Jump to content
silverwolf22

true motivation of jon snows assassination ( counter to the claims I have seen made)

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

A lot of the Jon haters have basically turned into apologists for the Boltons, which is downright repugnant to say the least.

Turned into Bolton apologists, accuse Jon of allowing those savages through the Wall. I can't even begin to explain how that one rubs me the wrong way every time I read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Great Oshiro said:

Jon Snow was not acting out of morality.  The murder of Janos Slynt certainly was not.  And then to let another man (Mance Rayder) whose offenses are far greater to get away with his crimes because that man could get his sister out of her marriage, that was not morality.  It was unjust.  It showed Jon's lack of ethics and his inability to deliver justice.  Morality is what does the most good for the most people.  Putting the lives of the many in grave danger in order to help one was not an act of morality.  It was an act of selfishness on the part of Jon Snow. 

Do you really think that repeating the same ludicrous arguments ad nauseam will help you in any way? News flash: it won’t. 

7 hours ago, divica said:

Wether he did the right thing or not the fact is that he clearly interfered in the politics of westeros and the Watch should be neutral.

The Watch should be neutral under normal circumstances. The circumstances in the current timeline are anything but. Therefore, characters must either think outside the box and do their best for the common good/survival of as many as possible, or just sit and obey whoever and stick to their own interpretation of whatever words they said at some point. Bowen clearly wants to save his own arse and ingratiate himself w/ whoever he believes is calling the shots. “Let them die”, in other words. Jon is actually trying to save people. The people at HH, Alys Karstark, the girl he believes is Arya from a mad psycho rapist who likes to flay people. Never really thought it would be hard to see who is right and who is wrong. Colour me dumbfounded.

7 hours ago, divica said:

And while helping a girl is a good thing we know that in westeros law men decide the fate of their female relatives or do you think that alys would be the first forced marriage? Or that good lords don t force their daughters to marry people they don t like? However I admit that I have no idea if her uncle(?) had the right (by law) to force her to marry or not...

He didn’t, the text is perfectly clear about that. Arnolf is not a lord, only a castellan, and therefore marriage pacts and basically everything else is beyond the scope of his [non-existent] authority. 

7 hours ago, divica said:

Then jon imprisoned the guy. I doubt he can do that…

Do you? Why? Where does it say the LC of the Watch can’t imprison someone he perceives as a threat to a guest? You do know guest right is sacred in the north, right? And the text gives us all the reasoning... how Alys was brought to the Wall and is now a guest, and how Jon rides out to meet Cregan before he can claim guest right, etc etc etc?

7 hours ago, divica said:

Even if one of his men shot at jon (going by what was written by someone some posts above) I don t really think that the NW can hold nobles without writing to the warden of the north so that he can decide what should be done…

And you think that based on... what exactly? What examples do we have that support your belief? I’ll tell you now, just to save time: none. Zero, zip, nada. So I’m curious to understand why you think that. 

7 hours ago, divica said:

After this he suported a marriage between a noblewoman and a wildling. Again, this sort of marriage has to be aproved by someone with authority no?

Why? Give me one example? One? Half a one? 

7 hours ago, divica said:

And finally he wrote to stannis exposing the karstark plot.If he was neutral regarding the politcs of westeros then he shouldn t have done this. Let the lords of westeros fight between themselves and he would talk with whoever is in charge...

Sigh. The reasoning for doing what he did is there, in the text. You don’t agree w/ it? That’s fine, to each their own. But the reasons exist, and imo are totally valid. 

7 hours ago, divica said:

 You are the guys that are confusing 2 very diferent things. If jon broke his vows or if jon breaking his vows is a bad thing. 

None of that even matters. Words are wind! 

What matters is, is decision A the right one or not? And IMO Jon’s decisions were the right ones. And from interviews on the Syrian refugee crisis and Trump, Martin seems to be of the same mind. Again, to each their own. 

7 hours ago, divica said:

One of the things I said in my first post is that the honorable thing to do isn t necessarily the right thing to do.

You’re wrong. The honourable thing to do is the right thing. The dutiful thing to do might not be the right one though. 

7 hours ago, divica said:

And that jon is doing the things that must be done instead of behaving like ned that always tried to do the honorable thing.

Finally, you can t use modern values to justify the actions of characters in asoiaf. It just weakens your arguments… You have to use the values in asoiaf to justify the actions of characters in that world...

Were you born in Westeros? Because if not I don’t see how that would be possible. Or just read @The Ned's Little Girl post.

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

IMO, several of the recent Jon hate posts are from fans of another character *cough*Dany*cough* who seem incapable of accepting competition of any kind to their beloved heroine and need to attack the morality of Jon (who the author just recently compared to a good and moral leader) lest he steal her thunder. There have been threads in the past with Jon’s leadership and judgements questioned but the motives behind these threads were more honest and the arguments more nuanced and sensible. Recently, on the other hand, it’s mostly been rubbish arguments like the injustice meted out to Slynt or the virtues of Marsh or the victimization of Ramsay. 

Word. We’ve had several threads in defence of utter pieces of shit like Bowen Marsh, Walder Frey, Janos fucking Slynt, and even Roose and Ramsay. It’s unbelievable and surreal. I hope most are just because people don’t really deal well w/ characters they don’t like being right or doing good things. But I’ll tell you, it gets pretty scary at times. 

13 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

A lot of the Jon haters have basically turned into apologists for the Boltons, which is downright repugnant to say the least.

Right? Holy fucking smokes, like I said, really scary.  :uhoh:

13 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

I have no idea how liking Dany means you now have to vilify Jon.

Hopefully when Winds is out all the many great, insightful awesome Dany diehard fans will be back. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Turned into Bolton apologists, accuse Jon of allowing those savages through the Wall. I can't even begin to explain how that one rubs me the wrong way every time I read it. 

Clearly the logical alternative to the savage wildlings is the psychopaths who injoy raping and torturing people for fun and represent everything wrong with the North's culture. :bang:

Edited by Eddard Waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Turned into Bolton apologists, accuse Jon of allowing those savages through the Wall. I can't even begin to explain how that one rubs me the wrong way every time I read it. 

Bigots like Selyse and Marsh are finr with wildling women and children dying in the thousands. They’ll let innocents die simply because these people are not part of their tribe. Jon, on the other hand, is able to see all of humanity as one and able to set aside his loss/anger for the common good. But of course, those who hate the character have their blinders on and can’t or won’t seem to understand why Jon would want to prevent other humans from death/slaughter. 

It’s funny how close this is to real life events happening presently in the world. And as @kissdbyfire stated above based on the author’s recent opinions, we know where the author’s sympathies are on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Do you really think that repeating the same ludicrous arguments ad nauseam will help you in any way? News flash: it won’t. 

Yup. That one’s especially tedious. The poster provides no rationale arguments just the same old poor Janos Slynt evuuul Jon Snow posts over and over again. It’s like listening to a broken record, and a bad one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, teej6 said:

Yup. That one’s especially tedious. The poster provides no rationale arguments just the same old poor Janos Slynt evuuul Jon Snow posts over and over again. It’s like listening to a broken record, and a bad one.

That is such a perfect way to put it! :lol:

:bowdown:

Share this post


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

Clearly the logical alternative to the savage wildlings is the psychopaths who injoy raping and torturing people for fun and represent everything wrong with the North's culture. :bang:

 

59 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Bigots like Selyse and Marsh are finr with wildling women and children dying in the thousands. They’ll let innocents die simply because these people are not part of their tribe. Jon, on the other hand, is able to see all of humanity as one and able to set aside his loss/anger for the common good. But of course, those who hate the character have their blinders on and can’t or won’t seem to understand why Jon would want to prevent other humans from death/slaughter. 

GRRM didn't spend time humanizing the wildlings and telling us that they are exactly like anyone south of the Wall for some readers to parrot the words of Bowen Marsh or anyone who puts the word "savage" at the start of any sentence that has to do with them. It completely misses the mark of what the author was trying to convey. Plus the wildlings are fleeing something that's so much worse than death. Dying is one thing, but then being raised as wight seems like the worst possible thing that can happen to a person.

But, hey, as long as there are people like Bowen the Brave trying to make Westeros great again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

But, hey, as long as there are people like Bowen the Brave trying to make Westeros great again. 

Har! Some really do enjoy sitting atop their walls, don’t they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:
Quote

After this he suported a marriage between a noblewoman and a wildling. Again, this sort of marriage has to be aproved by someone with authority no?

Why? Give me one example? One? Half a one?

To be clear, I am (obviously I hope) not with the camp desperately and persistently putting forward arguments that Jon should be flayed for riding his horse 1mph faster than the speed limit.

I don't have AGOT to hand, but IIRC, did the subject of matches for approval not come up when Bran was 'holding court' ? Or was it only succession issues? From FaB we know the monarch needed to approve marriages in the royal family. I don't know if there is a tradition from the time of when Starks were kings that they needed to approve marriages of the noblest of their bannermen, or perhaps when there is a female heir involved (since control passes to someone else). I doubt there was a set rule in real world middle ages, it probably depended on the power balance prevailing (I read a lot of Nigel Tranter historical novels to fill the time to TWOW, but during a lot of the events he covers, there's a civil war, or a child king, or an exiled king, or a noble who is more powerful than a feeble king,  so I wouldn't base my opinion on what I read there - but I can clearly see where GRRM got the background for his northern world building from)

In any case Her Grace Queen Selyse approved the match, so bases covered anyway :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

So, no. We don't "have to use the values in asoiaf". It's possible to see the books as having a broader and richer complexity than that.

Fully agree of course. "The conflict of the human heart with itself".  I don't know if @divica meant cultural and social norms , conventions, traditions and constraints of real world middle ages here, though. GRRM painstakingly built up a fascinating universe, and while rules will have to be broken as characters try to resolve the conflicts that they are dealing with, I think we are also meant to appreciate what a big deal out it is to break an in-universe rule/law/oath/convention/tradition. 

We should also be in a position to weigh the different traditions e.g guest rights (which does not really exist in the same form in the modern world) vs obedience to a waning (possibly illegitimate) political authority. This is where I find the "Jon broke the rules duuhh" posts displaying a lack of full in- universe understanding IMHO.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

To be clear, I am (obviously I hope) not with the camp desperately and persistently putting forward arguments that Jon should be flayed for riding his horse 1mph faster than the speed limit.

:lol:

43 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

I don't have AGOT to hand, but IIRC, did the subject of matches for approval not come up when Bran was 'holding court' ? Or was it only succession issues?

It’s in Clash, during the Harvest feast, and the issue is w/ Lady Hornwood who has just lost her husband and son. She says she will marry if Robb orders her to, “I shall wed again if His Grace commands it”, but she clearly doesn’t want to marry Umber or Manderly, and Rodrik and Luwin don’t push it. After she leaves the meeting they discuss the matter further, because she is worried about Ramsay gathering men. And it’s all very much to do w/ the Hornwood lands. I think a king can sort of force a match, but I don’t think approval from the king is needed for any match to happen. 

 

43 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

From FaB we know the monarch needed to approve marriages in the royal family.

Well, yes and no... one of the Targ kings (Jaehaerys I, I think?) was not happy that his mum remarried w/o his knowledge but there wasn’t anything he could do about it. 

43 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

I don't know if there is a tradition from the time of when Starks were kings that they needed to approve marriages of the noblest of their bannermen, or perhaps when there is a female heir involved (since control passes to someone else). I doubt there was a set rule in real world middle ages, it probably depended on the power balance prevailing (I read a lot of Nigel Tranter historical novels to fill the time to TWOW, but during a lot of the events he covers, there's a civil war, or a child king, or an exiled king, or a noble who is more powerful than a feeble king,  so I wouldn't base my opinion on what I read there - but I can clearly see where GRRM got the background for his northern world building from)

In any case Her Grace Queen Selyse approved the match, so bases covered anyway :P

We do get some info on that in Dance, regarding Alys and Cregan Karstark...

 

“You’re still a little sullen,” the girl said, “but I will forgive you that if you will save me from my uncle.”

“Your uncle … would that be Lord Arnolf?”

He is no lord,” Alys said scornfully. “My brother Harry is the rightful lord, and by law I am his heir. A daughter comes before an uncle. Uncle Arnolf is only castellan.”

And later...

“In one corner of the cell a heap of furs was piled up almost to the height of a man. “Karstark,” said Jon Snow. “Wake up.”

The furs stirred. Some had frozen together, and the frost that covered them glittered when they moved. An arm emerged, then a face—brown hair, tangled and matted and streaked with grey, two fierce eyes, a nose, a mouth, a beard. Ice caked the prisoner’s mustache, clumps of frozen snot. “Snow.” His breath steamed in the air, fogging the ice behind his head. “You have no right to hold me. The laws of hospitality—”

You are no guest of mine. You came to the Wall without my leave, armed, to carry off your niece against her will. Lady Alys was given bread and salt. She is a guest. You are a prisoner.” Jon let that hang for a moment, then said, “Your niece is wed.”

Cregan Karstark’s lips skinned back from his teeth. “Alys was promised to me.” Though past fifty, he had been a strong man when he went into the cell. The cold had robbed him of that strength and left him stiff and weak. “My lord father—”

Your father is a castellan, not a lord. And a castellan has no right to make marriage pacts.”

Share this post


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

We do get some info on that in Dance, regarding Alys and Cregan Karstark...

 

“You’re still a little sullen,” the girl said, “but I will forgive you that if you will save me from my uncle.”

“Your uncle … would that be Lord Arnolf?”

He is no lord,” Alys said scornfully. “My brother Harry is the rightful lord, and by law I am his heir. A daughter comes before an uncle. Uncle Arnolf is only castellan.”

And later...

“In one corner of the cell a heap of furs was piled up almost to the height of a man. “Karstark,” said Jon Snow. “Wake up.”

The furs stirred. Some had frozen together, and the frost that covered them glittered when they moved. An arm emerged, then a face—brown hair, tangled and matted and streaked with grey, two fierce eyes, a nose, a mouth, a beard. Ice caked the prisoner’s mustache, clumps of frozen snot. “Snow.” His breath steamed in the air, fogging the ice behind his head. “You have no right to hold me. The laws of hospitality—”

You are no guest of mine. You came to the Wall without my leave, armed, to carry off your niece against her will. Lady Alys was given bread and salt. She is a guest. You are a prisoner.” Jon let that hang for a moment, then said, “Your niece is wed.”

Cregan Karstark’s lips skinned back from his teeth. “Alys was promised to me.” Though past fifty, he had been a strong man when he went into the cell. The cold had robbed him of that strength and left him stiff and weak. “My lord father—”

Your father is a castellan, not a lord. And a castellan has no right to make marriage pacts.”

Nailed it, pretty much. Argument over.

5 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

To be clear, I am (obviously I hope) not with the camp desperately and persistently putting forward arguments that Jon should be flayed for riding his horse 1mph faster than the speed limit.

Lowit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 11:04 AM, Great Oshiro said:

Jon Snow was not acting out of morality.  The murder of Janos Slynt certainly was not.  And then to let another man (Mance Rayder) whose offenses are far greater to get away with his crimes because that man could get his sister out of her marriage, that was not morality.  It was unjust.  It showed Jon's lack of ethics and his inability to deliver justice. 

 

I'm pretty sure I told this to someone (I think you or Allardyce.) in the past few days. Janos Slynt's execution. was. not. murder. Slynt disobeyed a lawful order from his lawfully appointed commander. This is insubordination, and oath breaking. Part of being in the NW is following the structure within it. That's why they have commanders, to command disobeying a lawful order is the same as desertion. Which is why Jon had to fake defection to the wildlings, Qhorin takes the time to explain it. Jon's honor is the NW's to piss away as they see fit. He was given a lawful order by his commander (Qhorin) to fake defection. Disobeying that order in any way would have been breaking his vows.) 

Janos Slynt disobeyed the lawful order to take command of Greyguard. Here are the words that sentenced Janos Slyn to death 

Quote

No. I will not go meekly off to freeze and die. No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt! I am not without friends, I warn you. Here, and in King's Landing too. I was the Lord of Harrenhal! Give your ruin to one of the blind fools who cast a stone for you, I will not have it. Do you hear me, boy? I will not have it!

He, having sworn the oaths of a man of the Night's Watch, refused a lawful order from his lawfully elected Lord Commander. There were men executed at D-Day (By the American military) for doing less than what Janos does there. Janos death was not MURDER. To continue to suggest it was shows that you do not understand the meaning of words or morality. 

As for you utilitarian definition of morality (Which is not a universal definition of morality or ethics, and is a position you have to actually defend.) Ramsay SNOW kidnapped, raped and murdered Donella Hornwood. He has raped and murdered countless men and and women. He aided the ironborn occupation of Winterfell. He was arrested and awaited judgement by his lawful lord and lawful king. He conspired and aided in the murder of the miller's children and wife, as well as the murder of three other ironborn, the betrayal and murder of Ser Rodrik Cassel, Lord Cley Cerwyn, and Leobald Tallhart. He sacked Winterfell murdering an unknown number of innocents, taking off the rest and torturing and murdering them. He rapes and abused Jeyne Poole, forcing her to have sex with dogs. He boasts of flaying women and torturing men. By your definition of morality 

Quote

 Morality is what does the most good for the most people.  Putting the lives of the many in grave danger in order to help one was not an act of morality

Jon should abandon the Wall and put Ramsay's head on a pike, because his terrorizing and murdering has decreased the yield for the last harvest, created chaos on the onset of winter and the coming of the Others, decreased the number of men capable of standing on the Wall to prevent the Long Night, and denied the Watch of aid during Mance Rayder's invasion. Jon stood there and allowed who he thought to be Mance Rayder to be executed, even ordering his firing squad. Allowing Mance to live also falls under correct under the utilitarian definition of morality given above, because he is a capable warrior and leader who can rally the free folk and lead men in the Long Night. So, I put three options before you:

  1. Admit that you are merely trolling with your bile towards Jon Snow 
  2. Admit that the definition of morality you just gave defeats your own argument and that you are merely hiding behind poor justifications in an attempt to justify your actions for whatever motive you have. 
  3. Admit that you do not truly believe what you've said and admit that you have no real moral argument for siding with men who rape and murder children. 

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure I told this to someone (I think you or Allardyce.) in the past few days. Janos Slynt's execution. was. not. murder. Slynt disobeyed a lawful order from his lawfully appointed commander. This is insubordination, and oath breaking. Part of being in the NW is following the structure within it. That's why they have commanders, to command disobeying a lawful order is the same as desertion. Which is why Jon had to fake defection to the wildlings, Qhorin takes the time to explain it. Jon's honor is the NW's to piss away as they see fit. He was given a lawful order by his commander (Qhorin) to fake defection. Disobeying that order in any way would have been breaking his vows.) 

Janos Slynt disobeyed the lawful order to take command of Greyguard. Here are the words that sentenced Janos Slyn to death 

He, having sworn the oaths of a man of the Night's Watch, refused a lawful order from his lawfully elected Lord Commander. There were men executed at D-Day (By the American military) for doing less than what Janos does there. Janos death was not MURDER. To continue to suggest it was shows that you do not understand the meaning of words or morality. 

As for you utilitarian definition of morality (Which is not a universal definition of morality or ethics, and is a position you have to actually defend.) Ramsay SNOW kidnapped, raped and murdered Donella Hornwood. He has raped and murdered countless men and and women. He aided the ironborn occupation of Winterfell. He was arrested and awaited judgement by his lawful lord and lawful king. He conspired and aided in the murder of the miller's children and wife, as well as the murder of three other ironborn, the betrayal and murder of Ser Rodrik Cassel, Lord Cley Cerwyn, and Leobald Tallhart. He sacked Winterfell murdering an unknown number of innocents, taking off the rest and torturing and murdering them. He rapes and abused Jeyne Poole, forcing her to have sex with dogs. He boasts of flaying women and torturing men. By your definition of morality 

Jon should abandon the Wall and put Ramsay's head on a pike, because his terrorizing and murdering has decreased the yield for the last harvest, created chaos on the onset of winter and the coming of the Others, decreased the number of men capable of standing on the Wall to prevent the Long Night, and denied the Watch of aid during Mance Rayder's invasion. Jon stood there and allowed who he thought to be Mance Rayder to be executed, even ordering his firing squad. Allowing Mance to live also falls under correct under the utilitarian definition of morality given above, because he is a capable warrior and leader who can rally the free folk and lead men in the Long Night. So, I put three options before you:

  1. Admit that you are merely trolling with your bile towards Jon Snow 
  2. Admit that the definition of morality you just gave defeats your own argument and that you are merely hiding behind poor justifications in an attempt to justify your actions for whatever motive you have. 
  3. Admit that you do not truly believe what you've said and admit that you have no real moral argument for siding with men who rape and murder children. 

You did say so, but I don't agree with your reasoning.  Janos Slynt did not commit an offense that is of sufficient gravity to earn him a death sentence.  But even that can be excused if Jon had executed Mance Rayder.  Nobody can argue with any credibility (unless they outright edit the text) that Mance Rayder's offenses against the Watch is not the most serious since the days of the Night's King and later Jon Snow. 

And no, Jon Snow should absolutely not abandon the wall to confront Ramsay.  Remember, it was Jon who started that fight.  He had no business getting involved in Ramsay's business.  His business is the Wall.  Is it easy to stay focused on the job while Arya is married to Ramsay?  Ofcourse not.  But there are a lot of men on that Wall with loved ones back home who were worried during the war of the five idiots (Robb, Joffrey, Renly, Stannis, and Balon) and still stayed at their posts.  They are better men than Jon but that is a topic for another day. 

Nobody to the best of my knowledge is claiming Ramsay is a boy scout.  This is about duty and prioritizing.  Jon made some very bad decisions and prioritized badly.  He prioritized Arya over the Night's Watch and the safety of everyone.  While we're on the topic, I might as well also point out to you as some others have said in other threads of the same topic, it was treason for Jon to send another sworn crow to get his sister for the purposes of taking her away from Ramsay.  I'm talking about Mance Rayder.  And despite your arguments, Mance Rayder is a member of the order of the Night's Watch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

You did say so, but I don't agree with your reasoning.  Janos Slynt did not commit an offense that is of sufficient gravity to earn him a death sentence.  But even that can be excused if Jon had executed Mance Rayder.  Nobody can argue with any credibility (unless they outright edit the text) that Mance Rayder's offenses against the Watch is not the most serious since the days of the Night's King and later Jon Snow. 

And no, Jon Snow should absolutely not abandon the wall to confront Ramsay.  Remember, it was Jon who started that fight.  He had no business getting involved in Ramsay's business.  His business is the Wall.  Is it easy to stay focused on the job while Arya is married to Ramsay?  Ofcourse not.  But there are a lot of men on that Wall with loved ones back home who were worried during the war of the five idiots (Robb, Joffrey, Renly, Stannis, and Balon) and still stayed at their posts.  They are better men than Jon but that is a topic for another day. 

Nobody to the best of my knowledge is claiming Ramsay is a boy scout.  This is about duty and prioritizing.  Jon made some very bad decisions and prioritized badly.  He prioritized Arya over the Night's Watch and the safety of everyone.  While we're on the topic, I might as well also point out to you as some others have said in other threads of the same topic, it was treason for Jon to send another sworn crow to get his sister for the purposes of taking her away from Ramsay.  I'm talking about Mance Rayder.  And despite your arguments, Mance Rayder is a member of the order of the Night's Watch.

 

So you have taken the option of abandoning what you claimed was your definition of morality. Thank you. 

 

I'm just going to say this once again. You are wrong. Janos Slynt disobeyed a direct order. That is punishable by death, and has been punishable by death, in every human military that has ever existed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

So you have taken the option of abandoning what you claimed was your definition of morality. Thank you. 

 

I'm just going to say this once again. You are wrong. Janos Slynt disobeyed a direct order. That is punishable by death, and has been punishable by death, in every human military that has ever existed. 

You're only going to say this one more time.  Thank god.  :)  Just kidding friend.   Okay.  Fine by me.  Listen, we are not going to agree on this issue.  That much is plainly clear.  You have stated your opinion.  I have no problem with that.  I disagree with it.  I disagree with your reasoning.  But we can both exists on this forum.  Neither of us are going anywhere.  This is not the only disagreement among this rather large membership of fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

So you have taken the option of abandoning what you claimed was your definition of morality. Thank you. 

 

I'm just going to say this once again. You are wrong. Janos Slynt disobeyed a direct order. That is punishable by death, and has been punishable by death, in every human military that has ever existed. 

Damn straight. And let’s just remember that Janos didn’t simply disobey an order from his LC. He disobeyed said order 3 or 4 times, and challenged and insulted the LC in front of everyone. Saying the rightful execution of Janos Slynt was anything but rightful execution is one of the dumbest arguments ever made. And yet, it is made over and over and over again. The best part is, those making these idiotic arguments make no attempts at engaging in any sort of debate. They just parrot the same drivel repeatedly, like anyone is going to be convinced by exhaustion. :lol:

Share this post


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

Damn straight. And let’s just remember that Janos didn’t simply disobey an order from his LC. He disobeyed said order 3 or 4 times, and challenged and insulted the LC in front of everyone. Saying the rightful execution of Janos Slynt was anything but rightful execution is one of the dumbest arguments ever made. And yet, it is made over and over and over again. The best part is, those making these idiotic arguments make no attempts at engaging in any sort of debate. They just parrot the same drivel repeatedly, like anyone is going to be convinced by exhaustion. :lol:

What Janos did pale in comparison to what Jon has done.  Jon attacked a superior officer.  That was attempted murder.  Attempted desertion to help Robb.  Jon gives Mance Rayder a pass and this is a man who deserted and led the wildlings to attack the wall.  There was no justice in what Jon did.  It was also stupid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I’ve said a bunch of times, tired and silly arguments that are not gonna convince anyone, no matter how many times they’re repeated. So, not biting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowen Marsh explicitly stated his reasons for stabbing Jon Snow.  Contrary to the op's claims, Bowen did it "for the watch" because Jon Snow was no longer acting in the best interest of the Night's Watch and Westeros.  Jon gave Mance Rayder a get out of punishment ticket and sent him on a mission against House Bolton.  A lot of crows lost friends to Mance Rayder's attack.  Mance is a crow himself who betrayed the Night's Watch over a piece of cloth.  His insubordination is a thousand times worse when compared to Slynt's.  House Bolton is predictably angry with Jon.  Unfortunately Jon is the lord commander and got the Night's Watch involved.  Bowen Marsh stabbed Jon to save the Night's Watch so it can carry out it's mission of defending the kingdom from the Others.  Jon had lost sight of that when his mind got focused on Arya and Ramsay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×