Ser Barristan Selmy- truly a "True Knight"?

[Arthur Peres]

1 minute ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Yeah, but he is saying that to Cersei, right? They aren't really that truthful in their weird, toxic relationship with one another. Imo George's statements about the matter clearly show, that he meant for Jaime to care about his weird family, even if it's not clearly obvious from his thoughts. A lot of things are subconscious after all.

It's weird though right?

When talking to Catelyn Jaime says that he only cares about Cersei, Tyrion and Tywin, the kids were not on his mind... later on even he is surprised that he didn't feel anything when Tywin died, he also thinks the same with Joffrey and he has no interaction with Myrcella.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

The difference is, I see clues of a possible redemption arc for Sandor.  I see no such clues for Jaime.

I agree with what @Lyanna<3Rhaegar said. The only clue, for a possible redemption arc, that we get is that the elder brother says the Hound is gone. But we haven't actually seen that for ourselves. He is constantly back and forth, he doesn't let Sansa and Arya get killed, but he is still pretty abusive towards them, while Jaime hasn't really done anything bad since pushing Barn.

[Nagini's Neville]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

It's weird though right?

When talking to Catelyn Jaime says that he only cares about Cersei, Tyrion and Tywin, the kids were not on his mind... later on even he is surprised that he didn't feel anything when Tywin died, he also thinks the same with Joffrey and he has no interaction with Myrcella.

Yeah, I agree. But I think George meant to imply that he cares, the same way he apparently meant to imply, that Sansa understood she had an impact by telling Cersei about their departure and recognized her responsibility, even though I also never got that from the text.

Obviously this "family" is very toxic, imo Jaime might especially care, because he sees himself as part of Cersei and her children are her everything. I also think he would have done it just for Cersei with no children being involved at all. And of course this doesn't make him a good person, especially because Cersei is so awful, but imo it's understandable. At least he had a reason. It was about survival. 

Imo ppl are capable of the most horrendous actions, if their own lives or their loved one's are at stake.

[Nagini's Neville]

54 minutes ago, frenin said:

Did he?? He was ready to take on every Tully if needed be and he would've killed every Tully,  in fact he sent men against Brynden,  change?? For sure, redemption arc?? Well, we'll see whem Jaime settles and decides who he wants to be...

Well, they are at war, right? redeeming yourself a little does not necessarily mean "siding" with the Tullys and Starks. They are his enemies after all. And they obviously hate him and would gladly kill every last Lannister given the chance.

I don't even really fault Tyrion over marrying Sansa (which was also an act of war), even though I fault him greatly for what he did afterwards.

[Nagini's Neville]

54 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The first thing Jaime does when he comes to Riverrun is to challenge Blackfish to a duel... later on after taking the castle he still send his men after the elder Tully.

He did take upon arms against them.

Um, but they are his enemies? They are at war with one another after all.. He won't suddenly become their friend and let them of the hook, just because he maybe won't murder children anymore in the future. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

55 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

I would argue that getting smater is not the same as redeeming himself.

No it's not but another reason for wanting to not waste the lives of a bunch of people is compassion, something Jaime lacked initially

58 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The first thing Jaime does when he comes to Riverrun is to challenge Blackfish to a duel... later on after taking the castle he still send his men after the elder Tully.

He did take upon arms against them.

Challenging some one to a duel isn't the same as dueling them & sending men to capture a fleeing POW is not taking up arms

Anyway my point is, again, not so much about the semantics of whether he did or didn't take up arms & more about the fact that he thought about, considered, & attempted to uphold a vow, sworn to an enemy at sword point. 

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

Jaime can and he did clarify Edmure's options, or are you suggesting that he would've just turned around and leave RR be because he couldn't take it  without bloodshed?? Don't know wh he later sent people after Brynden.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Are you suggesting that if Edmure refused Jaime would have hung out there & waited until said baby was born & brought to RR so it could be catapulted over the wall?

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Don't buy the redemption arc, because i don't know for what he's redeeming, nor do i really know what he really wants because he changes his mind quite often.

He does? What does he change his mind about quite often? I guess if you don't see that he has anything to redeem himself for we must have different standards in regards to redeemable qualities. 

48 minutes ago, frenin said:

Or more dangerous

I would say both. 

[Showtime]

4 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Jaime is not even grey.  His heart is black.  Having a point of view does not make him a hero.  He's one of the bad guys. 

I really cannot see Jaime as a bad guy. As mentioned, he does some very questionable thinks like pushing Bran but I never saw any "bad" intentions behind these actions. He didn't try to kill Bran out of hate, spite or to gain power but to protect Cercei. If Bran had told everyone what he saw, Robert most likely would have killed Cercei and her children. If I remember correctly, Jaime stated that he only wanted to be with Cercei, no matter what. Doesn't sound all evil to me. One of Jaimes biggest flaws is that he doesn't think before he acts. Maybe the whole Bran situation could have been handled with better outcome for all but he made rash decision. I think most of the bad things he's done, he did for Cercei or being manipulated by her, not with bad intentions. 

If we just want to focus on outcomes of he's actions, I must mention that with killing Aerys and his pyromancer, he saved thousands of people from horrible death. What is a life of one boy compared to that?

But yeah, although I don't see Jaime as a villain, I can't call him a hero either. He is/was selfish, arrogant and rash causing much trouble for others. However now that he's not constantly under Cerceis influece, I can see him becoming the hero of the story. He certainly has the skill and more importantly he isn't seeking power or revenge of any kind. 

[frenin]

14 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Well, they are at war, right? redeeming yourself a little does not necessarily mean "siding" with the Tullys and Starks. They are his enemies after all. And they obviously hate him and would gladly kill every last Lannister given the chance.

I don't even really fault Tyrion over marrying Sansa (which was also an act of war), even though I fault him greatly for what he did afterwards.

As i said before i don't see Jaime as a bad man, not someone who need redemption, Jaime is a man who, before getting maimed knew what he wanted and  simply didn't give much or any thought about the rest, he loved Cersei, ie he was Cersei's absolute  tool, he loved his baby brother and  he sort of cared for his father. He never pretended  be anything more or less. Sure, he was and  still is very self centered and  selfish but so what?? He's prone to cruel acts  but that's more because of he doesn't think ahead than any cruelty. After getting maimed and  lost his identity he's just figuring shit out true, but i don't really see this as redemption.

So, in what is based  this redemption arc he's apparently going through??  Apparently is about Jaime being "honorable" a sort of  proto Barry?? He fails spectacularly in the Riverlands then. The first time he has to fullfil those oaths, he just passed. I believe that Jaime is the obvious good one of the trio, Tyrion being Tywin and  what he later did to Shae, Cersei being Cersei... Jaime doesn't look so bad there.

 

 

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Are you suggesting that if Edmure refused Jaime would have hung out there & waited until said baby was born & brought to RR so it could be catapulted over the wall?

I'm suggesting that after he would've killed the baby anyway.

 

 

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He does? What does he change his mind about quite often? I guess if you don't see that he has anything to redeem himself for we must have different standards in regards to redeemable qualities. 

He wants to be a true KG and  that's what he said to both Cersei and his father, but he also wants Cersei to come clean and  proclame the bastardy to everyone, no matter that the admission  is literally death for them and  the inmediately lost of the crown, later on he wants to be Tywin when Genna claims that he's not like Tywin, after that he wants to be Goldenhand...

 

 

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would say both. 

Is it?? Don't really think that him becoming a finer commander tells us pretty much anything about his morality, don't really think Tywin or Randyll would've stormed the Castle if they had other options at hand  either.

[Platypus Rex]

17 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

GRRM really shooted himself on the foot there... the character himself writed states that he doesn't care about his children time and time again.

People see what they want to see.  To Jaime lovers, GRRM seems to be saying "My friend is a very moral person and therefore you should be guided by his moral opinions as am I, and he says Jaime was justified, so there you go."  To anyone else, GRRM's words are just as easily consistent with "I am a bit taken aback by the amoral opinion of my supposedly moral friend."  And, as you point out, GRRM went on to make sure we all knew that Jaime, unlike his unnamed friend, did not even have the excuse of being motivated by love of his children.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 minute ago, Platypus Rex said:

People see what they want to see.  To Jaime lovers, GRRM seems to be saying "My friend is a very moral person and therefore you should be guided by his moral opinions as am I, and he says Jaime was justified, so there you go."  To anyone else, GRRM's words are just as easily consistent with "I am a bit taken aback by the amoral opinion of my supposedly moral friend."  And, as you point out, GRRM went on to make sure we all knew that Jaime, unlike his unnamed friend, did not even have the excuse of being motivated by love of his children.

he is not only taking about this one friend though. In the first quote , I posted, he says he spoke to multiple ppl about it. And he is the one calling them out basically implying "you don't know what you would do, if you were in such a situation"

"At the same time, what Jaime did is interesting. I don’t have any kids myself, but I’ve talked with other people who have. Remember, Jaime isn’t just trying to kill Bran because he’s an annoying little kid. Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I’ve asked people who do have children, “Well, what would you do in Jaime’s situation?” They say, “Well, I’m not a bad guy – I wouldn’t kill.” Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he’s going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

Then many of them hesitate. Probably more people than not would say, “Yeah, I would kill someone else’s child to save my own child, even if that other child was innocent.” These are the difficult decisions people make, and they’re worth examining."

[Lord Lannister]

Tyrants love people to blindly follow orders. It's part of why things like doing your duty and honor are propped up at commendable traits. Barristan will stand by and do his duty while the king rapes his wife, burns people alive for his own pleasure, and generally runs the realm into the ground. I'll take Jaime and his questionable morals over Barristan any day, because at least Jaime has the courage to act on morals.

[Platypus Rex]

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

he is not only taking about this one friend though. In the first quote , I posted, he says he spoke to multiple ppl about it. And he is the one calling them out basically implying "you don't know what you would do, if you were in such a situation"

"At the same time, what Jaime did is interesting. I don’t have any kids myself, but I’ve talked with other people who have. Remember, Jaime isn’t just trying to kill Bran because he’s an annoying little kid. Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I’ve asked people who do have children, “Well, what would you do in Jaime’s situation?” They say, “Well, I’m not a bad guy – I wouldn’t kill.” Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he’s going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

Then many of them hesitate. Probably more people than not would say, “Yeah, I would kill someone else’s child to save my own child, even if that other child was innocent.” These are the difficult decisions people make, and they’re worth examining."

Once again, you are reading onto GRRM words that he did not actually say.   He points out that talk is cheap, and faced with real temptation, many people would indeed commit terrible crimes.  You conclude from this that GRRM believes these are not crimes at all, which to my mind is a non-sequitur.  Are there no moral standard above or beyond what most people would do?

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about GRRM.  How would I know?   

But it just does not follow from his words.  "Probably more people than not would say x" does not mean, "I, George RR Lemming, agree that whatever most people would do is the height of moral virtue."  What about the people who would NOT do x, even after being pressed?  You say he calls them out.  WHERE?   The only thing he says about them is that they stand their ground even after being pressed.  What you consider "calling them out" is in fact pressing them a little to find out their real position, precisely because GRRM knows that talk is cheap, and he is genuinely curious about their real position.  You ASSUME this is meant to argue for his own position, but no evidence for this assumption is reflected in the quote.

When he says that difficult moral questions are worth examining, you read it as, "Go ahead, kill that little boy.  I George RR Martin approve".  Maybe, maybe.  But I think you read too much.  If difficult moral questions are really worth examining, then maybe you should do the right-but-difficult thing, and NOT kill that little boy.

Who is more admirable?  The people who would do x?  Or the people who would not do x?  GRRM's words seem to acknowledge that both exist.  Who does GRRM admire more?  Since this is his fantasy, which is more likely to be the hero, and which is more likely to be the villain?    I don't know, but nothing in that quote resolves the question.

Or, to put it another way, does the obvious fact that the True Knight is obviously a rare bird REALLY mean that GRRM does not admire him?

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Tyrants love people to blindly follow orders. It's part of why things like doing your duty and honor are propped up at commendable traits. Barristan will stand by and do his duty while the king rapes his wife, burns people alive for his own pleasure, and generally runs the realm into the ground. I'll take Jaime and his questionable morals over Barristan any day, because at least Jaime has the courage to act on morals.

What's the difference between the KG and  the Army?? Even today  corps  are usually guided by a set of rules and  vows and  not morals. What Jaime wants to impose, as sympathetic as it seems to us  and  as disgraceful as Aerys seven are, can only lead to a Praetorian Guard.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm suggesting that after he would've killed the baby anyway

After Edmure surrendered?

2 hours ago, frenin said:

He wants to be a true KG and  that's what he said to both Cersei and his father, but he also wants Cersei to come clean and  proclame the bastardy to everyone, no matter that the admission  is literally death for them and  the inmediately lost of the crown, later on he wants to be Tywin when Genna claims that he's not like Tywin, after that he wants to be Goldenhand...

He originally joined the KG only in an effort to be close to Cersei. He later decides he wants to be a true member of the KG I guess. I don't recall him saying that but he starts to behave more like one, because he is attempting to redeem himself. 

He never says he wants to be Tywin. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

it?? Don't really think that him becoming a finer commander tells us pretty much anything about his morality, don't really think Tywin or Randyll would've stormed the Castle if they had other options at hand  either.

Idk what Tywin or Randyll did but I can guarantee they wouldn't have refrained from storming the castle because of a vow sworn to Catelyn at sword point. Him not wanting to waste lives points toward him being compassionate. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

27 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Once again, you are reading onto GRRM words that he did not actually say.   He points out that talk is cheap, and faced with real temptation, many people would indeed commit terrible crimes.  You conclude from this that GRRM believes these are not crimes at all, which to my mind is a non-sequitur.  Are there no moral standard above or beyond what most people would do?

No I think it is you that is reading into GRRM's words that he did not actually say. You are the one saying "many people will commit terrible crimes" George says faced with Jaime's situation many people would do the same. I haven't seen anyone say it wasn't a crime at all, more hyperbole on your part. Certainly it is a crime to push a boy out of a window. George is asking us to look at the situation & ask ourselves what we would do. If we are being honest the majority of us, if given only 2 choices: 1. To kill a kid you don't know or 2. Have your lover, children, & yourself be killed would pick option 1. Of course we hope we are never put in this situation & most of us would probably not do this with the level of non-chalance that Jaime did. We would feel terrible about it & it would be an extremely hard thing for us to do. 

 

34 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

But it just does not follow from his words.  "Probably more people than not would say x" does not mean, "I, George RR Lemming, agree that whatever most people would do is the height of moral virtue."

Who said that it did? Point me to them & I'll argue with them right along with you but I haven't seen anyone say that they or George think what Jaime did is the height of moral virtue.

35 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

You say he calls them out.  WHERE

Where he says to the people that say they would never kill a kid: 

 

36 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he’s going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . .

That is calling them out. @Nagini's Neville pointed that out pretty clearly in the post you quoted. 

38 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

The only thing he says about them is that they stand their ground even after being pressed

No, he says the opposite. That most of them don't stand their ground after being pressed. 

38 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

What you consider "calling them out" is in fact pressing them a little to find out their real position, precisely because GRRM knows that talk is cheap, and he is genuinely curious about their real position.  You ASSUME this is meant to argue for his own position, but no evidence for this assumption is reflected in the quote.

Well you can argue semantics all you want but he is calling them out. You make the case on your own: GRRM knows words are cheap so he pressed deeper to get the truth of the matter. 

40 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

When he says that difficult moral questions are worth examining, you read it as, "Go ahead, kill that little boy.  I George RR Martin approve".  Maybe, maybe.  But I think you read too much.  If difficult moral questions are really worth examining, then maybe you should do the right-but-difficult thing, and NOT kill that little boy

I don't think she does read it that way. I also don't think that's what George is saying. Any sane person knows it is not morally good & right to kill a child, regardless of the circumstances but it is not morally good or right to allow your own children to be killed either. Jaime is in a difficult situation & that is what George is pointing out. That it isn't as black & white as killing a kid = bad. He drives that point home further by pushing the people saying they wouldn't do it further, to look at the full situation until they understand that no matter what they said initially put in that situation most anyone would pick their own kids & wife over the life of another kid. 

 

[Platypus Rex]

45 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No I think it is you that is reading into GRRM's words that he did not actually say.

No.  What I did was acknowledge the possibility that one interpretation was correct, while also pointing out another possible interpretations. 

Quote

You are the one saying "many people will commit terrible crimes" George says faced with Jaime's situation many people would do the same. 

I explicitly acknowledged the possibility that GRRM may agree that these are NOT therefore terrible crimes, nor indeed crimes at all ("crime" in the sense of being morally wrong and unjustified acts).

Quote

George says faced with Jaime's situation many people would do the same. I haven't seen anyone say it wasn't a crime at all, more hyperbole on your part. Certainly it is a crime to push a boy out of a window.

If nobody disagrees with me, then we are all in happy agreement.  But it certainly sounds like you want to disagree with me about something.  Where was my hyperbole?  Where I said "terrible crime" instead of simply "crime"??  

Quote

George is asking us to look at the situation & ask ourselves what we would do. If we are being honest the majority of us, if given only 2 choices: 1. To kill a kid you don't know or 2. Have your lover, children, & yourself be killed would pick option 1.

Right.  And the minority (or maybe the majority, I don't know) would pick option 2.  Who is more admirable?

Quote

Of course we hope we are never put in this situation & most of us would probably not do this with the level of non-chalance that Jaime did. We would feel terrible about it & it would be an extremely hard thing for us to do. 

Are you saying that murdering an innocent child to save your own would be a hard thing to do, but you would or should try do it?  Or are you saying that resisting the temptation to murder a child to save your own would be a hard thing for you to do, but you would or should try to do it?

Quote

Who said that it did? Point me to them & I'll argue with them right along with you but I haven't seen anyone say that they or George think what Jaime did is the height of moral virtue.

Find them and argue with them yourself.  If you agree with me, we can move on.

Quote

Where he says to the people that say they would never kill a kid: 

That is calling them out. @Nagini's Neville pointed that out pretty clearly in the post you quoted. 

I think we've already established that, according to you, "calling them out" in this context, does not imply that GRRM is justifying or endorsing Jaime's behavior.  Beyond that, I have no interest in quibbling over the semantics or "calling them out".  If it means "pressing them to know what their moral stance really is" then that's what it means.  It still tells us nothing about GRRM's own moral stance, and that's all I am saying.

Quote

No, he says the opposite. That most of them don't stand their ground after being pressed. 

Most of them don't, implies some of them do.  Come on.  Don't make me spoonfeed you.

All I am saying is that I do not see where he "calls out" those who stand their ground after being pressed, in any context that implies he disagrees with them.  He only "calls out" those who have not been pressed yet, in a context that only implies a curiosity about their actual position.

There is nothing which indicates which stance he endorses or agrees with.

Quote

GRRM knows words are cheap so he pressed deeper to get the truth of the matter. 

That's what I said, yeah.  Where is our disagreement?

Quote

Any sane person knows it is not morally good & right to kill a child, regardless of the circumstances ….

So you agree that what Jaime did was morally wrong then?

And what about the majority of people pressed by GRRM?  Did they reveal themselves not to be sane?  Or did they merely admit that they were not morally good & right?

Quote

but it is not morally good or right to allow your own children to be killed either. Jaime is in a difficult situation & that is what George is pointing out. That it isn't as black & white as killing a kid = bad. He drives that point home further by pushing the people saying they wouldn't do it further, to look at the full situation until they understand that no matter what they said initially put in that situation most anyone would pick their own kids & wife over the life of another kid. 

If you are saying that Jaime may have faced some serious temptation, I agree.  His crime had a motive.  His sin was occasioned by some pretty serious temptation.

If you are trying to take back what you just said in the last part I quoted, then I disagree with you, and I think it is possible that GRRM disagrees with you as well.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

42 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

No.  What I did was acknowledge the possibility that one interpretation was correct, while also pointing out another possible interpretations. 

No, you said GRRM points out "talk is cheap and faced with real temptation many people would indeed commit terrible crimes" something GRRM didn't say all while saying someone else, who is giving their interpretation of what GRRM said is "reading into GRRM's words that he did not actually say" That is not acknowledging that the other posters interpretation could be correct while pointing out other possible interpretations. Your language & words spell out very clearly that what you were saying is the other posters interpretation is incorrect. 

49 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

explicitly acknowledged the possibility that GRRM may agree that these are NOT therefore terrible crimes, nor indeed crimes at all ("crime" in the sense of being morally wrong and unjustified acts)

Where did you explicitly acknowledge that? Maybe in another post, & if so fine but not in the one I quoted. 

50 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

If nobody disagrees with me, then we are all in happy agreement.  But it certainly sounds like you want to disagree with me about something.  Where was my hyperbole?  Where I said "terrible crime" instead of simply "crime"??

I'm not wholly certain what your stance is to agree or disagree with you, I was trying to have a discussion to establish that. No the hyperbole is when you said 

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You conclude from this that GRRM believes these are not crimes at all, which to my mind is a non-sequitur.

When that is neither what the poster concluded or presented. 

52 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Right.  And the minority (or maybe the majority, I don't know) would pick option 2.  Who is more admirable

I don't think either are more admirable. It's never admirable to kill a child. It's never admirable to not do everything in your power to prevent a child/ren from being murdered. Admirable is just not a word I would use to describe either of the choices. 

54 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Are you saying that murdering an innocent child to save your own would be a hard thing to do, but you would or should try do it? 

Yes, I'm saying murdering an innocent child would be extremely hard but that in this particular circumstance I would be left with no choice other than to do it. I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't try to do it. Everyone would have to make their own choice. 

55 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Or are you saying that resisting the temptation to murder a child to save your own would be a hard thing for you to do, but you would or should try to do it?

There would be no "temptation" there to resist. Not murdering a child & therefore forcing the murder of your own child would be hard to do also. Either choice would be hard. 

57 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Find them and argue with them yourself.  If you agree with me, we can move on

Yes I agree here. I said it because that is what you said people are saying. 

58 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

think we've already established that, according to you, "calling them out" in this context, does not imply that GRRM is justifying or endorsing Jaime's behavior.  Beyond that, I have no interest in quibbling over the semantics or "calling them out".  If it means "pressing them to know what their moral stance really is" then that's what it means.  It still tells us nothing about GRRM's own moral stance, and that's all I am saying

I agree we don't know what George's moral stance is here. He is making an effort to show that Jaime was in a bad situation with no good way out though. 

59 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Most of them don't, implies some of them do.  Come on.  Don't make me spoonfeed you

Yes some of them do but what you said is: 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The only thing he says about them is that they stand their ground even after being pressed

Which is the opposite of what he actually said & isn't what is implied either. In this context we are talking about the people that did not stand their ground but back pedaled after being questioned. If you were talking about the minority that did stand their ground then the statement is correct but if you go back & read the entire paragraph there it appears as if you are speaking about the majority - a simple miscommunication, no spoon-feeding. 

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

All I am saying is that I do not see where he "calls out" those who stand their ground after being pressed, in any context that implies he disagrees with them.  He only "calls out" those who have not been pressed yet, in a context that only implies a curiosity about their actual position

I was saying he is calling out everyone that says initially that they would not or would never kill an innocent child. Not that he calls out the people who continue to stand their ground. He has already called them out, they stand firm, he doesn't further push them that we are aware. 

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

That's what I said, yeah.  Where is our disagreement?

No disagreement I was agreeing with you. 

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

So you agree that what Jaime did was morally wrong then?

Yes, killing an innocent child is morally wrong 100% of the time. 

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

And what about the majority of people pressed by GRRM?  Did they reveal themselves not to be sane?  Or did they merely admit that they were not morally good & right?

No, they are sane enough & know it's morally wrong that's why they initially said no they would not kill a child. They aren't admitting they are not morally good & right either, they are admitting that while this isn't morally good & right, put in this situation they would do it anyway because it's probably the only option they can live with. 

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

you are saying that Jaime may have faced some serious temptation, I agree.  His crime had a motive.  His sin was occasioned by some pretty serious temptation

I don't think temptation is the word I would use but ultimately yes I'm saying he was facing a very bad situation & picked the route that the majority of people would pick, making him no more or less evil than every one else (at least where this one instance is concerned)

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

If you are trying to take back what you just said in the last part I quoted, then I disagree with you, and I think it is possible that GRRM disagrees with you as well.

I'm not real sure what you mean here but no, I'm not trying to take back what I said. We aren't always presented with one morally good & one morally bad option. Both options sucked & it's always going to depend on which side of the situation you are on. If I were Jaime, Cersei or any of the kids, his choice would be the "right" one for me. If I were Bran or any of the Starks it would not be the right one for me. 

[Platypus Rex]

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think that is what they mean at all. Jaime is one of the few people who do own their actions, making him a villain in his own point of view.

Yeah, I don't know what this means.  He was already a villain, before we had his POV because of his attempted murder of Bran and his slaughter of Jaime's men.  "Owning his actions" is not repentance.  And his POV "making him a villain" only confirms that he is a villain.  

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He went from shoving a child out of a window without a care in the world to succeeding at ending a siege against an enemy without bloodshed BECAUSE he was forced to swear to an enemy, at sword point, not to take up arms against her house. If that's not a redemption arc I don't know what is. 

Well, I guess you don't know what a redemption arc is.  Because that is certainly not a redemption arc.  That's just a villain who happens to do a bunch of stuff which (as you describe it) is not necessarily bad.  

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree, the hound is following a redemption arc as well but he has showed much less redemption thus far than Jaime. 

Sandor does not have a POV, and thus nothing is known for sure.  I suspect a redemption arc based on ambiguous clues.  this is not fact that I can prove.  It is a prediction of the future that may or may not come to pass in future books.

But Sandor MIGHT be a repentant murderer.  Whereas Jaime is certainly an unrepentant murderer.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Yeah, I don't know what this means.  He was already a villain, before we had his POV because of his attempted murder of Bran and his slaughter of Jaime's men.  "Owning his actions" is not repentance.  And his POV "making him a villain" only confirms that he is a villain.  

I don't disagree with anything you said here. The quote you have was in response to someone saying (paraphrasing) that the people that see where Jaime is coming from, are doing so because he has a POV & no man is a villain in his own POV. I was pointing out that Jaime is actually a villain in his own POV. 

5 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, I guess you don't know what a redemption arc is.  Because that is certainly not a redemption arc.  That's just a villain who happens to do a bunch of stuff which (as you describe it) is not necessarily bad.  

Ok lol

If you disagree that what Jaime did at RR & saving Brienne, giving her tools to look for the Stark girls is not something 2 hand Jaime would have done then fine but there is no reason to assume I don't know what a redemption arc is. 

7 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Sandor does not have a POV, and thus nothing is known for sure.  I suspect a redemption arc based on ambiguous clues.  this is not fact that I can prove.  It is a prediction of the future that may or may not come to pass in future books

Yes, it is a prediction of mine as well which is why I said I agree that the Hound is following a redemption arc. 

8 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

But Sandor MIGHT be a repentant murderer.  Whereas Jaime is certainly an unrepentant murderer

Sure, as of right now they are both unrepentant murderers. 

[Platypus Rex]

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If you disagree that what Jaime did at RR & saving Brienne, giving her tools to look for the Stark girls is not something 2 hand Jaime would have done then fine but there is no reason to assume I don't know what a redemption arc is. 

The missing element is repentance.  Whether 2 handed Jaime would have done this, I have no idea.  But it is beside the point.  It is just Jaime doing different stuff, in different context, because of different circumstances.  And was not Jaime always a fearless man-of-action?

Quote

Sure, as of right now they are both unrepentant murderers. 

Except there are clues that Sandor might be repentant.  We know pretty certainly that Jaime is unrepentant.

Clues:

-  His theft of the toy knight, and his protest-too-much railing against the ideals of knighthood, suggest these ideals once meant something to him.

- After coming to Sansa's room, quite possibly with bad intent, he leaves in tears, after Sansa sings a hymn to him.

- During his subsequent wanderings, he engages in various actions, which, while arguably frameable in terms of self-interest, are also consistent with a focus on defending the weak.  (He protects Arya, and also helps villagers defend against mountain raiders).

- He confesses his sins to Arya, admits he deserves death, and is sentenced by her to a horrible painful death, which (per theory) he somehow survives.

- He has joined a religious order, whose ideology incorporates the concepts of repentance and redemption.

- The metaphorical interpretation of the Elder Brother's claim that the Hound has "died" implicates the religious concept of being "born again", which are inextricably linked with the concepts repentance and redemption.

- The grave digging is implicitly a form of penance for all those he has killed.

None of which is definite without access to his internal thoughts.  Like I said, they are only (arguable) clues.

I am aware that this is an irreligious and even antireligious forum.  So perhaps there will be strong objections to the idea that religious ideology has anything to do with "redemption".  But "redemption" is, in origin, a religious concept.  If the conception moves too far from its origin, one quickly gets to the point where I wonder what people mean by it.  But I don't think "redemption" means "he does not need to be redeemed because he never did anything wrong".  Nor does it merely mean he goes on to do other things because he no longer faces the same temptations.  Something must change internally, to imply that, if faced with the same circumstances, you would not make the same choice.