Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

So because Dany is a conqueror she decides all that is ethical and moral? So typical from many Dany fans. And it's a reason why I often have arguments with them.

You are just reiterating the "arguments" made by the anti-Dani brigade pissed about her being portrayed as a hero for liberating slaves of Meereen. Apparently, it makes GRRM a "social justice warrior." Unlike most of them, you drag out long-drawn nonsense about common law principles and ethics theories.  Hilarious, but I guess it's better than the usual rantings about how slavery was actually good for Slaver's Bay and Dany was wrong to bring it to an end.  It's essentially real-life political vitriol in the guise of making arguments about morality in the books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You are just reiterating the "arguments" made by the anti-Dani brigade pissed about her being portrayed as a hero for liberating slaves of Meereen. Apparently, it makes GRRM a "social justice warrior." Unlike most of them, you drag out long-drawn nonsense about common law principles and ethics theories.  Hilarious, but I guess it's better than the usual rantings about how slavery was actually good for Slaver's Bay and Dany was wrong to bring it to an end.  It's essentially real-life political vitriol in the guise of making arguments about morality in the books. 

Yeah, and your arguments are just wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You are just reiterating the "arguments" made by the anti-Dani brigade pissed about her being portrayed as a hero for liberating slaves of Meereen. Apparently, it makes GRRM a "social justice warrior." Unlike most of them, you drag out long-drawn nonsense about common law principles and ethics theories.  Hilarious, but I guess it's better than the usual rantings about how slavery was actually good for Slaver's Bay and Dany was wrong to bring it to an end.  It's essentially real-life political vitriol in the guise of making arguments about morality in the books. 

I don't know why you're so rude to people when you reply. Your arguments are legitimately terrible and nonsensical.

I think your concept of "morality" and even moral philosophy is incredibly lacking. You rea;ly need to research slavery a bit more. Start with Brazil. You're so fixated on the American South based on what you remember from "school" (lololol) and are really being purposefully obtuse.

Earlier you say that people weren't randomly selected for death. But every shred of logic indicates they kinda were. You waffled tremendously over the fact that 163 were killed but that there were almost certainly more than 163 masters. So, once again, what mechanism was used to decide who died and who didn't? You responded with a laugh emoji to someone mirroring my point that 163 people never have full agreement on anything. You struggle to dispose of arguments saying "well what if people disagreed" and even a direct claim that Dany DID punish people who disagreed (see Hizdarh claiming his dad argued against the murder of the slave children but was crucified anyway.)

The problem is that you claim it was justice, but it can't have been because NO ONE BOTHERED TO ASSESS CULPABILITY. That is absolutely necessary for justice. And before you even try moral relativistic claims, keep in mind that slavery is morally acceptable there. That doesn't make slavery morally acceptable, period. It means that, much like in the American South, that there are vastly different degrees of moral guilt and it would be really dumb (and terrible leadership!) to punish people who are guilty by association rather than inquire into guilt.

The lack of inquiry into guilt, the blood-soaked masters that skated away punishment free, the inevitable fact that some who were crucified MUST have been less culpable than others etc. All of this stems from really simple logic: there were more than 163 members of the qualifying group (GMs) and that groups of 163 people or more never agree unanimously.  Yes, those facts aren't set in stone but they represent the 99.99% likelihood and it would be unreasonable to assume the opposing situation. 

I know that you really, really, really WANT Dany's actions to be totally just. I think you're utterly wrong. The show strongly suggests that those 163 GMs weren't equally guilty. I haven't seen you make a single cohesive argument against that besides "BUT SLAVERY IS REALLY BAD THOUGH!!!" which everyone knows and does nothing to further the argument. Now that we have the entire show in the rear-view, it is clear that the show itself even disagrees with you. What a strange hill to choose to die on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You are just reiterating the "arguments" made by the anti-Dani brigade pissed about her being portrayed as a hero for liberating slaves of Meereen. Apparently, it makes GRRM a "social justice warrior." Unlike most of them, you drag out long-drawn nonsense about common law principles and ethics theories.  Hilarious, but I guess it's better than the usual rantings about how slavery was actually good for Slaver's Bay and Dany was wrong to bring it to an end.  It's essentially real-life political vitriol in the guise of making arguments about morality in the books. 

I also think it is damn hilarious that you indict using "nonsense about common law principles and ethic theories." First, I don't think you understand any of those principles. Please explain the nonsense part and maybe you'd be on to something. Instead you seem to cast doubt on those TYPES of evidence (common law principles and ethic theories.) Otherwise (as it stands) that is a hilariously aggressive attempt to hide away from logic. Those things are really important to GRRM's world and to ours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why are you dragging on an argument someone else started?

31 minutes ago, Demetri said:

You rea;ly need to research slavery a bit more. Start with Brazil. You're so fixated on the American South based on what you remember from "school" (lololol) and are really being purposefully obtuse.

Oh don't tell me you learned about American slavery from one of those pro-Confederate state curriculum school textbooks. Brazil? Wth. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of American history would immediately recognize that slavery in Slavery's Bay is almost exactly as it was practiced in the American South, not freaking Brazil. It even neatly follows a wartime victory over slavers, and then the troubles with post-war Reconstruction, Harpies being the KKK, and so on. If you are a believer in "alternate" history, this isn't the place for it. 

31 minutes ago, Demetri said:

That doesn't make slavery morally acceptable, period. It means that, much like in the American South, that there are vastly different degrees of moral guilt and it would be really dumb (and terrible leadership!) to punish people who are guilty by association rather than inquire into guilt.

The slavers in the American South wasn't punished for their crimes. After the war, they lost "property" but kept their estates. No one forced them to pay for reparations. And they continued to treat the former slaves as subhuman. Lynchings and Jim Crow followed. This is what's happening in Meereen. If you were wearing a tokar and enslaved people, then you are not guilty by association, you are guilty. 

31 minutes ago, Demetri said:

All of this stems from really simple logic: there were more than 163 members of the qualifying group (GMs) and that groups of 163 people or more never agree unanimously.  Yes, those facts aren't set in stone but they represent the 99.99% likelihood and it would be unreasonable to assume the opposing situation. 

Bahahaha, according to whom? They all unanimously agreed to enslave people nevertheless. You are making assumptions that they weren't guilty. It's just an idiotic argument to make given that the text makes no specifications to the regard. 

31 minutes ago, Demetri said:

The show strongly suggests that those 163 GMs weren't equally guilty.

The. show. isn't. CANON. Show inventions don't count when it comes to GRRM's vision for the story. 

27 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I also think it is damn hilarious that you indict using "nonsense about common law principles and ethic theories." First, I don't think you understand any of those principles. Please explain the nonsense part and maybe you'd be on to something.

I'm pretty sure I made myself clear to the other poster. Maybe you missed the point? Don't use circlejerk arguments about moral principles or "common law" when you just want to trash Dany's character just because she does things that's the far right lot doesn't like. It's one thing to make a legitimate point about a character flaw, but that's not what you are doing. 

This thread is about Dany and misogyny on the show anyway. You keep bringing up unconvincing and irrelevant points to veer off the main argument (that someone else made btw). 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

(1)Oh don't tell me you learned about American slavery from one of those pro-Confederate state curriculum school textbooks. Brazil? Wth. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of American history would immediately recognize that slavery in Slavery's Bay is almost exactly as it was practiced in the American South, not freaking Brazil. It even neatly follows a wartime victory over slavers, and then the troubles with post-war Reconstruction, Harpies being the KKK, and so on. If you are a believer in "alternate" history, this isn't the place for it. 

(2)Bahahaha, according to whom? They all unanimously agreed to enslave people nevertheless. You are making assumptions that they weren't guilty. It's just an idiotic argument to make given that the text makes no specifications to the regard. 

(3)The. show. isn't. CANON. Show inventions don't count when it comes to GRRM's vision for the story. 

(4)I'm pretty sure I made myself clear to the other poster. Maybe you missed the point? Don't use circlejerk arguments about moral principles or "common law" when you just want to trash Dany's character just because she does things that's the far right lot doesn't like. It's one thing to make a legitimate point about a character flaw, but that's not what you are doing. 

(5)This thread is about Dany and misogyny on the show anyway. You keep bringing up unconvincing and irrelevant points to veer off the main argument (that someone else made btw). 

There is so much wrong with this I'll take it one by one.

1. Not at all. I actually went to a private school (no state curriculum), studied political science and philosophy at a private university and now study law. If you think those broad strokes makes it a direct comparison to the Civil War then you're being kind of foolish. I mean, Meereen represents one "nation" and there are several such "nations" (city-states) nearby who all engage in the practice. That isn't at all like the American South. But do you know anything about the Brazilian slave trade? Because that's the important question. You had previously suggested that the American South had a completely new and unique (wot?) form of slavery that was WAYYYY different than anything else in the world by being more cruel and racially-charged. Go research Brazil and dissuade yourself of whatever propaganda nonsense you called education.

2. According to logic and all past history in all of history. Yes, they all agreed on slavery. So why not kill everyone who owned a slave? Because they represent a body of power that is furthering slavery's broken morals. That's all fair. 

Instead of laughing, think! Give me one example of a group of 163+ that agreed on an issue unanimously. It doesn't happen in the world. These people aren't just sitting around voting endlessly for slavery. That's what you imagine, but it is nonsense. They're deciding all kinds of issues and are inherently in conflict amongst themselves as they represent the power of an entire city. You are exhibiting a tremendous amount of ignorance in human history and human nature here.

3. You can't keep even keep logic straight within ONE POST. First of all, look at where you're posting. You might notice that it is the show board and this post is in response to an event in the show. We are only talking about this because of something that happened IN THE SHOW. The show also told us something that directly contradicts what you're trying your best to make into an argument. Sorry if you don't like the facts, maybe don't post nonsense on the SHOW forum on a SHOW topic and then expect to only use book evidence. Silliness. But it gets sillier in just a moment. Hold that thought!

4. You didn't make anything clear. Common law is used by Dany in the books in adjudicating a previous case. She realizes you can't kill every slavery but have to change the system. You simply expressed then what you expressed now, a lack of intellectual appreciation for the arguments being used. You don't negate their veracity, you claim they are nonsense and "circlejerk". Okay. I think your arguments are inane, nonsensical and masturbatory. But at least I respond to their essence. I didn't see you respond after demanding a quote and being supplied a quote that directly contradicted your argument. She was using common law and ethical principles in adjudicating. I don't hate Dany and I think our side of the discussion (read: everyone not you) is pointing out character flaws rather than just shitting on a character for *reasons*? I get why it is easier for you to perceive that people somehow hate a character rather than giving arguments their due. 

5. WAIT A SECOND! This thread is about Dany and the show?!?!? I thought you said in point 3 to dismiss evidence of show Dany killing a Master who vehemently dissented to the murder of slave children. I'm aware of what the thread is about, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I mean, Meereen represents one "nation" and there are several such "nations" (city-states) nearby who all engage in the practice. That isn't at all like the American South.

If you think that's what's different about slavery in ASOIAF and American South, you need to go re-read all your history books. I take it that you were home schooled, haha. 

4 minutes ago, Demetri said:

You had previously suggested that the American South had a completely new and unique (wot?) form of slavery that was WAYYYY different than anything else in the world by being more cruel and racially-charged.

I didn't suggest that. But historians generally differentiate American slavery from ancient history slavery in that manner. :) It amazes me that some 200 years after slavery in America supposedly ended, there are still apologists for it, especially ones who get pissed off about how it's represented even in fiction. 

6 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Instead of laughing, think! Give me one example of a group of 163+ that agreed on an issue unanimously. It doesn't happen in the world. These people aren't just sitting around voting endlessly for slavery. That's what you imagine, but it is nonsense. They're deciding all kinds of issues and are inherently in conflict amongst themselves as they represent the power of an entire city.

Don't people in mass suicides die by the hundreds? People by the hundreds vote for the same idea too. 

You are getting lost in your own idea. GRRM doesn't say hundreds of slave masters disagreed on slavery and brutal tactics. Anyways, what's the point you are trying to make--that hundreds of people can't agree on one thing under any circumstance? Or that Dany is Very Bad?

10 minutes ago, Demetri said:

We are only talking about this because of something that happened IN THE SHOW.

The thread is about how Dany's character is built up in the show compared to how she is in the books. It's all about whether misogyny played a role or if GRRM has always built her this way. That's why people are bringing up quotes from the book. If you are using show-only logic, then you really don't need any logic. 

12 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Common law is used by Dany in the books in adjudicating a previous case.

lololol common law doesn't even exist in Planetos. It exists in Britain and former colonies, not in a fictional medieval world. If you don't really understand the law stuff you are learning in class, don't bring it up. Mostly because it's inapplicable. 

13 minutes ago, Demetri said:

This thread is about Dany and the show?!?!?

No. It's about Dany and sexism! Whether her show portrayal betrays GRRM's written version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

If you think that's what's different about slavery in ASOIAF and American South, you need to go re-read all your history books. I take it that you were home schooled, haha. 

I think it is fun how you ignore all the arguments where you get roundly abused for showing a lack of logic and intellect. I mentioned my educational background in the same post you're responding to. I don't think you know a damn thing about the American South and slavery. I've already implored you to go look at Brazil. The slave trade there is much, much more similar in a lot of ways, including the different nations involved. You've provided 0 evidence for the comparison for Slaver's Bay and the American South. Your digressions on "but, uh, Reconstruction!" suggests that you might not even have a history book to go re-read. Thank you for the concerns about my education, but I imagine my credentials are better than yours.

31 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I didn't suggest that. But historians generally differentiate American slavery from ancient history slavery in that manner. :) It amazes me that some 200 years after slavery in America supposedly ended, there are still apologists for it, especially ones who get pissed off about how it's represented even in fiction. 

Cite these historians who not only differentiate American slavery from some historic slavery models but ALL of them. That's the claim you were making, suggesting that it was the primary point of similarity that led to using it as an analogy. Provide an ounce of evidence instead of making assertions. Also, please drop the assumptions about my feelings like I'm a slavery apologist? What does that even mean? You previously have objected to me putting words in your mouth and suddenly I'm an American slavery apologist for pointing out that slavery in Brazil was brutal and about 5x as large as the American slave trade? Wow. Just, wow. What's it like to live in a world where people who disagree with you are inherently evil? What a sad and miserable mind that would be.

 

31 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Don't people in mass suicides die by the hundreds? People by the hundreds vote for the same idea too. 

You are getting lost in your own idea. GRRM doesn't say hundreds of slave masters disagreed on slavery and brutal tactics. Anyways, what's the point you are trying to make--that hundreds of people can't agree on one thing under any circumstance? Or that Dany is Very Bad?

This perfectly illustrates how absolutely mindless your thinking is. Yes, hundreds of people can agree on something. But they aren't EVERYBODY. This would require EVERYBODY in a large group to agree on something. Mass voting is people aggregating to directly do a thing that they all agree on. This is a group of people who have a thing put in front of them. Yes, they were formed to solidify slavery but that is a lot different from actually agreeing to murder slave children. The show, again, mentions that there is dissent because even the revolting GMs can see a moral distinction that eludes you.

 

31 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

lololol common law doesn't even exist in Planetos. It exists in Britain and former colonies, not in a fictional medieval world. If you don't really understand the law stuff you are learning in class, don't bring it up. Mostly because it's inapplicable. 

Let me educate you. Common law is the law of the land in question. WE, in the U.S., often use British common law because those precedents are of particular importance because we generally consider that our legal system branched off of the British legal system. There is common law everywhere. Common law is seen when a tribe in the Amazon makes a decision based on what the tribe has always done in that situation. We simply use the British common law, not the common law of an Amazonian tribe. It exists beyond Britain. Westeros has its own common law that springs from precedents set in Westeros. It isn't British common law, but it is A common law based on the precedence within the fictional world rather than from British/similar precedents

You, again, ignore the quote provided by a previous poster where Dany refuses to apply laws ex post facto. Common law exists in Planetos throughout the entire story. Go read "Fire and Blood" and every time they decide succession based on past events they use common law. The North is basically a common law legal system on steroids.

Hopefully that helped your understanding, I appreciate you being so condescending and so aggressively wrong.

Edited by Demetri
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Yes, hundreds of people can agree on something. But they aren't EVERYBODY. This would require EVERYBODY in a large group to agree on something. Mass voting is people aggregating to directly do a thing that they all agree on. This is a group of people who have a thing put in front of them. Yes, they were formed to solidify slavery but that is a lot different from actually agreeing to murder slave children.

Yeah, everybody in a large could agree on something. Sure, most instances large groups  could find some form of disagreement but these are particularly dire and exceptional times for the Slavers-what they have in front of them was an invader whose just butchered the Slaver populace of Astaphor. Daenerys represents an existential threat to them and their very way of life. Anything that could possibly encourage her to stop her advance would not be shot down. And these wouldn’t be “children” the GM would see as slaughtering. They’d be cattle being butchered. Every single instance we get in relation to the Slavers discussing slaves it’s clear they genuinely don’t see them as human. There could be one exceptional individual who for some reason is far more progressive that his setting would dictate. But the odds of that are slim. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I don't think you know a damn thing about the American South and slavery. I've already implored you to go look at Brazil. The slave trade there is much, much more similar in a lot of ways, including the different nations involved.

Do you get your history lessons on Reddit? No, different tribes enslaving war captives, like in Brazil for some reason, is NOT what's happening in Meereen. They are buying and trading people much like what the white Americans did. GRRM didn't base ASIAOF on Brazilian history, he did is based on European history. The Meereenese are essentially Europeans and Euro-Americans who got rich off slavery and never intended to give it up. 

29 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Also, please drop the assumptions about my feelings like I'm a slavery apologist?

It's pretty obvious that you are. Bringing up Brazilians out of nowhere; why couldn't find a Mexican example?  Lol. In any case, all of this is beside the point you want to make. 

29 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Common law is the law of the land in question.

No you idiot. Common law is English law. Common law anywhere in the world is essentially English law. Former British colonies (Like the US or India) still use common law practices. Tribal laws are NOT referred to as common law. Tribal laws are usually called tribal laws, or takes the name after the tribe. There are other types of laws as well, like religious laws or king's law in monarchies. No one refers to anything as "law of the land" as common law as it's a  very specific, English-origin legal system that's now spread around the world following imperial conquest. 

Westeros doesn't have anything close to common law as they don't have JUDGES. The king or queen sits in judgement of people, or someone in their place. Essos has differing governance systems but in slaver's bay, no such thing as common law exists. Dany sits in judgement of people, so what they have is probably queen's law. So you are essentially trying to apply legal principles of a very modern, English law system we have in real life to a fictional fantasy world that already has a set of rules of its own. 

Look kid, taking a beginner course on law doesn't make you a legal expert. Learning something-something about American slavery from censored textbooks doesn't make you an expert on American and Brazilian slavery either. You need to find a better way to make your point. 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


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

Yeah, everybody in a large could agree on something. Sure, most instances large groups  could find some form of disagreement but these are particularly dire and exceptional times for the Slavers-what they have in front of them was an invader whose just butchered the Slaver populace of Astaphor. Daenerys represents an existential threat to them and their very way of life. Anything that could possibly encourage her to stop her advance would not be shot down. And these wouldn’t be “children” the GM would see as slaughtering. They’d be cattle being butchered. Every single instance we get in relation to the Slavers discussing slaves it’s clear they genuinely don’t see them as human. There could be one exceptional individual who for some reason is far more progressive that his setting would dictate. But the odds of that are slim. 

I'm absolutely not arguing not that. I'm merely saying that Dany really look much into her method of punishment. It seems like they randomly selected 163 Grand Masters. The result of imprecise justice is that some of those grand masters were more culpable than others. And some of the most culpable would be walking free based on however the list was comprised. That isn't great justice. 

I'll say this, if she'd have killed ALL the grand masters that it would've been MORE justice. I was more dealing with the way justice is distributed. We can totally agree they have X amount of basic culpability by being part of a slavery institution. But the punishment wasn't for slavery or for having morally repugnant views on other humans. It was a direct punitive measure against the murder of the slave children. My point was that the vote wasn't 163-Some Lesser Number, and all 163 were punished when the decision carried and that THOSE 163 were chosen. It was a punitive act (the punishment isn't recuperative or designated but meant to teach a lesson). Historically, punitive acts against people represent things like war crimes, genocides etc. 

The argument isn't that the slave owners were really okay people and it is bad to murder okay people. It's that Dany did a pretty poor job of dispensing justice. I know you aren't making this logic leap, but it isn't a hatred of Dany or a secret sympathy for slavers, it is that she chose to answer blood with blood and she wasn't particularly picky WHAT blood it was that was spilled. I argue that people who are making judgments that end in blood should be VERY picky about what blood is spilled. Even though they are all guilty of a moral sin, Dany is trying to punish one particular sin and she did it somewhat hamfistedly (books and show).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Look kid, taking a beginner course on law doesn't make you a legal expert. Learning something-something about American slavery from censored textbooks doesn't make you an expert on American and Brazilian slavery either. You need to find a better way to make your point. 

First, I was talking about the slave trade into Brazil. I should have been really clear on that point. Do a bit of research. Learn something. Your nasty tone followed by nonsense makes you a character more than a poster.

Second, remember that I actually study it whereas you talk out of your ass. I'd drop the aggressive tones when dealing with someone specializing in an area that you obviously don't fully understand. When people say common law today they're referring to a body of law created by the precedent of Britain. Common Law (as a capitalized) phrase, is a thing. But the term derives from law "common" to the land. Because of how history has worked, that is British in general. But the CONCEPT (I know, headaches abound) of common law can be applied to something beyond how it worked in our history.

Just to demonstrate how narrow minded and ignorant your belief is, here is an article entitled "International Common Law: The Soft Law of International Tribunals". Now, since you've shown very limited ability, you're probably wondering why a berkley law article is talking about international common law since common law only ever means british common law. Common law represents the body of law not codified but considered enforceable based on past precedent. That's exactly what this article describes without invoking British court cases (which I feel certain you've never read, otherwise you'd understand that common law is a template.)

://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771&context=facpubs

I'm actually a full time law student, not taking a beginner course. It's a pretty good school. Not that any of that matters, but you questioned someone's education and, based on reading your posts and you invoking a very particular legal concept, I thought I'd point out that my educational credentials (counter to your accusations of homeschooling etc) are a lot better than yours in issues of law. Considering you mentioned the American South "from school and stuff" doesn't suggest you specialize in anything close to what we're talking about. Since we're talking about adjudicating justice, I thought I'd try to undercut your narcissism and belittling a bit.

The idea of OUR common law, or legal systems that use THE common law is a British one. The idea behind common law (rules deriving from common practice outside of actual statutes) is a pretty simple one. It is literally used throughout Westeros in the form of precedents. How much of this world do you foolishly think is codified? Do you think they all have a nice constitution that they pass around along with civil and criminal codes? Anytime a lord uses precedent he is invoking common law.

I'm terrified that you don't have the mental flexibility to realize that the concept of common law and the actual current Common Law can exist independently

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Saying there is no common law in Westeros (or any fictional place) is the same thing as saying that there is either no law or completely codified law.  @Ghost+Nymeria4Eva think about that for a moment, truly. The Common Law however, is a historical body of jurisprudence. But the idea of not codifying law and having historical guide instead is as old as time. This justice is "common" to the land and forms "law". Got it?

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Demetri said:

Second, remember that I actually study it

No, you are not studying it. I can tell because I've heard these arguments before from people who want to downplay slavery in the American South and pretend that it was nothing different from what was happening in the "ancient world." Pre-colonial clans from the Britons to Aztec tribes did keep war captives, but it was not the systematic, race-oriented slave trade the Europeans practiced. Maybe your Bible Belt high school or the community college you went to didn't teach you this. In any case, that's a different type of historical argument not at all relevant to this thread. 

9 hours ago, Demetri said:

article entitled "International Common Law: The Soft Law of International Tribunals"

You are seriously misunderstanding that title (quite shockingly for a supposed law student). It's NOT referring to a law common to all nations. It refers to international treaties countries sign to subject themselves to certain laws for cases that come under international jurisdiction. Also, these are "soft laws." Countries can ignore rulings under these laws with no repercussions. It's very different from the "hard" laws of the land pertaining to domestic jurisdiction. Also, some of these international laws are based on English common law--hence the title. 

9 hours ago, Demetri said:

I'm actually a full time law student, not taking a beginner course. It's a pretty good school. Not that any of that matters, but you questioned someone's education and, based on reading your posts and you invoking a very particular legal concept, I thought I'd point out that my educational credentials (counter to your accusations of homeschooling etc) are a lot better than yours in issues of law.

Lol. At this point you should probably consider me a law professor considering I have to lecture you on this. You either don't understand what they are teaching you in law school, or you are approaching your studies from the wrong perspective. 

9 hours ago, Demetri said:

The idea behind common law (rules deriving from common practice outside of actual statutes) is a pretty simple one. It is literally used throughout Westeros in the form of precedents.

No man. Common law is so called because Britain made it common to England, Scotland, and Wales (possibly later). So three different nations were following the same law. This system of common law was then exported to British colonies around the world. When these countries became independent or broke off from motherland (as in the case of US and Canada), the new legal systems they developed were essentially based on this common law. Common law is different from the civil law practiced in France and its colonies. 

In any case, this simply does not exist in Westeros, which still has a feudal system. While the kingdoms are united under one crown, each practice its own law. The books even start with Ned Stark beheading a Night Watch deserter, because that's the lord's law in the north. But the same doesn't exist in a place like Dorne, which has its own way of doing things. None of these kingdoms have anything resembling a codified law system because it's set in a FANTASY MEDIEVAL period. It's even more different in Essos. 

9 hours ago, Demetri said:

I'm terrified that you don't have the mental flexibility to realize that the concept of common law and the actual current Common Law can exist independently

You should be terrified because when you saw the "common" part in common law, and you thought it meant law that applies to everybody. Any decent lawyer can tell you that this is not the case. Common law is a legal system specific to England. Consider the US--is there a law common to all? Not exactly. You are primarily subject to the laws of the state where you reside. And then there are federal laws your state has agreed to obey, and as a result applies to you. Some Native Americans are exempt from federal jurisdiction altogether and follow tribal laws. The common law in the US is something else that refers to laws borrowed from England. 

9 hours ago, Demetri said:

he Common Law however, is a historical body of jurisprudence. But the idea of not codifying law and having historical guide instead is as old as time. This justice is "common" to the land and forms "law". Got it?

No. You really don't know what you are talking about. Didn't your law school have a mandatory course on common law and its origins during the first semester? Go ask for your money back. 

You are also bombarding the thread with irrelevant posts about history, law, whatever. What was even the original point you were trying to make about Dany and sexism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't "Common Law"and "common law" two differnt things?  Similar concepts but "Common Law"reffering to the British laws set down across thier country/colonies?  Where 'common law' is just the set of laws generally accepted in any random particular area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

No, you are not studying it. I can tell because I've heard these arguments before from people who want to downplay slavery in the American South and pretend that it was nothing different from what was happening in the "ancient world." Pre-colonial clans from the Britons to Aztec tribes did keep war captives, but it was not the systematic, race-oriented slave trade the Europeans practiced. Maybe your Bible Belt high school or the community college you went to didn't teach you this. In any case, that's a different type of historical argument not at all relevant to this thread. 

You can always tell when someone is really bright because they use ad hominem attacks instead of substantive points. For the reading impaired, I never said I actively study American South slavery. I actively study law. You're changing the goalpost again as you went from "American South" to "European slave trade." Even that is utter, utter nonsense. Have you thought of providing evidence of the stuff you say instead of assertions and attempts at insult.

I'm not going to even take the bait of someone who can't keep a thought straight making completely ignorant assumptions about my education. I'm not even convinced you've had one. "I can tell" is code for "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but I'm gonna do it anyway." Please use your magical abilities to tell me what law school I currently study at? By the way, tell us a bit about your amazing education. Considering how much of a complex you appear to have, I imagine there is a reason why you use it as the source of ad hominem attacks. I already said I didn't go to state funded (Bible belt) schools. You don't listen and are even worse at comprehension. I think any school that let you graduate should be immediately shut down based on the "intellectual" display I've seen from you.

3 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You are seriously misunderstanding that title (quite shockingly for a supposed law student). It's NOT referring to a law common to all nations. It refers to international treaties countries sign to subject themselves to certain laws for cases that come under international jurisdiction. Also, these are "soft laws." Countries can ignore rulings under these laws with no repercussions. It's very different from the "hard" laws of the land pertaining to domestic jurisdiction. Also, some of these international laws are based on English common law--hence the title. 

Actually, I'm not. The idea of the law being "common" to the areas that observe it is literally where the term derived. You are just dead wrong with the "oh international law uses english common law" is dead wrong. The article says "In sum, the decisions of international tribunals create a form of nonbinding, yet influential, international common law."

Wow, so they're saying that a body of common law can exist independently of english common law? I think everybody knew that but you. It is also amusing that you call it "English common law" when previously you claimed that would be redundant.

But this post shows what a very basic conception you have of common law. Yes, I know that non-binding precedents are non-binding. I mentioned in my post that common law can be contrasted with fully codified law. I have already explained this to you, but it is cute that you're trying to explain to me something that you don't really understand. 

You're also just dead wrong on a few things. First of all, I never said it was law common to all nations. I mentioned common law because of your asinine mindset that the concept of common law can't exist and instead we only have the British common law. There can be no other sort of judicial precedents that form a body of law common to areas. The article is discussing how international agencies and tribunals are creating soft law (which is the very definition of codified law, which you seem to not understand, which in effect creates a body of common law.

How can a body of international common law exist without it being British, if Common Law is, as you say, ONLY ever relating to A british system. IF we believe your broken logic, it can't. But it can, of course. Yes, when Common Law is used it is used in the British manner.

3 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

No man. Common law is so called because Britain made it common to England, Scotland, and Wales (possibly later). So three different nations were following the same law. This system of common law was then exported to British colonies around the world. When these countries became independent or broke off from motherland (as in the case of US and Canada), the new legal systems they developed were essentially based on this common law. Common law is different from the civil law practiced in France and its colonies. 

In any case, this simply does not exist in Westeros, which still has a feudal system. While the kingdoms are united under one crown, each practice its own law. The books even start with Ned Stark beheading a Night Watch deserter, because that's the lord's law in the north. But the same doesn't exist in a place like Dorne, which has its own way of doing things. None of these kingdoms have anything resembling a codified law system because it's set in a FANTASY MEDIEVAL period. It's even more different in Essos. 

Reading comprehension fail. I was trying to teach you where the term "common law" came from and that is that it was a law common to the land it governed. If you don't understand that then please see yourself out.

You misunderstand that English common law (and it is VERY often called english common law because you're referring to the common law established in England). By the way, it is almost categorically called English common law not British common law, England is one of the three countries you mentioned. 

If you honestly think that English Common Law came about because everyone in Scotland, Wales and England happened to have the same laws is idiotic. The common law was imposed by kings in the beginning and were common to all the king's courts (all the land where the king held dominion), much like it works in Westeros. There is also an American common law tradition which diverged from English common law. Yes, it is a system of English Common Law, but the many, many countries that use it have used it in different ways. Look at Bangladeshi common law. It is English in practice but has some exceptionally notable differences based on the practices of that area. These bodies of law are modeled and based on English precedent, but can differ in many ways based on the particular country.

Saying that English Common Law is somehow all that common law can ever be is like saying all countries that rely on statutory guidance are inherently French due to the derivation from Napoleonic Code. Just because the French made a famous effort for thoroughly codified laws doesn't mean that civil codes are French by nature.

You mention a feudal system. So, do you have any idea when and what caused English common law? Because it definitely started during the feudal system. I could bore you about courts of law and courts of equity and how common law factored into the creation of a court system specifically to limit the impact of common law. That system is an incredible rarity (dividing courts of law and courts of equity) in the United States but the distinction in the type of remedy has generally been melded. However, it exists as two separate courts in England and man other countries. This is all part of the evolution of common law. I imagine it was also over your head, but feel free to read up on it!

You are so aggressively wrong that it hurts. I like that you mix in baseless speculation about what "decent lawyers" would say when you haven't got a damn clue.

First, let's deal with bombarding the threat. I don't care at all about your opinion of my opinion. If you don't like it, I don't care. Secondly, it is hilarious to argue that "English common law doesn't exist in Westeros" and then try to interpret the same work of fantasy through feminist lenses. If you don't understand that common law pervades Westeros whereas feminism is not really a concept they have then I dunno what to tell you. Anyway, some inane and uninformed post by you is always what I was responding to. Oh, also funny to note that about 6-7 people have disagreed with you but not a single person has defended your ill-informed opinions as reasonable and correct.

More to the point: I'm sorry, but if you don't think that American common law exists then you need to go excuse yourself. You mention states and yea, you're right (kind of, see the Erie Doctrine in which federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction-go look it up yourself, I'm done babying you- must apply substantive state law on a state law claim. Guess what, that doctrine derived by overturning a previous decision which decided to limit state application of common law in a federal court on a state issue. This is all to show that it is so much more complicated than you think it is.) The Erie doctrine, by overturning a previous case, created federal common law on the subject. It isn't codified and is a creation of case law. But what you don't know is that many states have adopted the English common law system and others have to varying degrees. Much of federal laws are simply codified forms of common law. (Note: A law being codified does not erase it from common law but shows how common law affects both the legislature and the judicial system.)

But more importantly, no legal scholar in the world would deny that American common law exists. Federal common law isn't nearly as prevalent as states adopting a common law system but the entire concept of reviewing cases is the very essence of common law and federal courts certainly do that. It has been held that federal common law exists in matters of air and water relating to interstate or navigable waters (Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, Wis, Supreme Court, 1972) as well as in other areas. It might be fair to say that there is no federal common law (justices have argued about this for ages) as a cohesive body of jurisprudence, but just because it doesn't exist as a default rule doesn't dismiss it as still being judicially powerful.

More importantly, it is irrefutable that common law is impactful in every realm of the court. Certain rights within the entire court system derive from common law. What do you think when the Supreme Court makes a binding ruling that deals with something not codified? I could name Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision in which something was ruled illegal despite not being directly codified. The Supreme Court does not merely interpret laws, they use notions of fairness, justice and past precedent to guide them if a law is lacking. 

If you are confused and think that American common law can't exist because there is no clearly delineated federal common law then you misunderstand federalism. American common law doesn't have to be federal, it simply has to be within the American court systems and these court systems are interconnected to such a degree that that distinction doesn't mean much. If you were to research "American common law" you'd receive reams of scholarly writings on how the institution exists in America. Go read a few of them; learn something.

That precedent is, until legislation countervails, considered by stare decisis generally treated as common law. Even a basic knowledge of the Supreme Court would inform you on this. I could cite Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case, I could discuss how different jurisdictions integrate common law differently, I could cite endless scholarly articles. You still wouldn't get it and I'm done trying to educate someone who seems to be encountering the concept for the first time.

I'll try to keep it relatively short though because, 1) you're beyond help, 2) I could fill 200 pages with quotes trying to explain this to you:

Quote

"The most important things Americans received from English common law— what defines the American legal system today—are common-law doctrines and legal reasoning. This includes the doctrine of stare decisis, which uses judicial precedent to bind subsequent court decisions in cases with similar facts. A good example of the importance of common-law reasoning in America is constitutional interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, which uses “the matching, analysis and distinguishing away of precedents” (the basics of common-law legal method) to decide constitutional cases. Other aspects of the American legal system that came from English common law are trial by jury, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary." -Jones, Common Law in the United States

Quote

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." -Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

Read the last quote carefully. Because it explains the logic and method behind common law. Notice that Justice Holmes is not talking about a certain place, or a certain time, he's talking about something like the collective unconscious spirit of a nation/area. You confused things by bringing in your misunderstandings about English common law (it amuses me that you, correctly, use this now when you argued that common law=english common law at first) when I'm speaking about how common law forms. Everybody who is familiar with Westeros knows that king/lord decree, habit and custom are impactful to a justice system or to law. In Westeros, very little law is codified. So do you think they don't have laws? Yes, they make up a lot as they go along, but they also rely heavily on the past. That's common law. It isn't the collection of English laws and decisions which became English Common Law, but it does provide legal precedents that carry weight for future decisions (such as issues of succession, for an easy eample). My education is fine and I'm looking forward to my career. Hell, with your misunderstanding of basic concepts like logic, ethics and law, I might end up seeing you very soon!

It amuses me that you drop arguments that show that you don't ever bring a shred of good analysis or evidence to the table. You handwaved "international common law" and don't understand the concept that common law can be formed in places not at all directly related to Britain. You ignored a quote (thrice, now) in which Dany refuses to punish a slave master who raped a slave because, at the time, it wasn't rape. You make ad hominem attacks because you can't construct logically valid arguments and question the education of someone you don't know, who is studying something you don't really understand. Adorable stuff. No wonder everyone who has jumped in has disagreed with your nonsense.

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


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

Isn't "Common Law"and "common law" two differnt things?  Similar concepts but "Common Law"reffering to the British laws set down across thier country/colonies?  Where 'common law' is just the set of laws generally accepted in any random particular area?

That's what I'm trying to explain to this hardheaded and insulting person. I'm glad that you, at least, understand. And apparently other posters who disagreed with old Ghastly tried to explain it to them too. To no avail. Thanks for chiming in though. 

It is frustrating when you're met with insults and ignorance while discussing something that should be generally understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bradam said:

Isn't "Common Law"and "common law" two differnt things?  Similar concepts but "Common Law"reffering to the British laws set down across thier country/colonies?  Where 'common law' is just the set of laws generally accepted in any random particular area?

No it's one thing. Common law originated in Britain, where they had all these different places in England practice the similar laws based on precedent. Before that, the laws were sort of set by lords like Ned Stark. The British Empire spread these laws to essentially the four corners of the world. So most countries these days practice common law based on the British system.

Legally, no one uses the term "common law" to refer to a set of laws practiced in one place. For example, in the US, there are certain laws that all states must follow. These are federal laws, as determined by the national government, not "common" law. 

The "law common to all" idea stems from this British system. However, in the modern world, the law of the land is really complex and combines different legal system. The US has both state and federal laws, and in certain areas tribal laws. In Canada, Quebec does its own French thing as far as I know. So it's inaccurate to refer to a "common law" anyway. The term exclusively refers to modern laws inherited from the British. 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Demetri

Your so-called arguments have devolved into a nonsensical rant not worth responding. You made a dumb mistake real law students don't typically make, but really just man up, admit your mistake, and move on. Stop doubling down on your error like some third-rate politician. I feel sorry for you at this point.

Everyone is here to offer something about ASOIAF. Not everyone says smart things, of course, but don't be a total d-bag and ruin the thread. 

I honestly don't even remember the original point you were trying to make. Either stick to the point of the thread or get off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

@Demetri

Your so-called arguments have devolved into a nonsensical rant not worth responding. You made a dumb mistake real law students don't typically make, but really just man up, admit your mistake, and move on. Stop doubling down on your error like some third-rate politician. I feel sorry for you at this point.

Everyone is here to offer something about ASOIAF. Not everyone says smart things, of course, but don't be a total d-bag and ruin the thread. 

I honestly don't even remember the original point you were trying to make. Either stick to the point of the thread or get off. 

I didn't make a mistake, you don't understand what common law means. I've read hundreds of British cases viewed as common law, I've written on the common law system in individual states. You not being able to understand me doesn't make me wrong, it makes you limited and should probably excuse you from the conversation. Now, at least, you're not even trying to spout nonsense because you accept that you're better at insults than analysis.

Furthermore, you know absolutely nothing about the law in general, law schools or lawyers. You commenting on it exemplifies the willful ignorance you peddle like crack.  You've never posted an ounce of evidence. I've provided examples, court cases and quotes. It isn't nonsensical, it's just above your head. Go do some research, bring back evidence and maybe you'll have an opinion worth talking about because as it stands you think American common law doesn't exist, that English common law is the only type of common law that can exist, and disagree heartily with established jurisprudence both here and in England.  Furthermore, you never really corrected me with a better understanding because you don't have one. I literally quoted a Supreme Court Justice who laid out exactly the type of system I was talking about and, because he has a greater understanding than you do, did not ever mention that the process of common law must be set in any particular geographic place or derive from an particular country or culture.

I'm glad you accept your role as being the person who doesn't "say smart things" as like 5 other posters have pointed out. And total d-bag? You questioned my education (which, given your silence, I assume I have more of than you do) before I ever mentioned anything ad hominem. You have a childish tendency to "LOL" and "HAHAHA" in response to posts in an attempt to belittle rather than leading with analysis and logic. That says EVERYTHING I need to know about you.

As a final thought, I don't give a crap about your opinion on where I should post. It isn't my fault you don't have the chops to back up the silly stuff you say. And it is shocking that you don't remember the point I was trying to make. Let me help, since remembering the point is important in arguments. You digressed terribly when I said that "common law" isn't nonsense or "Circlejerk" (a term produced by your amazing verbal skills). We were talking about the GMs for a while, and another poster said that Dany had refused to apply ex post facto laws in recognition that previously slavery was legal either due to statute (where was the statute, hm??) or through common law, thus making the offender's act of sexual violence NOT rape due to the circumstances and the common law legal status of slavery.

It was exceptionally poignant to the discussion as your contention was that "all slavers should die and that's good justice by Queen Dany" when, in fact, Dany didn't do that at all and almost definitely let some morally repugnant slavers walk free because she couldn't be bothered to determine if they were all guilty. Remember, we know they weren't all guilty of murdering 163 children (the crime the 163 GMs were punished for) as per Hizdahr stating his dad (And others) argued against it. Then you waffled about "der, but that's in the show" while on a thread in the (wait for it) SHOW section. It is a great example of you ignoring truth because you're little mind is already set and, bless it, it did the best it could and won't try anymore to think critically. This issue is key when discussing if Dany is "just." I know, you want to just say all slavery is terrible (which it definitely is!) and reject anybody who sees moral complexity as a "slaver apologist" in order to write them off, but that isn't how life works. But I'm certain you take some time to consider the nature of life when asking "Do you want fries with that?" which seems to me to be the only thing your education has qualified you for.

 In fact, when killing the GMs, she acted unjustly and immorally by not trying to dispense justice but instead randomly selected 163 members of a guilty group for punishment. I argue it was a punitive measure (legal term, look it up!) rather than a recuperative measure. Dany didn't care about their individual guilt or the justice of each individual crucifixion, but instead cared about a static, elementary concept of justice (kind of like you!) that in the hands of queens often produces bloodthirsty tyrants (like someone who would burn down KL.)

How embarrassing is it for you that you couldn't even remember that? I think you'd do a better job of defending Dany if you'd do things like, I dunno, provide support for your arguments or even REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE! But either way, I'm not letting someone who can't remember their own argument dissuade me from posting. You're welcome to step away, though. It prevents tons of people from having to correct your logical pitfalls (see: last 5 pages and the 7 people who think you're wrong on almost everything we've disagreed about.)The only purpose and point of your views is for me to point out why they're so pigheaded. If you don't like being "bombarded" with replies, stop posting insults and idiocy. Now go research common law because you are literally the only person here who doesn't get it.

Edited by Demetri

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

×