The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

[kissdbyfire]

23 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Who likes Rheagar or Lyanna that much? (As Don Draper says, whats in a name?) And even if Jon is "fantasy jesus", why cant we dislike him?

No idea. I don't especially like it, but find the evidence rather compelling. Add to that the fact that every single alternative doesn't make sense b/c they all disregard the info we have. All alternatives to R+L=J require massive amounts of both mental gymnastics and handwaving. 

23 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Not that we all do. For example, me, I rather like our LC. But does that mean I cant find faults in hia character or actions? 

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. I honestly can't tell whether you're twisting things deliberately or not. I will assume it's not deliberate but maybe you just forgot what we've been talking about here... 

At no point has anyone said Jon is beyond criticism or anything even remotely close to that. The issue being debated is whether Slynt's execution was driven by vengeance and therefore an injustice, or not. Cool?

23 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

It was definitely within his rights and the authority in his office. Like Tarly sending Sam to the Wall or Aerys using fire to champion Brandon. Its Westeros, the boss can do whatever they want, that doesnt make it the right move

 Yes, I suppose Tarly had every right to do whatever he wanted to Sam. As Aerys was within his authority when he murdered Brandon and Rickard. I reckon he was also acting within his authority when he savaged and raped Rhaella, too. And even when he decided he was going to murder the whole population of KL. 

I really find the comparisons you're making here to be extremely poor. But to each, their own. 

[Hugorfonics]

35 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No idea. I don't especially like it, but find the evidence rather compelling. Add to that the fact that every single alternative doesn't make sense b/c they all disregard the info we have. All alternatives to R+L=J require massive amounts of both mental gymnastics and handwaving. 

Oh yea, hes their kid. Hugor guaranteed.

35 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. I honestly can't tell whether you're twisting things deliberately or not. I will assume it's not deliberate but maybe you just forgot what we've been talking about here... 

At no point has anyone said Jon is beyond criticism or anything even remotely close to that. The issue being debated is whether Slynt's execution was driven by vengeance and therefore an injustice, or not. Cool?

I mean, I wanna say cool, but then Id be agreeing with you lol. Slynts execution was not driven by vengeance, but that doesnt mean it was spot on.

35 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, I suppose Tarly had every right to do whatever he wanted to Sam. As Aerys was within his authority when he murdered Brandon and Rickard. I reckon he was also acting within his authority when he savaged and raped Rhaella, too. And even when he decided he was going to murder the whole population of KL. 

I really find the comparisons you're making here to be extremely poor. But to each, their own. 

(The rape, Im not sure. Rapes illegal, (I think) and Targs are capable of being accused of crimes and going to some type of court, but thats a whole other discussion)

I didnt intened to pave such drastic lines, I just meant that having the authority doesnt mean you should use it. Like Ned, he doesn't like doing it but hes there to judge, at least thats how I felt Jon rationalized not killing Ygritte. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

I mean, I wanna say cool, but then Id be agreeing with you lol. Slynts executioners drive was not pure vengeance, but that doesnt mean it was spot on.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

(The rape, Im not sure. Rapes illegal, (I think) and Targs are capable of being accused of crimes and going to some type of court, but thats a whole other discussion)

No, actually. As Aerys' wife, Rhaella is basically his property.

 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

I didnt intened to pave such drastic lines, I just meant that having the authority doesnt mean you should use it. Like Ned, he doesn't like doing it but hes there to judge, at least thats how I felt Jon rationalized not killing Ygritte. 

I can agree that having the authority to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Each situation has to be assessed on its own merits.  

[Hugorfonics]

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

We'll agree to disagree.

Lol cool

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, actually. As Aerys' wife, Rhaella is basically his property.

That sounds right (very disgusting, still a thing too) but Ramsay was arrested because of Hornwood, then again he did other crimes there. And Roose cut out a mans tounge for fear of justice because he raped one of his smallfolks, though that wasnt his wife. 

Does it say that you cant rape your spouse, or do you assume that because of Sansa, either way I guess thats a fair assumption.

Also Im not well versed in twoiaf, so im not actually sure if Targs (let alone the king) could be prosecuted, because I was thinking of Eggs brother but in recollection it was Dunk on trial. regardless very off topic lol sorry.

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I can agree that having the authority to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Each situation has to be assessed on its own merits.  

Word

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 8/4/2018 at 2:04 AM, Ygrain said:

Sigh. The one letting Mance off the hook was Melisandre, when Rattleshirt was executed instead of him. Jon had nothing to do with that, he was not privy to her scheme. He was merely presented with the outcome which he could not change without opening a whole can of worms, and he utilized this resource best he could.

Besides, in case it escaped you, rescuing Farya is not just personal, it is also about breaking Ramsay's hold of the North through his marriage to her. No Stark wife, no support to the Boltons.

Jon is the lord commander.  Mance Rayder is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Mance Rayder is at Castle Black.  It was Jon who let Mance off the hook.  It was Jon's duty to execute Mance.  It doesn't matter how Jon felt about Mance.  It doesn't matter if Jon likes Mance.  Jon had a duty to execute Mance.  

The Boltons have a hold on the north because:  (1)  The Starks lost the war;  (2)   The king on the throne gave the north to the Boltons to rule.  Furthermore, whatever the case may be, Jon still has no right to interfere with what the Boltons are doing.  Trying to break Ramsay's hold on the north is inappropriate, not legal, and very unethical for a lord commander to be engaged in.  Jon's feelings might not be neutral but his actions had better be neutral.  He does not have the right to act on his feelings.  He gave up that right when he took the oath.  

The Bolton rule of the north is not due to social acceptance.  It has to do with them being granted that right by the ruler of the land.  The king has the right to grant lands and titles because they are a feudal system.  The same rights that the Starks have enjoyed and taken advantage of for so long now work against them because they went to war and they lost.  

[Only 89 selfies today]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

 

Interesting, quite interesting is your example on Randyll's rights versus Samwell's.  I see it this way.  Samwell by law has the right to inherit his father's title and property.  Randyll cannot take that right away from Sam; however, he used intimidation to force Sam to give up his right.  It is not ethical.  It is not nice to be certain.  It's not even a loophole.  Randyll basically stole Sam's birthright. 

King Aerys 2 had the right to execute Brandon though.  I mean, this fool comes charging into the Red Keep with his bannermen.  They had the cheek to threaten the son of their king.  There are countries in which it is legal to shoot an armed intruder if they break into your home.  The manner of the execution was distasteful but Aerys 2 had all the right to execute Brandon.   

Okay.  So a lot of men would do what Brandon did if they thought somebody had kidnapped their sister.  And if they do this to the wrong house and the family inside was armed?  You guessed right.  They could be shot down.  Brandon had no proof other than hearsay.  Knowing Lyanna wanted out of her engagement, should it have occurred to this sausage brain that his sister might have run away?  I think so.  If Brandon had arrived at the Red Keep and respectfully asked for an audience with Aerys at the king's convenience.  Yeah the outcome would most likely have been different.  Assuming the Starks were not plotting against the king.  If they were, well then they are already rebels and got what they legally deserved.  

 

[Clegane'sPup]

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Who likes Rheagar or Lyanna that much? (As Don Draper says, whats in a name?) And even if Jon is "fantasy jesus", why cant we dislike him?

People can dislike the character created by martin. I'm not particularly fond of him. As it pertains to the story I dunna agree that LC Snow beheaded Slynt without reason.

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Not that we all do. For example, me, I rather like our LC. But does that mean I cant find faults in hia character or actions? 

My gripe is martin led me though a long drawn out Eddard baby momma drama. I'm not as smart as the people who guessed the L & R stuff on first read back in 1996.

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

It was definitely within his rights and the authority in his office. Like Tarly sending Sam to the Wall or Aerys using fire to champion Brandon. Its Westeros, the boss can do whatever they want, that doesnt make it the right move 

I partially agree. I dunna think that when evaluating the variables in the story that poppa Tarly/Sam and Aerys/Brandon equate to Jon/Synt.

Yeah, a boss in story can do whatever they want..

[Darth Sidious]

On 8/6/2018 at 12:55 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Eh, what choice does he have at this point? Once he gave the order to kill Slynt, he didn't have much of a choice but to follow through. I don't approve of Jon giving the order, but backing down would have been foolish, indeed. He'd forever be seen as too weak to follow through on his threats. A wishy-washy reputation is significantly worse than a harsh reputation. Weakness doesn't inspire much loyalty.

Maybe, maybe not.  A merciful man who lifts up an opponent can win friends.  

[Clegane'sPup]

Is Jon Snow wanna be a Stark a possible Targ martin's ganddalf? Or is it Bloodraven?

 

 

[Texas Hold Em]

Quote

You should assess Janos and his punishment on it's own specifics.  The specifics of another case do not intrude on the justice of this case, only on the justice of that particular case.

No, this is incorrect.  For Jon to do this is not justice.  Which he did.  Jon is guilty of applying double standards when he judged Janos Slynt and Mance Rayder.  

[Starkz]

23 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The Boltons have a hold on the north because:  (1)  The Starks lost the war;  (2)   The king on the throne gave the north to the Boltons to rule.  Furthermore, whatever the case may be, Jon still has no right to interfere with what the Boltons are doing.  Trying to break Ramsay's hold on the north is inappropriate, not legal, and very unethical for a lord commander to be engaged in.  Jon's feelings might not be neutral but his actions had better be neutral.  He does not have the right to act on his feelings.  He gave up that right when he took the oath.  

The Bolton rule of the north is not due to social acceptance.  It has to do with them being granted that right by the ruler of the land.  The king has the right to grant lands and titles because they are a feudal system.  The same rights that the Starks have enjoyed and taken advantage of for so long now work against them because they went to war and they lost.  

Illegitimate King giving an oath breaking traitorous House rule over the North.

[Ygrain]

On 8/9/2018 at 7:38 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I did not argue lawful orders are automatically morally right orders.  Jon disagrees with Thorne's orders-that isn't it itself reason why it wouldn't be just to punish him for his conduct.  Jon had his fellow recruits commit insubordination through threatening(even with death), cajoling, and shaming his peers.  Such a thing deserves reprimand in a military order; if Slynt deserves punishment for his insubordination(which no one really has argued he didn't-what he did deserved serious reprimand), Jon being punished for his acts would have only been just given the context; Jon disagrees with the orders; it is not his place to interfere with them being carried out by the way he initially did.  Seriously, imagine if Jon found out Alloser was brazenly and openly threatening, cajoling, or shaming black brothers into not obeying Lord commander Jon's orders, with the justification being although lawful, Jon's orders are immoral and dumb, would Jon be wrong in punishing the man?

If Thorne did it in order to protect someone from harm, while not causing harm to anyone else or the purpose of the Watch, then by all means, Thorne would be in the right and Jon in the wrong. Motivation matters, which is why we sometimes consider killing another human being a heinous murder and sometimes an act of necessary self-defence.

[Ygrain]

On 8/10/2018 at 4:36 AM, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon is the lord commander.  Mance Rayder is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Mance Rayder is at Castle Black.  It was Jon who let Mance off the hook.  It was Jon's duty to execute Mance.  It doesn't matter how Jon felt about Mance.  It doesn't matter if Jon likes Mance.  Jon had a duty to execute Mance. 

First and foremost, the LC has an obligation to act in the best interest of the Watch. In its current state, it is not the best interest of the Watch to undermine the trust in its only ally with an army, and so Jon makes use of the situation to utilise Mance's  abilities. Mance can still be dealt with (and most likely will) when and if the current crisis is over.

On 8/10/2018 at 4:36 AM, Only 89 selfies today said:

The Boltons have a hold on the north because:  (1)  The Starks lost the war;  (2)   The king on the throne gave the north to the Boltons to rule.  Furthermore, whatever the case may be, Jon still has no right to interfere with what the Boltons are doing.  Trying to break Ramsay's hold on the north is inappropriate, not legal, and very unethical for a lord commander to be engaged in.  Jon's feelings might not be neutral but his actions had better be neutral.  He does not have the right to act on his feelings.  He gave up that right when he took the oath.  

The Bolton rule of the north is not due to social acceptance.  It has to do with them being granted that right by the ruler of the land.  The king has the right to grant lands and titles because they are a feudal system.  The same rights that the Starks have enjoyed and taken advantage of for so long now work against them because they went to war and they lost.  

Jon may not have the right to interfere but he has the need. To stop the Others, he needs the North. With Boltons in power, that's not going to happen. "To protect the realms of men" is the primary part of the NW vows, the rest is secondary. If breaking the secondary parts in order to carry out the primary part is what it takes, then that's what needs to be done. We haven't seen enough of Jon's thoughts to the future but he is not so stupid as not to see this. He gets to release his sister and win over the North, two birds with one stone. The Boltons must be dealt with because you cannot fight one enemy with another breathing on your neck.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

If Thorne did it in order to protect someone from harm, while not causing harm to anyone else or the purpose of the Watch, then by all means, Thorne would be in the right and Jon in the wrong. Motivation matters, which is why we sometimes consider killing another human being a heinous murder and sometimes an act of necessary self-defence.

Dude, Jon's threat to Rast's life involved holding him and his friends holding him down and allowing Ghost take a nibble on the guy's neck-someone was harmed to get Sam excused from basic training. And again Alliser is simply  is not excusing Sam from the basic training that's mandated by virtue of the boy(in case the wall is going to be attacked all hands should be on deck ready to assist), seemingly not trying to adjust himself to it-Jon has no right to threaten(especially with death), cajole or shame his peers to disobey Alliser in this. . Perhaps Alliser thinks Jon's decision is unwise and itself hurts the watch? Jon would be totally in the wrong to punish the man for cajoling, threatening(even with death), or shaming people into not following Jon's specific orders?  Of course not.  If Jon killed(as he implied he would do should he obey Alliser's orders),  or seriously injured him and was found out do you think anyone in command would anyone really care he did it because he wanted to protect Sam. Not likely. 

[the trees have eyes]

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dude, Jon's threat to Rast's life involved holding him and his friends holding him down and allowing Ghost take a nibble on the guy's neck-someone was harmed to get Sam excused from basic training. And again Alliser is simply  is not excusing Sam from the basic training that's mandated by virtue of the boy(in case the wall is going to be attacked all hands should be on deck ready to assist), seemingly not trying to adjust himself to it-Jon has no right to threaten(especially with death), cajole or shame his peers to disobey Alliser in this. . Perhaps Alliser thinks Jon's decision is unwise and itself hurts the watch? Jon would be totally in the wrong to punish the man for cajoling, threatening(even with death), or shaming people into not following Jon's specific orders?  Of course not.  If Jon killed(as he implied he would do should he obey Alliser's orders),  or seriously injured him and was found out do you think anyone in command would anyone really care he did it because he wanted to protect Sam. Not likely. 

What part of Randyl Tarly realising Sam was never going to pass basic training at Horn Hill and sending him to The Wall instead is hard to grasp?  Jon grasped it easily and quickly enough and was able to convince all the boys except Rast easily enough.  He was also able to convince Aemon and he in turn convinced Mormont to overrule Thorne and pass Sam.

So why are you confused about whether Thorne or Jon (with Aemon & Mormont) had the right of this?  The jaded and sadistic master at arms and the cruelest of the bully boys - the only one who was still prepared to treat Sam as a victim rather than a colleague and brother - are you seriously advocating these guys as the moral custodians of the NW and holding them up as an example of how things should be done?

Just think about the bigger picture here for a minute.  One man (Jon) was trying to get the best use out of a recruit and help protect a brother, another (Thorne) was enjoying savaging and tormenting a hopelessly unsuitable recruit.  Who do you think we should condone and who should we condemn?  And why do Mormont and Aemon agree with Jon and remove Thorne as the master at arms?

It's not rocket science man.....

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

What part of Randyl Tarly realising Sam was never going to pass basic training at Horn Hill and sending him to The Wall instead is hard to grasp?  Jon grasped it easily and quickly enough and was able to convince all the boys except Rast easily enough.  He was also able to convince Aemon and he in turn convinced Mormont to overrule Thorne and pass Sam.

So why are you confused about whether Thorne or Jon (with Aemon & Mormont) had the right of this?  The jaded and sadistic master at arms and the cruelest of the bully boys - the only one who was still prepared to treat Sam as a victim rather than a colleague and brother - are you seriously advocating these guys as the moral custodians of the NW and holding them up as an example of how things should be done?

Just think about the bigger picture here for a minute.  One man (Jon) was trying to get the best use out of a recruit and help protect a brother, another (Thorne) was enjoying savaging and tormenting a hopelessly unsuitable recruit.  Who do you think we should condone and who should we condemn?  And why do Mormont and Aemon agree with Jon and remove Thorne as the master at arms?

It's not rocket science man.....

Samwell Tarly was just a recruit at the Watch. He could have left any time. He was a man grown, a scion of a noble house, and he had committed no crime.

He could have gone to Oldtown to become a maester, to some septry to become a septon, etc. As a recruit he was not yet a brother of the NW. He had not yet taken his vows, and unlike the criminals he was not obliged to stay there.

We don't know what Thorne's point there was besides sadism but it is clear that Sam as he is in AGoT simply has no place at the Wall. Maester Samwell might have a place, but not Ser Piggy as he demonstrates when he fucks up beyond the Wall.

Jon did the nice thing here, and he saw the big picture in the sense that he was recognizing potential in Sam, but the Watch isn't the place to train maesters. And Sam is never going to become a good soldier/fighter which, in the end, is what the men of the Watch are all supposed to be - it is the reason why the builders and stewards also do train at arms.

And in a sense of weird irony Jon's intervention on behalf of Sam also sets the chain of events in motion that leads to the mutiny at Craster's. Chett would have never laid the groundwork for that if he had been allowed to stay with Maester Aemon.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

What part of Randyl Tarly realising Sam was never going to pass basic training at Horn Hill and sending him to The Wall instead is hard to grasp?

Never contended the opposite-I merely pointed out Jon's actions prior to actually trying to get Aemon excuse Jon warrented  reprimand given the watch is a military order; his feelings about Thorne's actions being immoral or dumb isn't really an excuse here-doubtful there weren't those  who saw the great ranging as stupid and will lead to the watch being hurt-that doesn't give them the right to disobey and/or urge others to as well. 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Jon grasped it easily and quickly enough and was able to convince all the boys except Rast easily enough.  He was also able to convince Aemon and he in turn convinced Mormont to overrule Thorne and pass Sam.

There were others Jon threatened. Rast was probably the most extreme given that threats had to be resorted to likely more than recruits than just Rast didn't care to spare Sam because he was a weakling.  

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

So why are you confused about whether Thorne or Jon (with Aemon & Mormont) had the right of this?  The jaded and sadistic master at arms and the cruelest of the bully boys - the only one who was still prepared to treat Sam as a victim rather than a colleague and brother - are you seriously advocating these guys as the moral custodians of the NW and holding them up as an example of how things should be done?

Why are you confused with the notion of if you commit insubordinatioion and/or have your peers commit insubordinatioion then your action warrants punishment? 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Just think about the bigger picture here for a minute.  One man (Jon) was trying to get the best use out of a recruit and help protect a brother, another (Thorne) was enjoying savaging and tormenting a hopelessly unsuitable recruit.  Who do you think we should condone and who should we condemn?  And why do Mormont and Aemon agree with Jon and remove Thorne as t

Yeah, Jon wasn't thinking about some big picture, it didn't even register what exactly Sam could be good for, prior to meeting with Aemon regarding this issue.  He wasn't trying to get the best out Sam as a brother; he was simply to bend everything to more easily cater to the needs of Sam. And Mormont doesn't remove Alliser over this issue; that would be bizarre given at this point he's treated Sam just as harshly has he's done really new recruits his way; the guy was chosen as an envoy  to KL(which make little sense), and Endrew Tarth was tasked with substiting for Thorne.

[Clegane'sPup]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He could have gone to Oldtown to become a maester, to some septry to become a septon, etc. As a recruit he was not yet a brother of the NW. He had not yet taken his vows, and unlike the criminals he was not obliged to stay there.

In my opinion Samwell is a character that does not fit Westeros. I'm not going to get into all the arm chair mumbo jumbo.

A Feast for Crows - Samwell I      "Be quiet. You lied and schemed and plotted to make me Lord Commander. You will obey me. You'll go to the Citadel and forge a chain, and if you have to cut up corpses, so be it. At least in Oldtown the corpses won't object."      He doesn't understand. "My lord," Sam said, "my f-f-f-father, Lord Randyll, he, he, he, he, he . . . the life of a maester is a life of servitude." He was babbling, he knew. "No son of House Tarly will ever wear a chain. The men of Horn Hill do not bow and scrape to petty lords."/

I dunna know about you but every once in a while when growing up I would run across one of the individuals that didn't quite fit and I would run interference. That is in my opinion what Jon did with Sam.

Anywho it has nothing to do with the bigger picture of what is transpiring at the Wall.

 

[kissdbyfire]

It's truly amazing that these two situations are being compared... Jon trying - and succeeding - to help Sam; Slynt's insubordination, back talking, and defiance. 

There are some similarities, but at the core these two events are worlds apart. 

And actually, the only similarity I can think of is that a crow (Jon/Slynt) defied the orders of a superior officer (Thorne/Jon). And even that is a stretch. For starters, Thorne is not the LC. There's also the fact that Jon didn't openly defy Thorne. Jon was actually much smarter than Thorne. Then there's the fact that Sam is a good person, and one that can and will be an asset to the NW, whereas Slynt is a weak man, a lickspittle who will never be a reliable brother who's willing to "live and die" for the realms of men. 

And to anyone who's gonna say that "oh but the rule (obey superior officer yadda yadda yadda) has to apply to everyone" - no. Pay attention to the story you're reading, or you're bound to be sorely disappointed. The same applies to all the vows. And anyone thinking that the strictest adherence to all vows no matter what is a good thing are going to be disappointed as well. 

Words are wind!

It's actions that matter, not empty words.

In defending Sam from bullies and especially from Thorne, Jon did a good thing. He did the right thing, even if he was disobeying a superior officer. So much so that both maester Aemon and Mormont agreed. 

Slynt, on the hand, wasn't trying to help anyone, nor do anything productive. He simply thought he was untouchable, he felt cocky and confident, and he wanted to show off his feathers to his cronies. The second he realised Jon was dead serious - and that came a millisecond too late - he was pissing n his pants and begging for his life like the useless PoS he is.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's truly amazing that these two situations are being compared... Jon trying - and succeeding - to help Sam; Slynt's insubordination, back talking, and defiance.

Why shouldn't one do that? It is you and other who bring up those military parallels all the time (and the Watch isn't a military as such, it is medieval military order which is much different) and in a military setting disobedience and insubordination are pretty severe offenses.

Jon gets rewarded for his disobedience and insubordination (refusing to attack/beat a fellow recruit in the yard when the master-at-arms commanded it; threatening the life and well-being of a fellow recruit) whereas Slynt is executed for his.

There is no need to compare the reasoning behind those actions - in a military environment you stick to your guidelines and rules, you follow the chain of command, you adopt the morals and values of the corps and do not try to force your own on your peers and superior officers.

In any real military Jon would have been disciplined/thrown out/court-marshaled within the usual fortnight.

And it is not that Ser Piggy is a very good addendum to the Watch - he only is allowed to stay because of noble favoritism - a noble bastard speaking to a former prince to bend the rules for the heir of a great house.

And Jon later gets special treatment, too. Nobody else get that kind of special treatment at the Watch. Jon is as much amongst peers at the Wall as Harry 'the Chosen One' Potter was amongst equals at Hogwarts.

Sam can read, but so what? Why doesn't Jon teach his fellow brothers to read so men like Grenn, Pyp, Halder etc. can better fulfill their duties? Sam doesn't deserve special treatment and privileges just because a maester taught him how to read. The others actually did pass the 'entrance exams' of the NW. Thorne would have beaten up Sam some more and then, eventually, they would have decided to not accept him, throwing him out of Castle Black.

Instead, the Watch got a fat coward who couldn't even do the single deed he was supposed to do during the great ranging.

Sam has his own courage and some positive character traits. But he isn't a soldier, and the way George writes him he'll never be one. While he doesn't wear a chain he has no place at the Wall. And even afterwards he would actually be better suited to serve somewhere else - at the Citadel, perhaps, at a place where could actually devote himself to the scholarly works rather than being responsible for the well-being of others. Because, quite frankly, Sam sucks at that.