Tyrion and Sansa

[corbon]

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

If young Tyrion disobeyed Tywin in this very insignificant matter, he would be thrown out of the family.

Quote

"If you will not have the Stark girl, I shall find you another wife. Somewhere in the realm there is doubtless some little lordling who'd gladly part with a daughter to win the friendship of Casterly Rock. Lady Tanda has offered Lollys . . ."

There's your result. Not thrown out of the family, but married to someone insignificant, or worse.

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

It's a campaign, and Tywin will not tolerate being thwarted.

There are alternatives though. If Tyrion refuses its not the end of the campaign, just a setback. Thats why Tywin uses the stick of a potential marriage to (with apologies to poor Tanda) someone irrelevant, old (in their society, for a first wife) fat, and mentally retarded.
 

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

So to Sansa's wedding, which is not a small matter, since Tywin plans that through her, the Lannisters will inherit the North. This is a massive move in the game of thrones, and if Tyrion rebels even in something as important as this, then what use is he to the family? He's a lost cause, get rid of him.

This is simply false.

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

As above. The impulse might be genuine, but if Tywin threatens to throw him out, he must give in. He can't imagine not being a Lannister.

As is this. Tywin already detailed the punishment if he refused. It wasn't to throw him out.

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Easy. He would say, ok, I'll go and tell my father.  And then, after a short or long interval, he would come back saying, sorry my love, I really tried, but it is the king's command, we have to go through with it.

Unfortunately this is based on inaccuracies.
It might still be true. 
There is just no evidence at all that suggest it is and much that disagrees with it.

[Nagini's Neville]

2 minutes ago, corbon said:

As I said, duty isn't her reason, its part of her armour to reduce the effect of her forced actions on her soul.

In my opinion, that is just your personal opinion and there is no textual evidence to back it up. Sansa is a very dutiful girl. Everything she has done all her life was according to the role, that society has assigned to her, except for that one time, when she didn't obey her father. Now her role is ward of the king. Even with the Nymeria-Joff thing, she didn't know, whether to obey her future husband or be loyal to her family and tried to do both. 

9 minutes ago, corbon said:

While I appreciate the tactical change, asking a question instead of challenging an answer (I've tried to do it that way when I can, to try to reduce conflict, but I'm far from perfect too), what exactly makes you think I should answer your questions when mine never get answered?

I don't. You can do whatever you what. this is a free forum. Feel free not to answer me at all. But you also didn't answer my question even if you claim you did.

You stated Sansa knowing Joffrey was a bastard wouldn't change her behavior on the wedding night. And my follow-up question was: If Sansa knew, that she is not the ward of the king, why the hell would it benefit her and her family to offer to undress for Tyrion? 

It wouldn't. Therefore she also wouldn't offer it.

And you also didn't reply directly to any of the arguments, so don't know why you are complaining.

To make it clear again: We all agree sansa is not to blame. This discussion is about Tyrion.

My specific problem is with how he behaves on the wedding night. I have said Tyrion should have risked something for Sansa and plan to not want to consummate the marriage on the first night no matter, which questions she asks.

to quote myself:

when I first read Clash, that Tyrion was a better man than this, that he right from the beginning did not want to make her do this, on the first night, without them even knowing each other and not like this. That he would risk something for her, risk something to do the right thing from the beginning (it's not, that he didn't have time to think about what to do), the same way he had risked something, when he was fucking Shae. But in the end this marriage is an act of war against the Starks (which makes it so cruel for Sansa as Tyrion notes) and Tyrion is a Lannister. So "finalizing" this marriage is in Tyrion's interest as much as it is in the rest of the Lannister's.

 

The next question would be (not a question for you): Why would Tyrion risk something for Sansa? From his pov, the reasons, why he would risk not bedding her on the first night- no matter how she behaves:

1. I view her still as a child, therefore I think myself she is too young for this

2. She thinks of herself as the ward of the legitimate king, therefore she thinks she has to obey Joffrey and do her duty and offer to undress for me. But if she knew, that Joffrey was a bastard she probably wouldn't do the same, because she wouldn't view it as her duty. Therefore I'm deceiving her, if I just let her undress for me, cause by a false sense of duty.

3. she is offering to undress for me, but she is probably just doing it, because she is afraid of punishment otherwise, since Cersei and Joffrey have abused her for over a year. 

There you go, those are all thought processes, that make total sense from Tyrion's pov.

 

[Nagini's Neville]

15 hours ago, corbon said:

He is not responsible for divining her true feelings and acting on his divination. He's responsible for responding to her words and actions. 
This goes dangerously close to the common 'was it consensual or not' argument when a women feels pressured into consenting to sex and so consents, then claims later that she wasn't actually consenting. She might actually be right - maybe she didn't truly consent, but she expressed that she did. Tthe man is not responsible for divining and acting on her unexpressed feelings. He's responsible for acting on what she expressed. Period. 
And vice versa of course. I guess that probably happens too, but we never hear about it.

Yes, it happens a lot and you hear about it, when you know where to look for it. As I said in my earlier post one of my close male friends has been raped by a girl.

This is however not comparable to a rl situation unless, this woman was held hostage, physically and emotionally abused for over a year and her father killed before her eyes. So let's stay on topic please.

15 hours ago, corbon said:

The bedding is part of the wedding, necessary for political reasons

It is necessary for the Lannisters and that's Tyrion first priority. 

As I said before to be a good person to this abused innocent little girl he could have planed from the beginning to not consummate the marriage on the WN

15 hours ago, corbon said:

And you don't think he is at least partially aware of that, does consider it?

I think he is completely aware of it. It is you, who says he's only partly aware of it. Which I personally think is extremely unrealistic, since he has been exposed to Cersei's abuse himself his whole life, he knows how cruel Cersei is and how cruel Joffrey is. Even though he didn't have any firsthand evidence he suspected the first half year, that Joffrey would treat Sansa badly. And then he walked into one of her most brutal and most degrading beatings, where she was also half naked, which Tyrion immediately identifies as some sort of sexual sadism.

So why would Tyrion be so stupid and not assume Sansa has been beaten frequently before, with Joffrey and Cersei completely left to their own devices and Sansa being completely helpless. That doesn't make any sense. And therefor he should also know, that any behavior she shows on the WN might be a result of fear of further abuse. And I think he also know that.

15 hours ago, corbon said:

To answer your question, yes I think he should, and likely has. 

Of course he has. Even beforehand. It's part for the reason, he has said and thought this marriage is cruel for her. He wouldn't be Tyrion, if he weren't aware. There is no mystery to solve here like in other places

 

 

[corbon]

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

In my opinion, that is just your personal opinion and there is no textual evidence to back it up. Sansa is a very dutiful girl. Everything she has done all her life was according to the role, that society has assigned to her, except for that one time, when she didn't obey her father. Now her role is ward of the king. Even with the Nymeria-Joff thing, she didn't know, whether to obey her future husband or be loyal to her family and tried to do both. 

You underlined that she was defeated. I agree.
How does duty change from before her defeat when she was defiant to after her defeat when she stopped being defiant?

Therefore duty cannot by definition be the reason for her defeat.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I don't. You can do whatever you what. this is a free forum. Feel free not to answer me at all. But you also didn't answer my question even if you claim you did.

?

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Question: 

If she knows she isn't the ward of the king, why should she undress for Tyrion and let him bed her?¹ When the consummation is finalizing the marriage?² Allowing the Lannisters to claim WF and binding her forever to them. Why should she do that?³ She has risked and endured severe beatings for minor things already and I don't think, she would fear Tyrion would beat her there and then.

1. This is the question as afar as I can see. Why should she undress for Tyrion and let him bed her?
2. There's no question here, is and adjunct, extra data on, the first question.
3. This is just the first question again.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

She shouldn't.

And there's my answer. 
But only after pointing out that I never she she should.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

You stated Sansa knowing Joffrey was a bastard wouldn't change her behavior on the wedding night. And my follow-up question was: If Sansa knew, that she is not the ward of the king, why the hell would it benefit her and her family to offer to undress for Tyrion? 

It wouldn't. Therefore she also wouldn't offer it.

Thats not a logical corollary though.

I never said she offered it because it benefited her. I said she offered it because she'd been traumatised by Joffrey and Cersei into accepting this path and she just wanted to get it over with.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

And you also didn't reply directly to any of the arguments, so don't know why you are complaining.

What arguments did I not address?
I addressed her being defeated.
I addressed the argument of duty.
I addressed her previous defiance and beatings, and more. 
I addressed that you claim I just assume a person changes, despite giving lots of actual evidence of change between before and after.
I've addressed the rightful king issue.
I've addressed many previous arguments in previous posts. 
???

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

To make it clear again: We all agree sansa is not to blame. This discussion is about Tyrion.

Great.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

My specific problem is with how he behaves on the wedding night. I have said Tyrion should have risked something for Sansa and plan to not want to consummate the marriage on the first night no matter, which questions she asks.

Which he has (risked something for her) and I've addressed this in some depth - wait, actually, that might be in the post I changed to questions to trying and lower the tension, in which case I actually haven't, sorry. It can be hard to keep track between stuff you written and not posted, stuff you've written and gotten lost in a crash, and stuff that actually hit the page. I think I've a pretty good (perhaps too much rather than too little!) record of trying to address issues people bring up overall, but I'm far from perfect.

I have addressed, in any case, the risk of choosing not to marry her, and how that doesn't work. I'll try and address your specific idea of the risk he should have taken below, I hope.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

to quote myself:

when I first read Clash, that Tyrion was a better man than this, that he right from the beginning did not want to make her do this, on the first night, without them even knowing each other and not like this. That he would risk something for her, risk something to do the right thing from the beginning (it's not, that he didn't have time to think about what to do), the same way he had risked something, when he was fucking Shae. But in the end this marriage is an act of war against the Starks (which makes it so cruel for Sansa as Tyrion notes) and Tyrion is a Lannister. So "finalizing" this marriage is in Tyrion's interest as much as it is in the rest of the Lannister's.

I'l refrain from quoting my answers.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

The next question would be (not a question for you): Why would Tyrion risk something for Sansa? From his pov, the reasons, why he would risk not bedding her on the first night- no matter how she behaves:

1. I view her still as a child, therefore I think myself she is too young for this

Wait, these are questions for Tyrion? I think so, I'll answer accordingly.

1. Tried that. Doesn't matter. This is politics and the bedding is as much a requirement as the wedding. I did get from my father a concession that I need not continue bedding her if I felt she was not ready, so long as her maidenhood was taken, as is necessary politically.
Would any other Lannister treat her with as much kindness?

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

2. She thinks of herself as the ward of the legitimate king, therefore she thinks she has to obey Joffrey and do her duty and offer to undress for me. But if she knew, that Joffrey was a bastard she probably wouldn't do the same, because she wouldn't view it as her duty. Therefore I'm deceiving her, if I just let her undress for me, cause by a false sense of duty.

Thats not logical at all.
First, her thoughts on this 'duty' are irrelevant. Its a simply a political reality. For both of them. She is doing this out of fear, not duty. She's been defeated - duty doesn't defeat her, cow her, fear does. But he doesn't have deep insight into exactly why she acts. Like I said, he doesn't get to, or have responsibility to, divine her 'true' thoughts and act on those against the evidence of her will that she gives him. 
Second, he's offered her an alternative already, and she turned it down.
Third, thats a very complex question about Joffrey's and Sansa's relative status which you care insisting Tyrion take an option that is not only factually wrong, but one that he isn't the legal facts on the ground and he can't prove. Tyrion isn't deceiving her here. Its a material fact that Joffrey is King, and has all the power that entails - regardless of how things should be. Expecting him to deny reality is irrational.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

3. she is offering to undress for me, but she is probably just doing it, because she is afraid of punishment otherwise, since Cersei and Joffrey have abused her for over a year. 

She's doing the same as every other maiden does on their wedding night. I offered her an alternative, she refused it, told me she would do this.

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

There you go, those are all thought processes, that make total sense from Tyrion's pov.

I don't agree that they make sense entirely and I find them absurd that you expect Tyrion to think this way. What human has the capacity to think at this level of outside themselves in the midst of their own issues? Not to mention the expectation of denying reality.

None of that seems to address what I think you are claiming his action should be.
If I understand correctly, you suggest that Tyrion should have deliberately planned to deceive his family and ruin their political plans by accepting the marriage to protect her from any other Lannister being married to her but plan from the start to not consummate the marriage.
Is that correct?

I'll wait for a confirmation before I address this I think. 

[corbon]

3 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

This is however not comparable to a rl situation unless, this woman was held hostage, physically and emotionally abused for over a year and her father killed before her eyes. So let's stay on topic please.

I didn't say it was comparable, as in the same, just uncomfortably close, as in there are similarities which are disturbing. 

And if I understand your position correctly, its very much on topic.
Does not your argument, or part of it at least, essentially boil down to that Tyrion should have ignored what Sansa expressed as her will, but instead divined her true feelings right from the start (as opposed to when she shuddered, and he did get a clear message) and acted on those, instead of what she told him?
 

Quote

It is necessary for the Lannisters and that's Tyrion first priority. 

You know Tyrion's priorities, all of them, in order?

His family is at war. Should not his priority be his family?
I think he should and does try to balance that with doing as little harm to others as possible. I think both Sansa and Alayaya, for example, can attest that Tyrion has put their wellbeing ahead of his family's in some elements at least.

Quote

As I said before to be a good person to this abused innocent little girl he could have planed from the beginning to not consummate the marriage on the WN

And thats the only option to be a good person is it? To lie and deceive his family and actively work to make their plans fail? To put Sansa ahead of himself, his family, everything? Is that the standard required to be a good person?
Is Sansa the only person that matters here?

Quote

I think he is completely aware of it. It is you, who says he's only partly aware of it.

No I didn't. Sorry, this appears to be a communication style mix-up.
You challenged me if I thought he should consider it. As though you assumed I thought he didn't even consider it.
Saying "you don't think X"? as a question is meant to indicate that I do think X, but more, I think X is extremely obvious and I am surprised you seem to consider that not-X is possible. 
I then pointed out that he'd literally complained to Tywin about how cruel this plan was to her! That clearly shows that he is aware that this whole situation is cruel to her. To finish that part I explicitly answered that yes I think he should be aware and likely is. Not partly is, Is. Likely merely allowing for the possibility otherwise, since we can't know for sure exactly how much he knows about her situation (and I think he knows less than you seem to expect).
 

Quote

Which I personallythink is extreme unrealistic, since he has been exposed to Cersei's abuse himself his whole life, he knows how cruel Cersei is and how cruel Joffrey is. Even though he didn't have any firsthand evidence he suspected the first half year, that Joffrey would treat Sansa badly. And then he walked into one of her most brutal and most degrading beatings, where she was also half naked, which Tyrion immediately identifies as some some sort of sexual sadism.

And stopped it.
I think he expected that meant it would stay stopped - the violent part at least. He threatened to call the queen after all, and they backed down, which showed that they all knew that this was unacceptable behaviour.
I don;t think he expected it to entirely stop. Joffrey's an ass and Cersei's barely an better. But i doubt he realised quite how badly Sansa was still being treated - and mostly psychologically at that.

Quote

So why would Tyrion be so stupid and not assume Sansa has been beaten frequently before, with Joffrey and Cersei completely left to their own devices and Sansa being completely helpless. That doesn't make any sense. And therefor he should also know, that any behavior she shows on the WN might be a result of fear of further abuse. And I think he also know that.

Of course he has. Even beforehand. It's part for the reason, he has said and thought this marriage is cruel for her. He wouldn't be Tyrion, if he weren't aware. There is no mystery to solve here like in other places

Indeed. We agree. Although you seem to think he's a master psychologist and should understand everything that has happened to her, even the things he's not aware of, and exactly how it affects her, in some depth.
I just think he's aware that this is cruel to her, aware that none of it is what she (or he) would wish, and aware that this is till the best possible outcome for her within the controllables either of them have.

[Nagini's Neville]

6 hours ago, corbon said:

?

You said: why do you expect me to answer your question, when you didn't answer any of my questions?

I answered, that I don't expect you to answer my questions and that you are free to do whatever you like just like anyone else here in this forum.

 

To elaborate I honestly have stated all my arguments and IMO given sufficient reasoning for them already in my first answer to you. After that I have done nothing else, but repeating myself. If you don't at least see my logic by now, I think it's very unlikely, you will after my next post. So at this point I have nothing more to add.

I also dislike the constant moral judgement in your posts, that is just informed by your own personal beliefs, which is inappropriate in a debate and stating you opinions as facts, often without any textual evidence at all.

IMO you state those moral opinions, as if they were some higher truth, which they are not, they are just your opinions. Therefore your style of communication feels condescending and like it comes out of a place of superiority to me. It's unobjective IMO and again inappropriate to do in a debate.

Frankly I just don't like the way you talk to me and from what I've seen I'm not the only one. Among some other things, this make this conversation not that fun for me. Here is your reply to, why I haven't answered every single question of yours yet. But I'd argue you are not much better in this regard.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

You said: why do you expect me to answer your question, when you didn't answer any of my questions?

I answered, that I don't expect you to answer my questions and that you are free to do whatever you like just like anyone else here in this forum.

 

But to give you a longer answer, I have honestly have stated all my arguments and IMO given sufficient reasoning for them already in my first answer to you. After that I have done nothing else, but repeating myself. If you don't at least see my logic by now, I think it's very unlikely, you will after my next post. So at this point I have nothing more to add.

I also dislike the constant moral judgement in your posts, that is just informed by your own personal beliefs, which is inappropriate in a debate and stating you opinions as facts, often without any textual evidence at all.

IMO you state those moral opinions, as if they were some higher truth, which they are not, they are just your opinions. Therefore your style of communication feels condescending and like it comes out of a place of superiority to me. It's unobjective IMO and again inappropriate to do in a debate. Frankly I just don't like the way you talk to me and therefore this conversation is not that much for me. Sorry.

If I could just interject here a little, I certainly don't want anyone, ever to feel as if they are being talked down to or shut down. I would like to offer what I believe is a little insight into this though. 

Of course it is anyones own choice what questions they answer but it would be helpful to encourage the conversation if questions are answered &/or explained. My point being, I don't think it's unreasonable to request the person you are conversating with to answer questions directly pertaining to the situation at hand. 

When you say "constant moral judgement" do you mean, you feel as if Corbon is morally judging you &/or your opinions? Or that he is placing moral judgement on Tyrion/Sansa? 

If we are speaking about his opinions irt Tyrion/Sansa, I think the point is that it is all just our opinions. However, some opinions hold up against the text & some don't (Not to say all of your opinions do not hold up) But the questions, I think, are in an effort to persuade you or help you understand his thought process in the matter. If the questions are not considered & left unanswered there is little reason to discuss, as that indicates to me your opinion & mind are made up & will not be swayed regardless of the information presented. To be clear - I'm not stating with some higher authority that Corbon's opinion is right & yours is wrong & therefore you should bow to his opinion & not doing so shows a lack of 'open-mindness' on your part. I'm stating that when two people are discussing things (regardless of who they are) the conversation is pointless if both parties are not going to engage in the conversation, addressing the other persons points, opinions, questions, etc. 

Stating all of your arguments is not beneficial to the conversation if when those arguments are challenged, you will not engage further, either by answering the question asked in re to your argument or by explaining why that question doesn't pertain or isn't a fair question, in your opinion. 

I don't think it's an issue of not seeing your logic, I think it's challenging that logic. Not only in an attempt to delve deeper into that logic but also to challenge it & to explain his own logic. 

Just my 2 cents worth. 

[corbon]

10 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

You said: why do you expect me to answer your question, when you didn't answer any of my questions?

I answered, that I don't expect you to answer my questions and that you are free to do whatever you like just like anyone else here in this forum.

And I seriously don't understand that answer. I have answered many many questions and points extensively. I missed one section, for which I apologised and tried to clarify so I could make sure my answer addressed the question correctly.

I mean the record is right here, anyone can check it.

And I think I'll cut the rest of my answer and leave it at that. Anyone can read back through the record and see the proof of what you claim or not..

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 hours ago, Mystical said:

If I may interject, it's the former. That's why I chose to not engage with this poster in any more conversation regarding this topic since the last Tyrion & Sansa thread. Where this poster compared me to people who make false rape accusations against someone just because my empathy/sympathy lies with Sansa (THE PROVEN VICTIM) while I have none for Tyrion in this particular situation.

I guess I haven't seen him placing "constant moral judgement" on anyone. I don't recall that entire thread, it was long & there were many exchanges but I was under the impression that he was comparing the idea or point you were presenting to the slippery slope we end up on where consent is concerned. I could be wrong, but I've engaged quite a few times with this poster & have never seen him attack someone personally rather than their ideas. Of course, I've not seen everything he has posted & maybe at some point he did attack someone personally, but looking at the way he engages typically it's hard for me to believe. 

I think, possibly, where the discord comes in between people who view this situation the way I do & people who view it the way you do is that the discussion I'm attempting to engage in throws sympathy/empathy out the window. I would like to look at the facts alone, removing all feeling & emotion from the debate & see where we end up. 

I feel as if it has been well established that Sansa is the victim & so there isn't much more to discuss in that regard. I also don't think looking at this situation from a pragmatic view point requires any sympathy or empathy for Tyrion. 

Clearly, this is a case that makes emotions run high & it is for that reason that I think it would be beneficial to discuss things without emotion. Leaving at the door step how we feel for Sansa or about Tyrion & looking only at what actually happened. I understand if some people can't or don't want to do that - I'm just trying to clarify where I feel as if this discussion takes a turn for the worse. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

On 4/7/2020 at 5:10 PM, corbon said:

But basis doesn't stop at this first level. Your basis is fine, but the result you are getting from that basis don't hold up to analysis. 
My basis isn't inherently any better than your. But my results stand up to analysis, yours fail the examination. That, and only that, not the basis behind them, makes my result better than yours.

Sure. Exactly what a novel series concerning the human heart in conflict with itself needs: scientific analysis. Should I be wearing a lab coat?

Sarcasm aside, my "results" are different because my "basis" is different. It's like you're saying that you use flour and milk that results in pancakes, therefore if I use fruit and sugar that results in jam instead of pancakes, I "fail the examination".

That's also why I stated right at the beginning that I wasn't offering my interpretation in opposition to yours but in addition to it. Looking at both the pancakes and the jam, as it were. Both are good and can go together well also!

 

On 4/7/2020 at 5:10 PM, corbon said:

But you agree that its not a lie. Right?
So if its not good faith, and not a lie, what would be in good faith and true and acceptable to you? 

This is a misrepresentation of what I said. There were other words which followed the "not a lie" part which you seemingly overlooked and which have bearing on them. Here's the entire quote for you:

Quote

So to then present himself as an unwilling or reluctant bridegroom - well, there's no way I could characterize that as lying but it's hardly absolutely truthful either.

Please take the bolded into account.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

43 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Please take the bolded into account.

I asked before but what does he do that makes you believe he presents himself as unwilling? 

What exactly isn't absolutely truthful about what he is saying? 

[Nagini's Neville]

On 9. April 2020 at 2:51 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would like to look at the facts alone, removing all feeling & emotion from the debate & see where we end up. 

yeah, well that's kinda hard, when your statements/arguments/opinions are constantly morally judged, even if you haven't even stated them. He has made up a series of claims about what NLG "demands" and "wants" even though she never did and then called that despicable. She rightfully told him to "keep his insulting judgements to himself". Disagree with arguments, that are made and give your reasoning for it, but don't morally judge them, especially, when this judgement is solely based on your own personal feelings. But if you absolutely feel inclined to throw some moral judgement in there, at least make sure to state it is only your personal opinion and give evidence/backup for why you think an argument is inappropriate. But you can for sure find better words, than despicable regardless.     He has also called Mystical's attitude evil, because she doesn't empathize with Tyrion in this situation. That's a moral judgement of an opinion. 

He has called my arguments dishonest- another moral judgement, if he didn't mean to imply that I'm a liar, he phrased that extremely poorly, because that's basically what it means.

He responded after kissedbyfire used the term victim-blaming absolutely correctly, the way it is defined, that it was on so many levels wrong, intellectually - which it is not, she used the term according to it's definition, he added morally and ethically - if he has a personal problem with the term victim-blaming in general ("the cry of "victim shaming"  is an appalling one") a book forum is not the right place to discuss it. His problem then falls into the category social issues or society or something and he shouldn't pester posters about it, who use this term correctly, since we are not the ones, who invented it.

"I objected originally to an attempt (not necessarily even deliberate) to shut down someone else's thoughts in a way that I believe is ultimately (if not deliberately) dishonest and immoral. I felt comfortable calling it out because I respect and trust the people making that error that we would be able to talk through any ensuing discussion - parsing the finer points of moral reasoning in tricky subjects seems to be interesting to me (I don't really know why, or at least haven't thought about it) - and that they wouldn't hold to any feeling of 'insult' they got from me calling it out."

He called using this term correctly according to it's definition, dishonest and immoral and and error. And said it was an attempt to shut down the poster's opinion (even if maybe not deliberate) - which is a moral judgement and accusation, without any basis to it, not even acknowledging, that by constantly putting his personal moral beliefs, which are not universal, on to other readers he is doing exactly, what he accuses us of, shutting down one's opinion.

It's should be fine to say by it's definition, "this is victim-blaming" and you shouldn't be judged for that, because that is how words work. You can answer: I don't care, this is a fictional world, I want to explore every character's behavior and responsibility, since they won't have to suffer the psychological consequences of my statements. Easy-peasy 

I also dislike, that I feel like it was subtly hinted at several times, that a couple of posters myself included, who criticize Tyrion's behavior and also happen to like Sansa as a character or are female, were just to close to the subject/ too sensitive/ too emotional to objectively judge the situation. A very inappropriate way to discredit someone's opinions.

On top of that I dislike condescending, reproachful comments like "Listen to yourself", "Oh my. I think its best I practice restraint here.
You should practice paying better attention." (when I generally speaking added my 2 cents and argued, saying "Tysha should have known" was by it's definition indeed victim blaming) - I just don't enjoy this style of communication.

 

This will be my last post on this subject. I had no desire to give a statement about this issue at all and I definitely don't want to keep calling someone out, but if it's inquired/complained about why I'm reacting a certain way and don't respond to everything, I will also give my truthful reasoning. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

16 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

yeah, well that's kinda hard, when your statements/arguments/opinions are constantly morally judged, even if you haven't even stated them. He has made up a series of claims about what NLG "demands" and "wants" even though she never did and then called that despicable. She rightfully told him to "keep his insulting judgements to himself".

I see. Well, I'll leave that alone since it wasn't me & I can't truly explain why he said what he did since I'm not in his head. I would like to point a few things out though, if you don't mind

18 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Disagree with arguments, that are made and give your reasoning for it, but don't morally judge them, especially, when this judgement is solely based on your own personal feelings.

I understand & agree the disagreement should always be to the person's argument & not the person themselves. However, I have seen a few posters on here, you included, if I'm not mistaken, tell him how disturbing his opinion is, among other things (in the last thread) Isn't that the same thing? Moral judgement of a person's argument, based solely on your/their own personal feelings? 

20 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

But if you absolutely feel inclined to throw some moral judgement in there, at least make sure to state it is only your personal opinion and give evidence/backup for why you think an argument is inappropriate.

Generally speaking I would say we all know that anything thing outside of directly quoting the text is someone's opinion & think he has given evidence/back up for why he thinks an argument is inappropriate. 

47 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

same attitude, that would lead women, who regretted consensual sex to make false rape accusation (which is a very loaded, problematic thing to say on it's own, since this is a common accusation real victims often have to deal with and it's usually not at all the reason for false rape accusations.

What are the reasons for false accusations? I don't know the statistics but do know it happens. 

47 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

On top of it, it's a very sexist thing to say implying women should feel ashamed for their sexual behavior, "you just don't want to be a slut, now you say he raped you" )

I don't think that is what was being said at all. I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what was being said. 

48 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

He has called my arguments dishonest- another moral judgement, if he didn't mean to imply that I'm a liar, he phrased that extremely poorly, because that's basically what it means.

Yeah, I've had a particular poster say this to me a couple times & it bothered me too. I do think it is a phrase that is used typically to mean that the argument is not true rather than that you are a liar but I get it, I don't like it either. Again though, I think your "side" for lack of a better term, has done the same thing. Iirc one or both of you said my opinion was "very disturbing" in the other thread. I don't think that's fair either. 

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

He responded after kissedbyfire used the term victim-blaming absolutely correctly, the way it is defined, that it was on so many levels wrong, intellectually - which it is not, she used the term according to it's definition,

I can't speak for him but I think I explained my issue with the term - that it is too all encompassing. But I also agreed it was used correctly, according to the definition. 

52 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

if he has a personal problem with the term victim-blaming in general ("the cry of "victim shaming"  is an appalling one") a book forum is not the right place to discuss it. His problem then falls into the category social issues or society or something and he shouldn't pester posters about it, who use this term correctly, since we are not the ones, who invented it.

I don't know why a book forum isn't the right place to discuss it. We discuss many things here & the term was being used, so to discuss it then seemed appropriate. I don't take any issue with you disagreeing with his stance on it, but I don't think shutting down the discussion because it isn't the right platform to discuss it in (in your opinion) is fair either. 

55 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

He called using this term correctly according to it's definition, dishonest and immoral and and error. And said it was an attempt to shut down the poster's opinion (even if maybe not deliberate) - which is a moral judgement and accusation, without any basis to it, not even acknowledging, that by constantly putting his personal moral beliefs, which are not universal, on to other readers he is doing exactly, what he accuses us of, shutting down one's opinion.

I guess I don't understand how his moral judgement is so much worse or any different than you saying his judgement is without any basis. He gave his basis for it. People may not agree with it, but it was presented. 

58 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

It's should be fine to say by it's definition, "this is victim-blaming" and you shouldn't be judged for that, because that is how words work.

Certainly & it is fine. But if you are going to engage with so many people from so many different walks of life there are going to be people who don't like the term, it's meaning, what lies behind it etc & we are allowed to express any & all opinions - that's the beauty of free speech. It should also be fine to say "I disagree this is victim blaming" Or "I think the term victim-blaming, by its very definition is ludicrous." Or whatever their opinion is on the matter right? 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

You can answer: I don't care, this is a fictional world, I want to explore every character's behavior and responsibility, since they won't have to suffer the psychological consequences of my statements. Easy-peasy 

Sure, & I think I did answer something similar to this (not that you were saying I didn't) But you can also answer "I take offense to being called that term & here is why" Or "I disagree it's victim blaming" or any other line of thought you have. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I also dislike, that I feel like it was subtly hinted at several times, that a couple of posters myself included, who criticize Tyrion's behavior and also happen to like Sansa as a character or are female, were just to close to the subject/ too sensitive/ too emotional to objectively judge the situation. A very inappropriate way to discredit someone's opinions.

Is it inappropriate if it's true? I'm not saying it is or isn't, obviously I'm not inside anyone else's head but if the truth of the matter is that someone is too close to a particular situation & are greatly affected by their emotions to the point that logical arguments don't motivate them, is it ok to say so? 

The reason I ask is, at the end of the day, it's just his opinion that you or someone else are too close to the subject & too sensitive about it. If you aren't, you aren't. Nothing he says can change that. If that is his opinion though, why is it inappropriate to say so? Point being, why is it ok to call someone a victim blamer (in your opinion) when that's what they appear to be doing but not ok to say someone is too sensitive/arguing through emotions if that's what the appear to be doing (in their opinion)? 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

On top of that I dislike condescending, reproachful comments like "Listen to yourself", "Oh my. I think its best I practice restraint here.
You should practice paying better attention." (when I generally speaking added my 2 cents and argued, saying "Tysha should have known" was by it's definition indeed victim blaming) - I just don't enjoy this style of communication.

Me either. I've talked to you about a particular poster that often does this to me & while it doesn't offend me, it does make me not want to communicate with that poster, so I understand completely. 

I, personally, think it's always best to stay civil & kind. (not that I always heed my own advice but I should) We all get frustrated, we all get wound up but if we want a fruitful discussion we should stay nice IMO. 

And I certainly hope you don't feel as if I have attacked you in any manner, because I don't want that at all. 

Even if you disagree with my entire post & any & everything I ever post again, I don't want there to be hard feelings or discord between us. We can disagree & still respect each other's opinions I think. 

[Nagini's Neville]

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Again though, I think your "side" for lack of a better term, has done the same thing. Iirc one or both of you said my opinion was "very disturbing" in the other thread. I don't think that's fair either. 

I have no responsibility how anyone else talks to anyone else here. I'm an individual and I'm not lumping you in with corbon either, do I? I was responding to his complaint, that I wouldn't answer his questions and I don't know if I have missed, that you are obligated to respond here? if a person doesn't respond, there is probably a reason, so best leave it alone. If I had wanted to answer I would have. Simple as that. But since he complained about it, I gave an honest answer. 

If you have a problem with how I communicate with you, feel free to tell me as well and please don't just bring it up later to use as argument against me in a different topic. Like I did as well, you can make your own list about your problems with me. Or feel free to not respond to me.

I didn't find that quote you are talking about, but I remember, that both of us weren't so polite to each other at the end of that thread and I said, that your opinion felt disturbing to me. I was stating my personal feelings about your opinion. How it subjectively made me feel. But please quote me, that would make it easier and as I said, if you don't like the way I talk to you just quit doing so or point it out to me.

If corbon sees all of those statements only as his subjective opinion, he should make that clear, because I disagree here, this is not just generally understood. And if we should just generally assume that, than the way it is phrased still makes it uncomfortable for me to read and feels condescending - and I personally don't enjoy "translating" everything that is said to me. 

And IMO saying "your opinion is disturbing to me"- is just an expression of a subjective feeling and not the same as saying your opinion is evil, despicable, dishonest, your statement is morally, intellectually, ethnically wrong (especially about something that has been defined as all those three things "right" by society- so this is obviously just your personally opinion, which of course is fine to state, but you then should phrase it that way) 

Also as far as I have seen the person, who kbf actually responded to never took issue at all with her comment.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think that is what was being said at all. I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what was being said. 

I meant this is how this statement is commonly used- why it is so problematic to use- that's all

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know why a book forum isn't the right place to discuss it. We discuss many things here & the term was being used, so to discuss it then seemed appropriate. I don't take any issue with you disagreeing with his stance on it, but I don't think shutting down the discussion because it isn't the right platform to discuss it in (in your opinion) is fair either. 

Because that is a real life social and society related issue- there are other forums for that. Not everyone wants to debate that, when talking about the books or be lectured about using terms correctly. We were also not allowed to talk about the me too movement here. It's totally fine for me, when someone states they personally dislike the term victim-shaming and give their reasoning for it, it's however not fine for me to shame other posters, who correctly use it. 

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, & I think I did answer something similar to this (not that you were saying I didn't) But you can also answer "I take offense to being called that term & here is why" Or "I disagree it's victim blaming" or any other line of thought you have. 

well, no one is called "victim- blaming", but if you correctly point something out as victim-blaming. This person shouldn't feel offended by me, because I personally did not invent or define this term. They should have a problem with, whoever did and not tell me I'm dishonest, morally, intellectually and ethically wrong. They can feel free to tell me what they think about the term V-B for sure, but not scold or attack me for using it correctly. There are nicer less personal ways to state your opposing opinion.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Is it inappropriate if it's true? I'm not saying it is or isn't, obviously I'm not inside anyone else's head but if the truth of the matter is that someone is too close to a particular situation & are greatly affected by their emotions to the point that logical arguments don't motivate them, is it ok to say so? 

to the bold. there you go. It is really presumptuous to just assume stuff about anyone really (except maybe ppl you know really well-even though i personally wouldn't do that either), but especially here, where no one knows each other at all.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The reason I ask is, at the end of the day, it's just his opinion that you or someone else are too close to the subject & too sensitive about it.

Well it's fine, if he thinks that, but he doesn't know me, so it's fucking condescending and insulting and he shouldn't wonder then, if I don't wanna answer lol

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Point being, why is it ok to call someone a victim blamer (in your opinion)

that's not my opinion. I don't think that is okay at all. I don't think it is ever okay to just assume something personal about someone you don't even know. I've never called someone a victim-blamer and I would never do. Criticize the post not the poster. And that's my answer why it's insulting and condescending and discriminating against them to treat someone's opinion as "less valid", because of your prejudice against them.

 

But yeah, I guess the next time I'll just go with staying out of certain conversations I don't enjoy again. That's easier.

 

 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I asked before but what does he do that makes you believe he presents himself as unwilling? 

What exactly isn't absolutely truthful about what he is saying? 

1) He's presenting himself as unwilling so Sansa won't think he's just a grasping Lannister who is continuing her family's destruction by annexing Winterfell on behalf of the Lannisters. He also has a strong tendency to cast himself as the victim.

2) It isn't 100% truthful for him to say he's reluctant because he both does and doesn't want to marry her. He correctly sees it for the act of war that it is and he's rightly disturbed by the age disparity. Yet, there are tangible rewards that he covets.

His human heart is in conflict.

[Nagini's Neville]

2 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

His human heart is in conflict.

great way to put it!

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

have no responsibility how anyone else talks to anyone else here. I'm an individual and I'm not lumping you in with corbon either, do I?

No you haven't lumped me with him & I wasn't trying to lump you with anyone only trying to point out that you & others have said that to me & him. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

was responding to his complaint, that I wouldn't answer his questions and I don't know if I have missed, that you are obligated to respond here? 

Of course you aren't. Did I imply you were? If so that isn't what I was trying to say. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

if a person doesn't respond, there is probably a reason, so best leave it alone. If I had wanted to answer I would have. Simple as that. But since he complained about it, I gave an honest answer

I guess I'm confused by this whole paragraph. I'm not upset or angry or trying to ridicule you for saying you didn't want to respond or for changing your mind & deciding to. 

Are you saying I shouldn't have quoted & responded to you after you said you didn't want to respond anymore? That's hardly fair. You posted a lengthy reply & then stated at the bottom you didn't want to reply anymore - which is absolutely fine but that has no bearing on whether or not I should or can reply. If this isn't what you are saying feel free to correct me. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

you have a problem with how I communicate with you, feel free to tell me as well and please don't just bring it later to use as argument against me in a different topic. Like I did as well, you can make your own list about your problems with me. Or feel free to not respond to me

Certainly or I'm free to bring it up to use as a point whenever I would like. 

I don't have a problem with the way you typically communicate. It bothered me that you said that to me but not to the point that I felt the need to say something then. I bring it up now as a means to show that however you felt/thought when you said this may be how he felt/thought when he said it. Not to point fingers or blame you or him but in an effort to diffuse the situation. Clearly, I'm not doing such a good job at that but my goal was to lower or lessen the level by which your feelings are hurt or that you are offended. 

I do find it unfair that you are so angry with me for doing nothing more than disagreeing with you & pointing out where you have done something similar to what you are upset with him about. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

didn't find that quote you are talking about, but I remember, that both of us weren't so polite to each other at the end of that thread and I said, that your opinion felt disturbing to me. I was stating my personal feelings about your opinion. How it subjectively made me feel. But please quote me, that would make it easier and as I said, if you don't like the way I talk to you just quit doing so or point it out to me.

I don't remember the exact way it was said. I thought it was 'that's very disturbing' but I could be wrong & it doesn't make much difference to my point. 

I am pointing it out to you though & you are getting angry with me about it. Of course, I could just not talk to you but on the whole I enjoy talking to you so I'm willing to put in the effort to remain civil & try to explain myself. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

If corbon sees all of those statements only as his subjective opinion, he should make that clear, because I disagree here, this is not just generally understood. And if we should just generally assume that, than the way it is phrased still makes it uncomfortable for me to read and feels condescending - and I personally don't enjoy "translating" everything that is said to me

But how could it be anything other than his opinion? At any rate you disagree, I understand. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

And IMO saying "your opinion is disturbing to me"- is just an expression of a subjective feeling and not the same as saying your opinion is evil, despicable, dishonest, your statement is morally, intellectually, ethnically wrong (especially about something that has been defined as all those three things "right" by society- so this is obviously just your personally opinion, which of course is fine to state, but you than must phrase it that way)

I don't see much difference in your opinion is disturbing & your opinion is evil tbh. Disturbing is on a lower level of "bad" I suppose but they both imply the same things - that there is something wrong with that opinion. 

I don't think we get to decide how someone else must phrase anything. We can ask for clarification on the matter & hope the poster provides some but outside of that everyone has the right to their opinion & to phrase it anyway they would like, even when it's wrong, hurtful, condescending, or disrespectful. Like you said, our only options with someone who insists on engaging with us this way is to ignore them or state our own argument back. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

meant this is how this statement is commonly used- why it is so problematic to use- that's all

I get it & it was my exact point with the victim-blaming phrase. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Because that is a real life social and society related issue- there are other forums for that. Not everyone wants to debate that, when talking about the books or be lectured about using terms correctly

For sure. Not everyone wants to debate anything that's debated on this forum. All are free to debate or not debate as they see fit. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

We were also not allowed to talk about the me too movement here

I was not aware of that. I would still think that discussing the use of the term victim-blaming would be okay when someone is being called a victim blamer though. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

It's totally fine for me, when someone states they personally dislike the term victim-shaming and give their reasoning for it, it's however not fine for me to shame other posters, who correctly use it. 

As one of the posters who used it, in a manner, I didn't feel shamed. I appreciate the gesture though. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

well, no one is called "victim- blaming", but if you correctly point something out as victim-blaming. This person shouldn't feel offended by me, because I personally did not invent or define this term

Did I say someone was called "victim-blaming"? If so I didn't mean that someone would be called "victim-blaming" but that someone would be accused of victim-blaming or be called out as a victim blamer. 

You didn't invent or define the phrase & probably no one on the forum has invented or defined any of the many words & phrases being used here. If you are using it though, & people find it offensive, they are certainly allowed to be offended. They are just words, but words offend people all the time. Point in case: it was words that offended you to begin with here. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

They should have a problem with, whoever did and not tell me I'm dishonest, morally, intellectually and ethically wrong.

I'm sorry but I don't think you get to define what another person should or shouldn't be offended about. I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be offended by any words but they are, and sometimes so am I, even though I don't think I should be. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

They can feel free to tell me what they think about the term V-B for sure, but not scold or attack me for using it correctly. There are nicer less personal ways to state your opposing opinion

I don't think anyone was attacked for using the term. I certainly wasn't. There are certainly nicer ways to state your opposing opinion & communication in general would probably be alot smoother if people used these nice ways to state their opposing opinion, as well as if people didn't get offended by opposing opinions. That being said there aren't many hard rules to communicating here. I think as long as you are using any negative terms against a person's argument & not against the person themselves it's fair game. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

to the bold. there you go. It is really presumptuous to just assume stuff about anyone really (except maybe ppl you know really well-even though i personally wouldn't do that either), but especially here, where no one knows each other at all

Yep, but that is what we are all doing. It's presumptuous to say someone is blaming a victim as well but all any of us are doing is taking the other posters words & applying a presumed meaning to them. Sometimes that presumption is wrong, sometimes it isn't. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Well it's fine, if he thinks that, but he doesn't know me, so it's fucking condescending and insulting and he shouldn't wonder then, if I don't wanna answer lol

Well, yeah. You don't have to engage with someone whether or not they wonder why you won't. Your words right now are coming across as emotional from my POV though & while you are certainly allowed to be emotional irt whatever you want, me saying so isn't meant to be offensive or condescending. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

that's not my opinion. I don't think that is okay at all

I'm afraid I've misunderstood then. I'm pretty sure you have stated a couple times that it is ok to say someone is victim-blaming as long as the term is used correctly. You went further to say said person shouldn't be offended by it also. All I'm saying is maybe it would be helpful to apply that logic to the things that offend you also. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

don't think it is ever okay to just assume something personal about someone you don't even know. I've never called someone a victim-blamer and I would never do. Criticize the post not the poster.

Right, sorry. I haven't seen anyone be called a victim blamer I was using that term to fit the tense of my sentence. All I mean is someone being accused of victim-blaming. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

And that's my answer why it's insulting and condescending and discriminating against them to treat someone's opinion as "less valid", because of your prejudice against them.

Honestly, do you truly feel you have been discriminated against? Or that Corbon has a prejudice against you personally? He hasn't called you anything that I'm aware of & has only attacked your arguments that I've seen. I understand you feel personally attacked by him saying your argument is dishonest but it is still an attack on your argument, not your person. 

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

But yeah, I guess the next time I'll just go with staying out of certain conversations I don't enjoy again. That's easier.

You are certainly free to do so. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

) He's presenting himself as unwilling so Sansa won't think he's just a grasping Lannister who is continuing her family's destruction by annexing Winterfell on behalf of the Lannisters. He also has a strong tendency to cast himself as the victim

Right, I understand what you believe his motive is for it, I'm asking what words or behaviors of his make you believe he is presenting himself as unwilling?

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

) It isn't 100% truthful for him to say he's reluctant because he both does and doesn't want to marry her. He correctly sees it for the act of war that it is and he's rightly disturbed by the age disparity. Yet, there are tangible rewards that he covets

I think reluctant is a good description of what you are saying though. Hesitant, not fully sure, - I think those fit as well. Because you are right, he does want to & doesn't want to marry her. I don't see a contradiction between his actions, motivations, & words & the term reluctant. 

[corbon]

 

Quote

He has called my arguments dishonest- another moral judgement, if he didn't mean to imply that I'm a liar, he phrased that extremely poorly, because that's basically what it means.

No it doesn't. I explained that.
You used a dishonest argument. That doesn't mean you lied. It means you made a sensible looking argument that was based on a fallacy. You were not being deliberately dishonest there and I said as much. You made a credible looking argument, the problem is that the basis of your position was fallacious. 

A "dishonest argument" isn't a lie, its a flawed argument technique. 

Quote

It's should be fine to say by it's definition, "this is victim-blaming" and you shouldn't be judged for that, because that is how words work.

Really?
Because there are huge connotations to that term. It isn't being used correctly, its is being used for a different purpose than the correct one, in an inappropriate setting.
If someone uses something inappropriately for a purpose other than its intention, to harm someone else, yes they should be called out on it. Whether or not they consciously, deliberately used it in an inappropriate manner is for their own conscience. I'm pretty sure sure did not,, and have said as much. 

Quote

You can answer: I don't care, this is a fictional world, I want to explore every character's behavior and responsibility, since they won't have to suffer the psychological consequences of my statements. Easy-peasy 

Bullshit. Its too late then. You've been labelled and shamed and its now easier for others to dismiss your words regardless of their truth or falsehood.

Quote

I also dislike, that I feel like it was subtly hinted at several times, that a couple of posters myself included, who criticize Tyrion's behavior and also happen to like Sansa as a character or are female, were just to close to the subject/ too sensitive/ too emotional to objectively judge the situation. A very inappropriate way to discredit someone's opinions.

You feel that I subtly hinted? Does that mean I didn't actually say it, you just decided that I thought it?
I've tried very hard to keep such a judgement at bay even though you yourself (and others) repeatedly said that its was very difficult for you to look at certain things. One person said they had actually been involved (not how). I didn't judge her for that, in fact her honesty (not just on that particular thing), both to me and to herself, was a catalyst for a much stronger and more respectful relationship

Quote

On top of that I dislike condescending, reproachful comments like "Listen to yourself",

It wasn't condescending. It was a request to literally look at her own words and think about them, since she'd just completely contradicted her own point.

Quote

"Oh my. I think its best I practice restraint here.
You should practice paying better attention." (when I generally speaking added my 2 cents and argued, saying "Tysha should have known" was by it's definition indeed victim blaming) - I just don't enjoy this style of communication.

Well, sorry. I don't enjoy people constantly misrepresenting what I say and accusing me of things I haven't said. Sometimes it gets to me. 

May I remind you that you insinuated that I approved of any means, including child rape, to an end? And merely said "I didn't mean it that way", while refusing to apologise, when I called you out. I'd have accepted an apology - its a very difficult thing to stay perfect when discussing, arguing, such complex and difficult issues. I'm not perfect by any means, and have made several mistakes for which I've apologised in these two threads.

Quote

This will be my last postI had no desire to give a statement about this issue at all and I definitely don't want to keep calling someone out, but if it's inquired/complained about why I'm reacting a certain way and don't respond to everything, I will also give my truthful reasoning. 

Just because it is your honest reasoning, doesn't make it right. 
It is fair to argue against your reasoning. Its not dismissing you as a person when dismissing flawed arguments you make.

[corbon]

7 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

 

TNLG, I may respond later. I haven't really read this far,  I've about exhausted my time and energy right now.