The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon doesn't know the truth, and neither did Robb or Cat. And quite frankly - they wouldn't care about the truth. Ned is their father/husband and they love him. They would defend him no matter what he did.

But they do know the truth because they know Ned, and they know he would never try to usurp that bloody hideous IT. 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

But they do know the truth because they know Ned, and they know he would never try to usurp that bloody hideous IT. 

Knowing a person doesn't mean you 'know' a person. If my mother stood accused of murder I'd also take her side - but claiming she is innocent because 'I know her' is just nonsense. One wants to believe that one's loved ones are not criminals - but one doesn't know. And many people holding the hands of cold-blooded killers either don't care or don't want to know. 

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Knowing a person doesn't mean you 'know' a person. If my mother stood accused of murder I'd also take her side - but claiming she is innocent because 'I know her' is just nonsense. One wants to believe that one's loved ones are not criminals - but one doesn't know. And many people holding the hands of cold-blooded killers either don't care or don't want to know. 

As usual, we will have to agree to disagre. 

All those serial killers' parents/relatives/friends/neighbours who claim they "never saw it coming! He was the nicest bloke you ever saw!" are either clueless idiots or are lying to themselves or others. 

[Clegane'sPup]

Can we agree that Eddard was not beheaded because he was a traitor that Eddard was beheaded due to the politics taking place in KL?

If we can agree on the ^ above there is possible communication. It is my opinion that martin wrote Slynt as a greedy brown noser. Thorne on the other hand used his position to break criminals and bully newly recruited males under the guise of instilling obedience.

The Slynt Jon Snow confrontation is below. It takes place in book three.

A Storm of Swords - Jon IX    "My father was murdered." Jon was past caring what they did to him, but he would not suffer any more lies about his father.    Slynt purpled. "Murder? You insolent pup.     King Robert was not even cold when Lord Eddard moved against his son."     He rose to his feet; a shorter man than Mormont, but thick about the chest and arms, with a gut to match. A small gold spear tipped with red enamel pinned his cloak at the shoulder. "Your father died by the sword, but he was highborn, a King's Hand. For you, a noose will serve. Ser Alliser, take this turncloak to an ice cell."  "My lord is wise." Ser Alliser seized Jon by the arm./

There is a story written by martin, I can like or not, but there is a story.  Two things stick out ---- Aemon using metaphor told Jon to kill the boy ---- Jon did kill the boy when he passed the sentence and swung the sword.  Martin wanted Snow to become LC. The character Jon Snow did not campaign to become LC.    LC Jon Snow is now indisposed due an attack on his life. Supposedly the NW is again without a LC.

Funny thing is the so called enemy of the NW and the realm, the wildlings/free folk are south of the Wall. That group of people out number the NW. LC Snow, Stannis and the wildling/free folk know the danger of the Others/white walkers and the wights. That is part of the story.

Who is gonna hold the Wall? Who is going to lead the NW now that the LC is indisposed?

If a person were to think that Jon's action was to harsh let's add some more stuff into the mix.

Who gave Slynt the authority to take command of CB and place Jon in a ice cell? No one did. Slynt and Thorne took it upon themselves to take command.

Slynt and Thorne send Jon out to kill Mance or is that have Mance kill Jon?

A Storm of Swords - Jon X    That was so wrong Jon might have laughed. "You've got it backward. Mance suspected me from the first. If I show up in his camp wearing a black cloak again and speaking for the Night's Watch, he'll know that I betrayed him."     "He asked for an envoy, we are sending one," said Slynt. "If you are too craven to face this turncloak king, we can return you to your ice cell. This time without the furs, I think. Yes."    "No need for that, my lord," said Ser Alliser. "Lord Snow will do as we ask. He wants to show us that he is no turncloak. He wants to prove himself a loyal man of the Night's Watch."/

When Jon became LC he loped of Slynt's head. Good for him. LC Snow also sent Thorne on a ranging. Good For him.

Earlier in the story the boy, Jon Snow, was taken on a ranging by Mormont, passed off to Halfhand, they get stranded, Halfhand says Jon is to lie and do what he needs to do to survive so he can warn the Watch, Jon kills Halfhand, Jon enjoys getting his cherry plucked, he climbs the Wall with the wildlings, he manages to get back to CB to warn of the impending attack and holds the Wall.

Only to be what, what, what roused outta bed and placed in an ice cell by Slynt who had been sent to the Wall in disgrace by Tyrion.

My post may be a bit disheveled. Jumbled a bit.  The idea of what I am trying to communicate is Slynt showed up at CB with Thorne.  They decided they were in charge.   Aemon sent raven letters to EW and ST. The commanders of EW and ST arrive at CB.  There was a choosing. Jon Snow was elected.

Now due to the mutiny and attempted assassination the NW is again without a LC.  AND the NW is out numbered by the wildlings/free folk who presently reside on the south side of the Wall.

I would suggest to you the wildlings/free folk are the ones who will be defending the realm against the Others.

If readers want to think that Slynt and Thorne received bad treatment it is okee dokee wit me.

 

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

Good stuff, @Clegane'sPup style, love it.

And agree wholeheartedly, top to bottom. 

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As usual, we will have to agree to disagre. 

All those serial killers' parents/relatives/friends/neighbours who claim they "never saw it coming! He was the nicest bloke you ever saw!" are either clueless idiots or are lying to themselves or others. 

Who is talking about serial killers? You can just murder one person and still be a cold-blooded killer.

The point is just it means shit when family claim 'He didn't do it'. We expect them to defend their own even if they are guilty. And Jon Snow's expertise on his father's character is worth pretty much nothing. The boy has no idea what happened down in KL.

18 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Can we agree that Eddard was not beheaded because he was a traitor that Eddard was beheaded due to the politics taking place in KL?

Ned died a traitor's death, but he did not commit the treason he confessed to for the reasons he confessed it.

Slynt doesn't lie - he is right that Ned moved against Joffrey before Robert's corpse was even cold. And unless somebody proves that Slynt knew about the true parentage of Cersei's children I give the man the benefit of the doubt that he did believe Joffrey Baratheon was Robert's trueborn son and heir and thus the rightful king from his perspective.

It is Ned's own fault that Cersei could bury the truth because he didn't publicly reveal the truth - he didn't tell it to Robert (who could have disinherited Cersei's children on his deathbed; instead he reaffirmed that the crown should go to Joffrey), he didn't tell it to Renly (who could have helped spread the word). He didn't even tell it to the council before he went into the throne room to confront Joffrey and Cersei.

If you deliberately keep the truth from the public you cannot complain that the public sees you as a traitor when you do something that must look like treason.

[Clegane'sPup]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned died a traitor's death, but he did not commit the treason he confessed to for the reasons he confessed it. 

This gets tiresome. Yes, Eddard was beheaded. Story goes that if he announced his nonexistent traitorous activity Eddard's nonexistent traitorous behavior would excused and Eddard would be sent to the Wall. I kinda remember that Varys told Eddard he was a dead man and implied Eddard needed to think about the safety of Sansa.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Slynt doesn't lie - he is right that Ned moved against Joffrey before Robert's corpse was even cold. And unless somebody proves that Slynt knew about the true parentage of Cersei's children I give the man the benefit of the doubt that he did believe Joffrey Baratheon was Robert's trueborn son and heir and thus the rightful king from his perspective.

Yes, Eddard tried to move against Lannister. Yes, Eddard changed the wording of Robert's will. BUT there were witnesses in the room, iffin I remember.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is Ned's own fault that Cersei could bury the truth because he didn't publicly reveal the truth - he didn't tell it to Robert (who could have disinherited Cersei's children on his deathbed; instead he reaffirmed that the crown should go to Joffrey), he didn't tell it to Renly (who could have helped spread the word). He didn't even tell it to the council before he went into the throne room to confront Joffrey and Cersei.

Okay ---- Eddard is to blame for his own death because Eddard didn't tell Robert the truth about the King's wife fucking her brother.

Thanks for the chat LV, diner calls. I canna be swayed --- the bastard boy was chosen LC he passed the sentence and swung the sword.

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who is talking about serial killers? You can just murder one person and still be a cold-blooded killer.

Apologies. The post of yours I was replying to gave me the impression you were talking about family members/dear ones not being able to spot the 'bad apples'.  I suppose I was incorrect.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is just it means shit when family claim 'He didn't do it'. We expect them to defend their own even if they are guilty. And Jon Snow's expertise on his father's character is worth pretty much nothing. The boy has no idea what happened down in KL.

He doesn't have to, because the knows Ned. 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned died a traitor's death, but he did not commit the treason he confessed to for the reasons he confessed it.

Huh? This makes no sense to me. I think you mean to say he did betray Robert, but the charges brought up on him were not for that. Is that it?

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Slynt doesn't lie - he is right that Ned moved against Joffrey before Robert's corpse was even cold. And unless somebody proves that Slynt knew about the true parentage of Cersei's children I give the man the benefit of the doubt that he did believe Joffrey Baratheon was Robert's trueborn son and heir and thus the rightful king from his perspective.

What a gigantic pile of rubbish. Slynt doesn't care one fig about Cersei's kids being bastards or not. He was paid to do what he did, and that is it. 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is Ned's own fault that Cersei could bury the truth because he didn't publicly reveal the truth - he didn't tell it to Robert (who could have disinherited Cersei's children on his deathbed; instead he reaffirmed that the crown should go to Joffrey), he didn't tell it to Renly (who could have helped spread the word). He didn't even tell it to the council before he went into the throne room to confront Joffrey and Cersei.

It is, it's Ned's own fault that he thought first of saving the children from public shame, and worse, Robert's wrath. His own very fault, and still absolutely the right decision. 

To the bold: how would he have done that? He was alone w/ Robert. If Cersei had the nerve to tear an official document in public, don't you think she would have just laughed off any verbal instructions from Bob that Ned tried to pass on? 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If you deliberately keep the truth from the public you cannot complain that the public sees you as a traitor when you do something that must look like treason.

Fuck the public, no one is talking about the public. This tangent started w/ someone claiming Jon had jumped Slynt when Slynt first arrived. Then @teej6 posted the quotes, yadda yadda. Now that it has been well established that Jon didn't jump Slynt but called him a murderer, here we are... debating whether Jon had the right to call Slynt a murderer or not. 

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was mentioning that because Jon Snow is wrong to contradict Slynt on the fact that his father was murdered. Or Thorne. Or anyone. It is simply not true. He was executed as a traitor after he had confessed to treason. Not even after Cersei's brood is dealt with and the Iron Throne in the hands of another dynasty is this going to change.

The bolded section is plain ridiculous even for you. If you didn’t have your Stark hate blinders on and saw things objectively, even you’d see how ridiculous this statement of yours is. Even now in the books, characters like Olenna think that Ned was executed unjustly. You really think that once Cersei’s kids true paternity is revealed and accepted that people are still going to think Ned was a traitor. If you think by the end of the series Ned is going to be viewed as a traitor you are truly deluding yourself. Even your favorite Dany will be seeing things very differently by the end.  Anyway, this is totally digressing from the subjecf of the thread. 

[teej6]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This tangent started w/ someone claiming Jon had jumped Slynt when Slynt first arrived. Then @teej6 posted the quotes, yadda yadda. Now that it has been well established that Jon didn't jump Slynt but called him a murderer, here we are... debating whether Jon had the right to call Slynt a murderer or not. 

And Jon didn’t even call Slynt a murderer. He referred to his father’s execution as murder and that’s where all this off-topic discussion started. Oh well. 

[Lord Varys]

47 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Apologies. The post of yours I was replying to gave me the impression you were talking about family members/dear ones not being able to spot the 'bad apples'.  I suppose I was incorrect.

The idea that you can sniff out serial killers just because they are family members is also not very realistic, by the way. The reason why they are successful serial killers is because they can pretend to be nice guys - and actually be nice guys around the right people.

I mean, next you are going to tell us Sansa should have known what Joff truly was, or that Cat should have known Littlefinger was fooling her, or that Aeron should have known all the shit Euron pulled in his childhood, etc.

Quote

He doesn't have to, because the knows Ned. 

He knows nothing.

Quote

Huh? This makes no sense to me. I think you mean to say he did betray Robert, but the charges brought up on him were not for that. Is that it?

What he confessed was not what he did, but he still betrayed his friend and king by confessing to this treason which wasn't treason. That's not so hard to understand.

When Ned declared Joff the trueborn son of King Robert, etc. he murdered his best friend yet again - just as he murdered him the first time when he told Cersei the truth.

Quote

What a gigantic pile of rubbish. Slynt doesn't care one fig about Cersei's kids being bastards or not. He was paid to do what he did, and that is it. 

And you know this how? Can you read the minds of fictional characters?

Slynt was bribed, yes, but Littlefinger actually extended the offer to Slynt that Ned wanted to bribe him, too, as Slynt himself confesses to Tyrion. Did he stick with Cersei because she offered more money? Perhaps. But do you know that? Couldn't he have stuck with Cersei and Joff because he actually believed the boy was the trueborn son of the king?

I give him the benefit of the doubt. But you know things better, of course.

Quote

It is, it's Ned's own fault that he thought first of saving the children from public shame, and worse, Robert's wrath. His own very fault, and still absolutely the right decision. 

Then it is also the right decision to kill yourself and hand your children over to the enemy. Robert's wrath was a non-issue on Robert's deathbed. It wasn't even an issue really pressing Ned to talk to Cersei - instead of telling Cersei he would talk to Robert on his return, he could have revealed what he had learned to the public in the king's absence, forcing Cersei to flee - or help her with the inevitable escape.

Because you know - it is clear that Cersei only arranged Robert's murder after Ned told her the truth.

Quote

To the bold: how would he have done that? He was alone w/ Robert. If Cersei had the nerve to tear an official document in public, don't you think she would have just laughed off any verbal instructions from Bob that Ned tried to pass on? 

Nobody made a move while Robert was still alive, and his death only began in earnest after he began drinking Pycelle's milk of the poppy. If Robert had learned the truth on his deathbed, he could have disinherited Cersei's children, could have named a new heir - Stannis, or Renly, or one of his bastards - and then Ned could have implemented those things - before Robert died. Just make a public announcement.

To keep that under the rug Cersei would have to kill the entire council, especially after the word had spread in the castle. And that would have been much more difficult, perhaps impossible. Without the City Watch in the castle Cersei wouldn't have had the strength to really seize it. One fools oneself if one assumes the entire Red Keep was Cersei's at the time Robert returned from the hunt.

Cersei only moved when Robert was dead and people believed Joff was the new king.

I'm not saying she may not have ended up on top - but perhaps Ned and Renly and Loras and Selmy could have gotten away with the knowledge of the twincest. And then Joff wouldn't have spend a fortnight on the throne, if he had ascended it at all.

Ned acts like an utter political moron there, and while some of his things are understandable from the pity angle, the way he did everything in his power to not reveal the truth to anyone until he was in the throne room is just breathtakingly dumb.

35 minutes ago, teej6 said:

The bolded section is plain ridiculous even for you. If you didn’t have your Stark hate blinders on and saw things objectively, even you’d see how ridiculous this statement of yours is. Even now in the books, characters like Olenna think that Ned was executed unjustly. You really think that once Cersei’s kids true paternity is revealed and accepted that people are still going to think Ned was a traitor. If you think by the end of the series Ned is going to be viewed as a traitor you are truly deluding yourself. Even your favorite Dany will be seeing things very differently by the end.  Anyway, this is totally digressing from the subjecf of the thread. 

This is a ridiculous statement. I don't hate anyone. I just don't run around and defend fictional characters.

I actually like Ned - but that doesn't change the fact the died a traitor's death. Whether he was a traitor and who and what he betrayed is a different matter entirely. But honestly - if I were Robert Baratheon I'd say that I don't need enemies if I have friends like Ned. Truly, a man who cares more about the lives of the children of my mortal enemy/wife than my own life is no proper friend. And if I am the king this kind of behavior is not easily forgivable. Not to mention how he ruined the lives of his daughters with his 'honesty'. Why not first get Sansa and Arya out of the city before he talk to Cersei about what he learned? I mean, couldn't he postpone that particular appointment?

I just read the books. According to Stannis Baratheon Rhaenyra Targaryen also died 'a traitor's death' - which is correct. She was succeeded on the Iron Throne by two of her sons and all the Targaryen kings (and Stannis himself) are descended from her, yet she still died a traitor's death. Nobody did change that.

One can say somebody was executed unjustly, but that's not even the song sung for Rickard and Brandon, or is it? Do we hear many people talk about them being murdered?

This is not a world where people exhume corpses to clear their names. The dead rot, and if they died as traitors they died as traitors. Perhaps some people no longer see them as traitors - but they still died a traitor's death.

[Big P]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Who is talking about serial killers? You can just murder one person and still be a cold-blooded killer.

The point is just it means shit when family claim 'He didn't do it'. We expect them to defend their own even if they are guilty. And Jon Snow's expertise on his father's character is worth pretty much nothing. The boy has no idea what happened down in KL.

Ned died a traitor's death, but he did not commit the treason he confessed to for the reasons he confessed it.

Slynt doesn't lie - he is right that Ned moved against Joffrey before Robert's corpse was even cold. And unless somebody proves that Slynt knew about the true parentage of Cersei's children I give the man the benefit of the doubt that he did believe Joffrey Baratheon was Robert's trueborn son and heir and thus the rightful king from his perspective.

It is Ned's own fault that Cersei could bury the truth because he didn't publicly reveal the truth - he didn't tell it to Robert (who could have disinherited Cersei's children on his deathbed; instead he reaffirmed that the crown should go to Joffrey), he didn't tell it to Renly (who could have helped spread the word). He didn't even tell it to the council before he went into the throne room to confront Joffrey and Cersei.

If you deliberately keep the truth from the public you cannot complain that the public sees you as a traitor when you do something that must look like treason.

Joffrey ordering Ned's death actually made sense because he too is unaware of the truth.  As for Slynt, he believed the accusations against Ned.  What happened in that throne room sure looked like an attempted power grab by Ned Stark.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Note the bolded. I'm pretty sure that if the drill-sergeant's orders led to one of their peer's humiliation and injury, the recruits would be perfectly legitimate not to follow such orders.

Note the bolded-there is never once any argument what Alliser ordering recruits to engage with Sam in basic training even if Sam does not try to defend himself is illegal. The peer being humiliated does not matter because he will not perform in basic training other recruits get to be insubanite because the one will feel bad should they follow their directions. And the only injury can arise would be due to Sam's unwillingness to try isn't really an excuse, to threaten(especially with death), shame or cajole other recruits into simply not obeying their maestor at arms. Like, honestly, no one suggests, Alliser was acting unlawful whenever he had a recruit, go against Jon, when he was taking his frustrations out on everyone; he injured them and humiliated them, Alliser still has a right to send a recruit  up against Jon regardless of how it'll humiliate having been thoughoghly clobbered by a younger boy or possibly lead to someone breaking something, Alliser's orders simply aren't illegal or against any of the rules. No one makes that argument. Not Jon, not Sam, not Noyle, not even Aemon. 

[teej6]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I just don't run around and defend fictional characters.

Yeah right! That’s why you have innumerable posts defending Dany and her actions. She’s totally not a fictional character.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, teej6 said:

Yeah right! That’s why you have innumerable posts defending Dany and her actions. She’s totally not a fictional character.

I see myself more as providing a different perspective. On weirdo ideas that executing some slavers in war somehow proves a character is going to do this or that in the future. Or that using torture in a world where torture is a common way to uncover the truth is somehow a sign of utter madness. But I honestly don't think Daenerys is a very capable or smart ruler at this point. She sucks at that nearly as bad as Jon Snow (although she didn't allow herself to be killed, that counts for something). She gets a very strong clue about the Harpy in ADwD and overlooks it - like so many readers.

Jon, on the other hand, gets a very good foretelling of his own death and fails to even contemplate that Marsh and company are going to murder him. That is utter stupidity in my opinion. And not just in hindsight. A smart guy would have been cautious about Marsh even if the red witch hadn't told him stories about skulls and the men closest to him wanting to kill him.

I mean, you and I we surely would have gotten curious enough what the men closest to us actually think about us and what they were planning, no? We would have tried to get some spies in their circles, tried to keep an eye on them, etc. 

But, honestly, I don't really care all that much about Daenerys as a character. I think the hints are all over the place that she has fulfilled a certain prophecy already, but that has nothing to do with me disliking or liking her. That is the main part of my interest in that character. I'd say Jon, Tyrion, Ramsay, or Hot Pie were the promised prince if they had been born on Dragonstone and had woken dragons from stone. It is not my fault that they did not do that. 

You never read anything from me defending or celebrating the Hizdahr marriage, the Daario affair (aside from the fact that I like it when a character has sex with the people he or she loves, never mind whether that's good or bad for them - Dany got much more choice of her own there; Ygritte was Jon's Drogo, hopefully he actually gets a choice in the next one), her plan of peace in Meereen, the way she imprisoned the dragons, treated Quentyn, etc. because I don't write stuff like that.

I also hope my favorite characters get good death scenes rather than nonsensical triumphs (because they usually make far better stories). And Jon actually pretty much delivered in that field already. A good death scenes, like Caesar. That's the way to go. Much better than Robb. That I think Jon is a dead man walking now has to do with his death. I don't see the series ending with a zombie in power. I just can't see that in this series. It is not the way to write this story.

[dmfn]

On 8/1/2018 at 10:31 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The one morally redeeming trait that's been shown quite frankly is him caring about his family quite frankly. It's a nice touch showing the humanity of someone whose mostly portrayed as scum(which he is), most of the time.

 

quite frankly x 2

[Starkz]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I see myself more as providing a different perspective. On weirdo ideas that executing some slavers in war somehow proves a character is going to do this or that in the future. Or that using torture in a world where torture is a common way to uncover the truth is somehow a sign of utter madness. But I honestly don't think Daenerys is a very capable or smart ruler at this point. She sucks at that nearly as bad as Jon Snow (although she didn't allow herself to be killed, that counts for something). She gets a very strong clue about the Harpy in ADwD and overlooks it - like so many readers.

Jon, on the other hand, gets a very good foretelling of his own death and fails to even contemplate that Marsh and company are going to murder him. That is utter stupidity in my opinion. And not just in hindsight. A smart guy would have been cautious about Marsh even if the red witch hadn't told him stories about skulls and the men closest to him wanting to kill him.

I mean, you and I we surely would have gotten curious enough what the men closest to us actually think about us and what they were planning, no? We would have tried to get some spies in their circles, tried to keep an eye on them, etc. 

But, honestly, I don't really care all that much about Daenerys as a character. I think the hints are all over the place that she has fulfilled a certain prophecy already, but that has nothing to do with me disliking or liking her. That is the main part of my interest in that character. I'd say Jon, Tyrion, Ramsay, or Hot Pie were the promised prince if they had been born on Dragonstone and had woken dragons from stone. It is not my fault that they did not do that. 

You never read anything from me defending or celebrating the Hizdahr marriage, the Daario affair (aside from the fact that I like it when a character has sex with the people he or she loves, never mind whether that's good or bad for them - Dany got much more choice of her own there; Ygritte was Jon's Drogo, hopefully he actually gets a choice in the next one), her plan of peace in Meereen, the way she imprisoned the dragons, treated Quentyn, etc. because I don't write stuff like that.

I also hope my favorite characters get good death scenes rather than nonsensical triumphs (because they usually make far better stories). And Jon actually pretty much delivered in that field already. A good death scenes, like Caesar. That's the way to go. Much better than Robb. That I think Jon is a dead man walking now has to do with his death. I don't see the series ending with a zombie in power. I just can't see that in this series. It is not the way to write this story.

More than half your posts are just you bashing Jon. He’s not a bad leader and he doesn’t have three dragons protecting him or a slave army and others sworn to him to protect himself. He’s the leader of a ragtag group of very different individuals with many differences trying to integrate even more diverse people into their society to save them and take away from the NK army. He was weary of Marsh and others and how is anyone suppose to take any of what Mel says at face value when she can’t even correctly interpret the images she sees in the flames?

[teej6]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I see myself more as providing a different perspective. On weirdo ideas that executing some slavers in war somehow proves a character is going to do this or that in the future. Or that using torture in a world where torture is a common way to uncover the truth is somehow a sign of utter madness. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in past threads you have defended Dany's collective punishment in Astapor and the killing of every male over the age of 12 who wore a tokar, and here you are blaming Jon for executing Slynt. You can't see the hypocrisy/double standards in that? If you can defend Slynt and argue that he didn't deserve to be killed, you sure as hell can defend the 13 year old sons of the slavers/ wealthy in Astapor who didn't have to be killed for the sins of their fathers or to assuage the anger of a 14 year old. You can have double standards and that's fine, lots of us tend do to some extent, but then don't pretend to be objective in your arguments. 

I do, however, agree with you that Dany's actions against the slavers or in Meereen don't automatically translate to her turning evil or going mad. Although, I must admit, I find Jon's questionable acts much more palatable than Dany's. 

[Starkz]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in past threads you have defended Dany's collective punishment in Astapor and the killing of every male over the age of 12 who wore a tokar, and here you are blaming Jon for executing Slynt. You can't see the hypocrisy/double standards in that? If you can defend Slynt and argue that he didn't deserve to be killed, you sure as hell can defend the 13 year old sons of the slavers/ wealthy in Astapor who didn't have to be killed for the sins of their fathers or to assuage the anger of a 14 year old. You can have double standards and that's fine, lots of us tend do to some extent, but then don't pretend to be objective in your arguments. 

I do, however, agree with you that Dany's actions against the slavers or in Meereen don't automatically translate to her turning evil or going mad. Although, I must admit, I find Jon's questionable acts much more palatable than Dany's. 

He has defended her quite vigorously and looked down upon every decision Jon has made harshly. Comparing the two, which are totally different situations, what Jon does it definitely more palatable and he hasn’t done anything close to as bad as Dany torturing people or crucifying people, some of whom were innocent such as Hizadhar father. Every character isn’t perfect but saying they are terrible or bad leaders/people because of making the wrong decision is ludicrous.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Starkz said:

He was weary of Marsh and others and how is anyone suppose to take any of what Mel says at face value when she can’t even correctly interpret the images she sees in the flames?

You don't have to a rocket scientist to realize that Mel only saw a girl on a dying horse in the flames, and that she never actually saw Arya Stark. I mean, how do you think Jon is going to feel when he realizes he tried to save a girl who wasn't his sister, causing events that led to his own assassination? Do you think he would have send Mance to fetch Jeyne Poole? Do you think he would have risked his life and honor to save her?

Most likely not. But nobody faults him for believing 'Arya' is Arya because we know he cannot know that she is not. Why do we say Mel should have known the girl was Alys Karstark and not Arya Stark?

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in past threads you have defended Dany's collective punishment in Astapor and the killing of every male over the age of 12 who wore a tokar, and here you are blaming Jon for executing Slynt.

I defended the crucifixion of the slavers insofar as this was 'war justice'. There are different rules in war than in peace time. I don't think this was the greatest idea anyone ever had nor do I consider it particularly just.

The same goes for the sack of Astapor. But I must say that I see in general no issue with slaves or people freeing slaves butchering the slavers - not in Martinworld, not in real life. If the slaves back in the US had collectively taken it upon themselves to put down the collective slaver elite (their families included) in some great revolt, I'd not have shed tears for those people.

There are things that do only change if you actually kill people. 

And my stand on Slynt never was that Jon had no right to kill the man, or that he was completely nuts to do it - I just think it was pretty extreme and could have been done differently. And Jon really has this issue with the fact that he is constantly forgiven/not punished for his transgressions - I in his position would hopefully remember how well I was treated and would thus also know how to administer clemency.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

You can't see the hypocrisy/double standards in that? If you can defend Slynt and argue that he didn't deserve to be killed, you sure as hell can defend the 13 year old sons of the slavers/ wealthy in Astapor who didn't have to be killed for the sins of their fathers or to assuage the anger of a 14 year old. You can have double standards and that's fine, lots of us tend do to some extent, but then don't pretend to be objective in your arguments. 

One certainly can make the case that Dany shouldn't have sacked Astapor the way she did. But since she apparently wanted to end slaver culture in that city it was not wrong to kill all the people raised in it. And it is not that we know how many boys in the age of 12-16 were actually slain during the sack of Astapor.

Keep in mind that Slynt and Jon were never at war. We don't talk about all the pages and young squires that may have died while Robb fell on Stafford's army - quite a few children might have died in that battle, too. And the same goes for many other battles.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

I do, however, agree with you that Dany's actions against the slavers or in Meereen don't automatically translate to her turning evil or going mad. Although, I must admit, I find Jon's questionable acts much more palatable than Dany's. 

Jon doesn't have the means to make such large blunders as Dany, but they are really driven by the same motives. It is Jon's compassion for the wildlings that drives a good deal of his actions in ADwD - just as Dany is driven by her compassion for the slaves and her desire for peace.

The problem with Jon is that he is technically not free to do what he likes while Dany is. Jon isn't some king with his own army, he is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

But I'm not so much annoyed with Jon in the ADwD but the moronic actions of all the guys at the Wall. Nobody talks to anyone about the Others. Nobody tries to form a grand alliance that could hope to defeat them despite the fact that they know they will likely come.

And while Jon is right about the wildlings staying north of the Wall will likely make them wights, he doesn't really care about properly preparing the Watch to actually feed those people. Compassion, help, support, etc. are things you have to be able to afford. You can just promise stuff and then hope everything turns out well.

This is a world where winter can last years, and the Watch is nowhere prepared to take care of thousands of people.