lanister has murdered or brutalized; do you honestly think most of the brotherhood would have a problem with that? 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Give me names...you keep trying to say these guys want to be seen as honorable, which sure, but do they really care that much? Do you think Lem Lemoncloak gives a shit about being a knight by the time AFFC comes around? Or Tom O' Sevens? Everything we know of them says they don't, yet you keep saying otherwise. I gave you two-Thoros and Beric. Well to be fair you cited them. But you do have names. I'd also cite HarWin. Clearly most of them do under Beric's tenure do care about being honorble. Or at least looking it. Seriously, why else would they have Beric knight them when he cannot promise them any real perks that can given with title if they hadn't wanted to be. To answer your question; by the time Feast rolls around yes, the remaining members care less with the perception of being honorble. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: You're doing that thing where you selectively quote stuff to attempt to bolster an argument you can't make based on the book. Again, reread that scene. When Arya speaks up, Lord Beric questions the Hound. He asks if he denies killing Mycah. The Hound admits it but said he was following orders because Mycah struck Joffrey. Then Arya calls him a liar. Then Lord Beric continues to question the Hound about this incident. Then he converses with Thoros and accuses him of murder, saying "but no one knows the truth or falsehood of the charge." It couldn't be clearer that he is on trial for killing Mycah. Quote Dude, I just said the trial was about whether or not the hound's killing of Mycah was legally justified in the very post you're quoting. Which it cannot be as anything else from the words of Arya and Sandor's description of the events that transpired; either the degree of Mycah's guilt by Sandor's betters, is enough to justify lethal methods being used to fetch him, or it isn't. And it clearly is. And Arya did not say he was lying about what Mycah was deemed by Sandor's superiors of guilty of or Sandor's orders hell she backs up Cleagane's claim of Sansa having said to king Robert, Mycah attacked Joffrey. Nothing about what she's said actually paint the hound's killing of the boy to have been illegal, Seriously again, even Ned didn't think the hound could legally punished for Mycah's death. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Quote Again, this is before AFFC. Yes? I gave you a specific example of someone (Arya calling out their illegal acts (such as robbing them)and them using the justification of having done it for the king and a reason for why they would use Robert as a defense. So, under Beric's tenure it's clear the lie is important to the brotherhood. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: 18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Yes...it does. You asked how is what the Brotherhood is doing now worse than it was doing before- Thoros specifically says it is. The books specificially say it is. "War has made monsters of us all." 18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: No I didn't; I asked; How exactly is what the brotherhood doing now that much more egregious than what they and Thoros already wanted to do in ASOS? Along with Thoros, They by in large wanted to murder someone with the pretense of them being related to people they; they didn't. What somone wants to do is not necessarily the same thing as what they were actually doing. 6 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Maybe, but that very specifically and explicitly doesn't happen, so why talk about it? He is very clearly put on trial for the murder of Mycah. s. Well you said Sandor had convinced the brotherhood of the validity of his points and waited for a better reason to be offered as to why they should kill him-they didn't. None of his accusers conceded their points and then waited for someone to offer up a better reason for why he should die. Arya simply came in before anyone could respond (likely the same way as they had before), to Sandor's point of not being at fault for the misdeeds of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagganaro Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 36 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: When? Where did I say they weren't protecting the smallfolk? I'm genuinely asking here, clearly that would be mistake on my part. One to which I'd apologize for if pointed out. Yes they are protecting smallfolk; they state they are protecting the smallfolk of the team in Robert's name, again he's cited as their main motivation and justification for their actions repeatedly under Beric's tenure. Do you really need me to cite all the instances in this thread where you've said the BWB were hypocrites because they were "aiding" the Starks (which they weren't). Here's one instance: Quote If they claim to be acting with the express will and with the king's(namely Robert's) interests it does seem to inconsistent then actively work against the crown; I mean even the the decree for the mountains' head came from a man who tried to arrest someone thought to be the son of Robert; if they don't believe in the twincest at this point, it seems wrong to count use his writ as justification for why they are acting in the king's name; even when they're robbing people...While helping the current king's enemies or kill or assault the king's allies/followers. The BWB does this all while still saying they are in fact king's men, that they're protecting the realm in Robert's name; "The king is dead," the scarecrow knight admitted, "but we are still king's men, though the royal banner we bore was lost at the Mummer's Ford when your brother's butchers fell upon us." He touched his breast with a fist. "Robert is slain, but his realm remains. And we defend her." while planning to aid the Starks(the family seeking to tear the realm apart through secession-surely Robert wouldn't have wanted that-he would want his heirs to win even if it comes at the cost of some smallfolk being trampled upon-I mean this is a guy who apologized to Ned over losing a family pet, yet honestly didn't seem to care a 13 year old peasant boy was rundown by his son's protector for a crime he knows Mychah didn't commit; and the guy who expressed no outrage over Tywin's handling of the sack of KL) through shipping one of their daughter's home instead of to KL. What are you trying to say here if not that they're hypocrites for using Robert's name because they are working against the King's heirs...but as pointed out numerous times, that is not their mission at this point. It is to protect smallfolk, and they are punishing Northmen almost as much as Westermen. 42 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: I don't really know either. This doesn't actually respond to what I said; who changed his or her mind about the hound having been guilty for the all stuff they said he is? Who even looked like they were about to withdraw their claim of him having to pay for the sins of others or even might of? Yes Sandor was put on trial to determine whether or not Mycah's killing was legally justified; My point is it's clear the majority of the brotherhood doesn't actually care what Sandor was specifically Sandor was put on trial for and killed for-all that really matters is that he gets killed and they get to feel self-rightous while doing it-Sandor could be hanged for the murder any one of the people Gregore or house lanister has murdered or brutalized; do you honestly think most of the brotherhood would have a problem with that? You keep asserting that they had already decided the Hound's guilt before the trial began because Thoros said the Hound is guilty because he's a Clegane...this may or may not be true, we don't know, but the way the scene unfolds it is clear that he is on trial for killiing Mycah so I don't know why you keep asserting this and why it is relevant. It is not what happens. Quote I gave you two-Thoros and Beric. Well to be fair you cited them. But you do have names. I'd also cite HarWin. Clearly most of them do under Beric's tenure do care about being honorble. Or at least looking it. Seriously, why else would they have Beric knight them when he cannot promise them any real perks that can given with title if they hadn't wanted to be. To answer your question; by the time Feast rolls around yes, the remaining members care less with the perception of being honorble. I don't think we disagree on this one. Like I've been saying, they have become less honorable as the books have gone on. Quote Dude, I just said the trial was about whether or not the hound's killing of Mycah was legally justified in the very post you're quoting. Do I need to quote you again? Here's what you just said above: Quote They already condemned Sandor; they've told him flat out he's guilty. He in their eyes is guilty of the crimes of his house(for having been born into it) and house lanisters(for having served), the brotherhood had already made clear they had thought those were good enough to put Sandor on trial; them not taking his life immediately was simply was an attempt at feeling rightous while planning to murder a guy they didn't like but not really guilty of any crime that they know of and rob him. Thoros said straight up at the start "You will die soon enough dog" As I've been saying, this is not what happens. They don't immediately hang him as they are willing to do for Brienne, Pod, Hyle, etc. And they don't even end up murdering him at all. You keep focusing in on what they want to do- you may or may not be right. But that is not what happens. Quote Which it cannot be as anything else from the words of Arya and Sandor's description of the events that transpired; either the degree of Mycah's guilt by Sandor's betters, is enough to justify lethal methods being used to fetch him, or it isn't. And it clearly is. And Arya did not say he was lying about what Mycah was deemed by Sandor's superiors of guilty of or Sandor's orders hell she backs up Cleagane's claim of Sansa having said to king Robert, Mycah attacked Joffrey. Nothing about what she's said actually paint the hound's killing of the boy to have been illegal, Seriously again, even Ned didn't think the hound could legally punished for Mycah's death. I don't know what you're arguing here. He is very clearly accused of murdering Mycah, a fact which you seem to agree with. Quote I gave you a specific example of someone (Arya calling out their illegal acts (such as robbing them)and them using the justification of having done it for the king and a reason for why they would use Robert as a defense. So, under Beric's tenure it's clear the lie is important to the brotherhood. ok? So what does this mean? Would you argue the Brotherhood hasn't changed at all from ASOS to AFFC? No I didn't; I asked; Quote How exactly is what the brotherhood doing now that much more egregious than what they and Thoros already wanted to do in ASOS? And I will again answer that we don't know what they wanted to do, and why that is so important to you, if they didn't actually end up doing it. So what are we arguing about here? Quote Along with Thoros, They by in large wanted to murder someone with the pretense of them being related to people they; they didn't. Ok, that is what I've been saying. Quote Well you said Sandor had convinced the brotherhood of the validity of his points and waited for a better reason to be offered as to why they should kill him-they didn't. None of his accusers conceded their points and then waited for someone to offer up a better reason for why he should die. Arya simply came in before anyone could respond (likely the same way as they had before), to Sandor's point of not being at fault for the misdeeds of others. Again, maybe? Maybe not? You are reading desires into stuff that is not expressed, I am merely stating what actually happened. You may be right...but this is very specifically not what happened as you've admitted already. He was put on trial for Mycah's murder, not the murders committed by his brother as they wanted to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Do you really need me to cite all the instances in this thread where you've said the BWB were hypocrites because they were "aiding" the Starks (which they weren't). Here's one instance: Quote Before I respond to the rest of your post I must clear this one thing up alone; To answer your question no. Because that's not what you accused me of doing and it's not what I asked of you at all. You accused me of saying the brotherhood weren't helping the smallfolk. Please cite the times I did just that. If you can I will apologize for my error. If you can't I hope you would be willing to withdraw your accusation and just admit to having made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagganaro Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 On 7/12/2018 at 6:44 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said: Before I respond to the rest of your post I must clear this one thing up alone; To answer your question no. Because that's not what you accused me of doing and it's not what I asked of you at all. You accused me of saying the brotherhood weren't helping the smallfolk. Please cite the times I did just that. If you can I will apologize for my error. If you can't I hope you would be willing to withdraw your accusation and just admit to having made a mistake. I guess I'm unclear as to what you're actually trying to argue here...you have made numerous statements about the "hypocritical" nature of the Brotherhood for claiming to be King's men while fighting against the King's heirs. In response, you've argued against numerous statements not just by me but by others saying that there really isn't much hypocrisy since the Brotherhood is mainly concerned with protecting the smallfolk and doesn't care about taking sides. So which is it? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways. Since you are asking for quotes from you, here goes: On 7/10/2018 at 7:24 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said: Jeopardizing the crown's war-effort by slaughtering it's soldiers and hunting it's military commanders(the death of ser Gregor would definitely hurt no), and selling off hostages who'd benifit the enemy to the enemy(ex.Arrya stark to house Stark while they're in open rebellion). They don't really need to fully align with any particular side for an action to be seen as honestly treasonous; a man could sell nuclear arms to his country's enemies without having really allighned with said enemies. As has been argued, they don't care abou the crown's war effort nor should they if they are primarily concerned with protecting smallfolk. So do you believe they are not concerned with protecting smallfolk? Ser Gregor is one of the biggest monsters in the 7 Kingdoms and has been tasked with setting the Riverlands (primarily its smallfolk) on fire and killing everyone. We see him do just that in ACOK. How can the Brotherhood protect the smallfolk and support Ser Gregor at the same time? On 7/10/2018 at 8:23 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said: Yes. Robert's men. So it'd make sense to support Robert's dream or plans; which was to have his line continue ruling a united realm. If a few peasants get hurt along away Robert would feel no more sorrow for them than he did for Mycah(who died over his son's lie), or the smallfolk who were savaged during Tywin's sack of KL. Protecting some peasants from getting hurt and avenging them, that's all fine and good but if it comes at the cost of lowering the chances of Robert's actual wants(you know his line ruling 7 kingdoms), then the brotherhood is being at least partly disingenuous in what they are. I've bolded this part, because again you are trying to have it both ways it seems. Either the Brotherhood primarily wants to protect the smallfolk or it doesn't...I still fail to see the hypocrisy here in them saying they are King's men because the King is dead...they are really just saying they don't have a side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted July 14, 2018 Author Share Posted July 14, 2018 4 hours ago, Tagganaro said: I guess I'm unclear as to what you're actually trying to argue here...you have made numerous statements about the "hypocritical" nature of the Brotherhood for claiming to be King's men while fighting against the King's heirs. In response, you've argued against numerous statements not just by me but by others saying that there really isn't much hypocrisy since the Brotherhood is mainly concerned with protecting the smallfolk and doesn't care about taking sides. So which is it? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways. Since you are asking for quotes from you, here goes: On July 10, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said: Again, quote me where I say they weren't protecting the smallfolk. If you really can't please just admit it. Hell one of the quotes you've pulled has me saying they had. Quote me saying they weren't protecting the smallfolk; not just that they're being at least partly disingenuous in what they are for protecting the smallfolk at the cost of Robert's(the man they cite as their prime motivation and justification for their actions), heirs chance of keeping the realm intact. Quote me saying unequivocally that they were not protecting the smallfolk. Again if you can't just say so and withdraw your accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.