What was Cat thinking when she took Tyrion?

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

15 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

She doesn’t have to take him to the king, @corbon already explained this. And I have already said and will say it once more, if what she did was such “blatant wrongdoing”, why did anyone obey her?

Because her dad is their lord's lord and she coerced support. Not only is this made abundantly clear, but not many people actually listened to her. Everyone who hears about it later knows it's far beyond injustice, it was madness.

As soon as she left people rode all over to spread the news of the crime, and everyone recognized it was criminal.

15 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, she didn’t lie about her intentions at all. She said she was taking Tyrion to be judge for a crime, and that’s exactly what she did. She had no idea, and could have had no idea, that Lysa would do what she did.

She literally lied.

She didn't go to Winterfell or take Tyrion to await the King's justice. Ned who you claim she was somehow deputized by (despite abandoning Winterfell) explicitly saying this issue HAD to be brought to Robert for justice. So even if she was claiming Ned's authority, which she wasn't, she didn't listen to him! It's ridiculous.

15 hours ago, Springwatch said:

He demanded trial by combat, and got it. He could do that because the Vale lords consider themselves just and honourable people.

Only after being threatened with a swift and predicted decision by a child and the moon door after being tortured in sky cells.

It wasn't even a mockery of justice, just obvious abuse of power.

15 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

It doesn't matter. As an officer of the law (by proxy) she has the right to impart justice.

Wrong, and it does matter.

This is just an invention and excuse for a sympathetic character not based in anything rational. As I said above, there is no honesty in ignoring Ned's order, ignoring his instruction, but still claiming his authority, let alone lying while invoking the king's name, especially when not even in the North to begin with.

Comparing this to the first chapter shows how obvious this is. The person who caught Gered didn't take him to their close relative in a different part of the country for torture and execution. They alerted the nearest representative of the King's justice.

It was a sham, an abduction, and not justice by any stretch of the imagination.

CamiloRP · October 27, 2020

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

everyone recognized it was criminal.

Do you have any examples of anyone (non Lannister or Lannister coerced) thinking that?

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She literally lied.

She lied about her destination, not her intentions. The people followed her for her intentions.

I'll use an example: some powerful mobster is facing trial, but the justice fears an attempted break in by their mobster friends, so they leak to the press the trial is happening in City A, but it actually happens in City B.

Did the justice system lie? yes, absolutely

Does that make the trial and arrest illegal? nope, not at all.

So please stop trying to use the fact that she lied as an example of the arrest being illegal, lying isn't illegal.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned who you claim she was somehow deputized by (despite abandoning Winterfell) explicitly saying this issue HAD to be brought to Robert for justice. So even if she was claiming Ned's authority, which she wasn't, she didn't listen to him! It's ridiculous.

She was deputized by Ned, it's right there on the text, @kissdbyfire provided a quote and everything.

And Ned claims that the issue had to be brought to Robert because of political reasons, not legal ones.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Only after being threatened with a swift and predicted decision by a child and the moon door after being tortured in sky cells.

It wasn't even a mockery of justice, just obvious abuse of power.

That was Lysa's doing, Cat protested against all of it, so it's of no matter when discussing Cat actions (well, it is, it paints her on a good light, but I doubt you want that). But even then, that's how Westerosi society works, so in that context it's justice.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Wrong, and it does matter.

How am I wrong? I'm asking for a third time, can you explain the reason that leads you to believe the arrest, not what came after, was illegal?

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is just an invention and excuse for a sympathetic character not based in anything rational.

We provided many rational reasons, you ignored most of them, and when I asked for yours (twice) you ignored that as well.

Also, I kinda like Cat, I mean, I find her heartbreaking, but she's not even close to being on the characters-I-like-the-most list, and pre-murdering Shae Tyrion is well above her.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

As I said above, there is no honesty in ignoring Ned's order, ignoring his instruction, but still claiming his authority,

He gave her the power to rule in his stead, she doesn't have o follow his orders and the situation wasn't foreseeable by either of them, she had no instructions on what to do when that happened.

Also honesty has nothing to do with legality.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

let alone lying while invoking the king's name

That also has nothing to do with legality.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

especially when not even in the North to begin with.

What leads you to believe that changes anything? Would have Robb executed Karstark in the Westerlands had made that illegal?

Quote

Comparing this to the first chapter shows how obvious this is. The person who caught Gered didn't take him to their close relative in a different part of the country for torture and execution.

But we are not arguing if where she took him was legal (tho it definitely was) we are arguing the arrest was legal.

And the Gared example was used when you seemed to indicate that only the king can provide justice, and no one else.

Also, the torture wasn't a part of Cat's plan and it's the Westerosi standard for treating prisoners. There was no execution.

43 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

They alerted the nearest representative of the King's justice.

Well, Cat was the nearest representative of the King's justice.

And Gared had no family to send an army to 'rescue' him and prevent him from facing trial.

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

30 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Do you have any examples of anyone (non Lannister or Lannister coerced) thinking that?

NED... that is why he feels compelled to lie... but we've been over this.

Quote

She lied about her destination, not her intentions. The people followed her for her intentions.

She lied.

Quote

I'll use an example: some powerful mobster is facing trial, but the justice fears an attempted break in by their mobster friends, so they leak to the press the trial is happening in City A, but it actually happens in City B.

This is not the same at all. Random citizens don't go around arresting mobsters in bars. Let alone ones claiming to be victims of said mobsters (and setting aside that Tyrion committed no crime). It's not even vigilante justice at that point, just petty vengeance. Absolutely ridiculous.

But, if you did arrest a mobster in a bar, and say you were taking them to jail, and instead crossed state lines to take them to a more favorable place where your sister is the judge, it would be abduction, a crime, and probably get the mobster released.

Quote

Did the justice system lie? yes, absolutely

Does that make the trial and arrest illegal? nope, not at all.

See above... lol, you are making my point.

Quote

So please stop trying to use the fact that she lied as an example of the arrest being illegal, lying isn't illegal.

Lying while claiming to be dispensing justice makes it not justice.

Quote

She was deputized by Ned, it's right there on the text, @kissdbyfire provided a quote and everything.

She abandoned the post assigned by Ned, and then disobeyed Ned's orders.

Quote

And Ned claims that the issue had to be brought to Robert because of political reasons, not legal ones.

Wrong, it is literally explained by him how all justice flows through the king in this system.

Quote

That was Lysa's doing, Cat protested against all of it, so it's of no matter when discussing Cat actions (well, it is, it paints her on a good light, but I doubt you want that). But even then, that's how Westerosi society works, so in that context it's justice.

Fruit of the poison tree. You can't lie about where you are going and then complain when the place you went instead is unjust.

There is plenty of blame to go around but it is ignorant to try and whitewash Cat's part.

Quote

How am I wrong? I'm asking for a third time, can you explain the reason that leads you to believe the arrest, not what came after, was illegal?

You shouldnt say illegal since there aren't codified laws. What it was was unjust. Cat had no authority to make an arrest, and lied about her intent when invoking the kings name. She abuses her relation to her father to get away with it, is wrong about her accusation, and doesn't take Tyrion to the king for justice as is obviously the correct thing to do and expressed explicitly by Ned (from whom you claim she hold some authority, despite leaving Winterfell and not being in the North).

Quote

We provided many rational reasons, you ignored most of them, and when I asked for yours (twice) you ignored that as well.

No you didn't, you ignored the realities for these nonsensical excuses.

Quote

Also, I kinda like Cat, I mean, I find her heartbreaking, but she's not even close to being on the characters-I-like-the-most list, and pre-murdering Shae Tyrion is well above her.

Liking Cat, and being sympathetic to her cause have nothing to do with this.

Quote

He gave her the power to rule in his stead, she doesn't have o follow his orders and the situation wasn't foreseeable by either of them, she had no instructions on what to do when that happened.

She didn't rule, then she left at the first incident. She accomplished nothing by ogoing to King's Landing except convincing Ned to trust Littlefinger, and then sparking a War on her way home.

Quote

Also honesty has nothing to do with legality.

This is simply false, and more importantly it has everything to do with justice.

Quote

That also has nothing to do with legality.

There is not a codified legal system in Westeros, just justice in the kings name. When you lie as you try to invoke that, you undermine not just the system, but any semblance of just action on your part. It's a sham.

Quote

What leads you to believe that changes anything? Would have Robb executed Karstark in the Westerlands had made that illegal?

Robb executes Lord Karstark for an explicit crime he didn't deny, as his king in a castle he ruled. lol

Quote

But we are not arguing if where she took him was legal (tho it definitely was) we are arguing the arrest was legal.

It wasn't and it wasn't.

Quote

And the Gared example was used when you seemed to indicate that only the king can provide justice, and no one else.

No, justice flows through the King. Gared wasn't a lord paramount son or brother in law to the king. He also wasn't peacefully eating in a tavern having committed no crime, and the people who took him didn't lie to the public when they did about where they were taking him. Trying to make that comparison shows your complete lack of understanding, its laughable.

Quote

Also, the torture wasn't a part of Cat's plan and it's the Westerosi standard for treating prisoners. There was no execution.

Amazing how when you abduct people without the right it end's poorly. If you take someone's power away you become responsible for them, it is absolutely on her. And tell it to Ser Vardis.

Quote

Well, Cat was the nearest representative of the King's justice.

No, she wasn't.

Show me where she is given power to dispense the King's justice?

Quote

And Gared had no family to send an army to 'rescue' him and prevent him from facing trial.

And no daddy to scare all the tavern dwellers into supporting you either.

At this point I have to think you are just arguing for arguments sake, because I'm just repeating the obvious. Have a good one.

CamiloRP · October 27, 2020

7 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

NED... that is why he feels compelled to lie... but we've been over this.

That's your explanation of why he feels compelled to lie, you don't know if he actually thought that (also, you said anyone and your only example is your guess at what a character might think? really?). The most likely explanation, Ned being Ned, is that he puts Cat's honor before his own.

Quote

She lied.

We agree, that doesn't make the arrest illegal, does it?

Quote

This is not the same at all. Random citizens don't go around arresting mobsters in bars. Absolutely ridiculous.

But, if you did arrest a mobster in a bar, and say you were taking them to jail, and instead crossed state lines to take them to a more favorable place where your sister is the judge, it would be abduction, a crime, and probably get the mobster released.

Cat is not a random citizen tho, she's an officer of the law (and that is no guess of mine) in this point we are arguing whether the lie makes the arrest illegal or not, the validity of Cat's authority is another point, don't mix it.

And also it's not more favorable, because she said she would take him to Winterfell, where she is the judge, so that phrase makes no sense. The change of locations doesn't make the arrest illegal.

14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

See above... lol, you are making my point.

Nope I'm not, you are just making up excuses. I never claimed Cat didn't lie, she did (tho I do think she intended to take Tyrion to Winterfell and the Eyrie was just a pit stop to scape Tywin, but I don't know if I'm recalling that correctly). An officer lying to a perp does not turn the arrest void, what you claim makes no sense.

Quote

Lying while claiming to be dispensing justice makes it not justice.

The fuck? where do you get this from? she didn't lie about the evidence, she didn't lie about the case, she just lied about where she was going, it makes no matter. Would the example I gave be illegal? you haven't answered.

Quote

She abandoned the post assigned by Ned, and then disobeyed Ned's orders.

So? she's still deputized, she's still an officer of the law, we don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

Quote

Wrong, it is literally explained by him how all justice flows through the king in this system.

Yes, because the officer's of the law act in the king's name, as did Cat, it doesn't mean you need the king's pressense.

Quote

Fruit of the poison tree. You can't lie about where you are going and then complain when the place you went instead is unjust.

Yes you can, she took Tyrion there thinking it was safe for both of them, she was wrong, and she complained to Lysa about it, she tried to stop the injustice. Also, she didn't know any of those things would happen, so it doesn't change the validity of the arrest.

21 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

There is plenty of blame to go around but it is ignorant to try and whitewash Cat's part.

It's ignorant to claim an arrest is illegal because of things that happened after the arrest, where done by someone else, without consent of the arresting officer, and of which the arresting officer complained.

It's like blaming a cop because the dude they arrested was killed in jail.

Quote

You shouldnt say illegal since there aren't codified laws. What it was was unjust. Cat had no authority to make an arrest,

She had, a lot of people corrected you in this, showing you quotes and everything, I don't know why you keep claiming it to be different. What in the text makes you think she had no authority?

Also, Westeros almost definitely has codified laws, as they have a Master of Law, and Dornish law is codified.

Quote

and lied about her intent when invoking the kings name

That doesn't make it unjust, it doesn't change the situation of the arrest, as in the example I provided.

Quote

She abuses her relation to her father to get away with it,

Nope, she uses her position to ask for help, but the men who followed her believed her actions to be legal.

Quote

is wrong about her accusation

Doesn't mean the arrest is unjust, everyone is innocent until a trial proves them guilty.

Quote

and doesn't take Tyrion to the king for justice as is obviously the correct thing to do

Maybe politically, but it isn;t necessary (other people than the king can impart justice) and it's not the correct thing to do as it doesn't mean a fair trial, Tyrion's family has a lot of influence over the king.

Quote

and expressed explicitly by Ned (from whom you claim she hold some authority, despite leaving Winterfell and not being in the North).

Why does that matter? do you have a reason to believe that it negates her authority? whee do you get that reason?

Quote

No you didn't, you ignored the realities for these nonsensical excuses.

I mean, we provided quotes from the text.

You, on the other hand, provided only assumptions based on little evidence, blatantly false statements (Cat is no longer deputized by ned, only the king can provide justice) and ridiculous claims (lying about where the trial's being held negates the validity of an arrest; all arrests are abductions lol)

Quote

Liking Cat, and being sympathetic to her cause have nothing to do with this.

You where the one who brought it up, seemingly implying that because I like her more than Tyrion I'm excusing her, I'm just correcting you on that sentiment.

Quote

She didn't rule, then she left at the first incident. She accomplished nothing by ogoing to King's Landing except convincing Ned to trust Littlefinger, and then sparking a War on her way home.

Means nothing for her having authority or not.

Quote

This is simply false, and more importantly it has everything to do with justice.

How come? is the example I gave before not justice?

Quote

There is not a codified legal system in Westeros, just justice in the kings name. When you lie as you try to invoke that, you undermine not just the system, but any semblance of just action on your part. It's a sham.

She didn't lie when invoking the king's name, she lied when saying here trial was being held, that has nothing to do with anything.

Quote

Robb executes Lord Karstark for an explicit crime he didn't deny, as his king in a castle he ruled. lol

I know, that's no what I asked, did you read what I wrote?

Quote

It wasn't and it wasn't.

Still waiting for you to provide a textual reason for it.

Quote

No, justice flows through the King. Gared wasn't a lord paramount son or brother in law to the king.

You are the one talking about just and unjust, how is Tyrion having more rights than Gared joust?

Quote

He also wasn't peacefully eating in a tavern having committed no crime

Many people where arrested in those exact circumstances, that doesn't mean the arrest isn't valid.

Quote

and the people who took him didn't lie to the public when they did about where they were taking him.

Which also means nothing for justice.

Quote

Trying to make that comparison shows your complete lack of understanding, its laughable.

This message shows your complete lack of understanding of any point made, I said it explicitly, I was just using Gared's case as an example of the king not being necessary for providing justice, which, talk about laughable, it makes no sense.

Quote

Amazing how when you abduct people without the right it end's poorly.

yet again you use one nonsensical reason to justify another nonsensical reason.

It wasn't an abduction, Cat did have the right to arrest him.

Quote

If you take someone's power away you become responsible for them, it is absolutely on her.

It is, partially, on her, but it doesn't negate the validity of the arrest.

Quote

No, she wasn't.

Show me where she is given power to dispense the King's justice?

Quote

"Yes," Ned said, in words that would brook no argument. "You must govern the north in my stead, while I run Robert's errands. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell. Robb is fourteen. Soon enough, he will be a man grown. He must learn to rule, and I will not be here for him. Make him part of your councils. He must be ready when his time comes."

(it was @corbon who provided the quote, not @kissdbyfire my bad)

Ruling involves dispensing the king's justice, the quote had been already provided to you. Ignoring arguments doesn't make them go away, your capacity to argue is laughable.

Quote

And no daddy to scare all the tavern dwellers into supporting you either.

That's not what happened.

Quote

At this point I have to think you are just arguing for arguments sake, because I'm just repeating the obvious. Have a good one.

At this point I have to assume you are being dishonest and know you are in the wrong here, as you keep claiming things with no reason and ignoring arguments you can disprove, while calling 'obvious' bonkers statements like 'only the king can provide justice'; "lying about where the trial's being held negates the validity of an arrest' and 'all arrests are abductions'. Ridiculous.

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

4 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

At this point I have to assume you are being dishonest and know you are in the wrong here, as you keep claiming things with no reason and ignoring arguments you can disprove, while calling 'obvious' bonkers statements like 'only the king can provide justice'; "lying about where the trial's being held negates the validity of an arrest' and 'all arrests are abductions'. Ridiculous.

Ned's words not mine.

I've explained the text to you, you are entitled to remain ignorant.

Goodbye now.

The Commentator · October 27, 2020

On 10/25/2020 at 1:58 PM, Loose Bolt said:

Kidnapping member of royal family is serious crime. Who is warden of Riverlands? So just in theory as a Warden of the West Tywin might even had right to send people hunting down those "criminals". After all some traitors had just captured queen's brother without direct order from king.

Bran would have gotten little justice from Robert but reporting to him is the procedure for Catelyn to follow. Catelyn must follow the rules even if it meant only a slap on the wrist for the guilty. Rules and laws are more important than family. Her husband was The Hand of the King and must set an example by following the rules. Catelyn and Ned must think of the big picture instead of their son. The enforcer must follow the rules. Otherwise, he is being a hypocrite and not fit to lead. Catelyn was wrong. Jon gave in to the same emotions during his time as lord commander.

CamiloRP · October 27, 2020

5 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned's words not mine.

I've explained the text to you, you are entitled to remain ignorant.

Goodbye now.

Not Ned's words, he says all justice flows from the king, not that he's personably responsible for every case, that's disproven by the execution of Gared.

If you want to keep arguing keep arguing, but don't come here only to act insulting, repeat nonsense arguments that many people have corrected you on before and then leave. Debate or don't debate, you can't do both (well I would say what you did can't be called 'debate' it was mostly screaming nonsense).

TheLastWolf · October 27, 2020

13 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Bran would have gotten little justice from Robert but reporting to him is the procedure for Catelyn to follow. Catelyn must follow the rules even if it meant only a slap on the wrist for the guilty. Rules and laws are more important than family. Her husband was The Hand of the King and must set an example by following the rules. Catelyn and Ned must think of the big picture instead of their son. The enforcer must follow the rules. Otherwise, he is being a hypocrite and not fit to lead. Catelyn was wrong. Jon gave in to the same emotions during his time as lord commander.

That's :bs: , and it's putting it politely.

Ned is a fool for doing the right thing, while Cat is Cruella DeVill for the same thing?!

Bull...

EDIT -

The enforcer must follow the rules. Otherwise, he is being a hypocrite and not fit to lead.

I don't have time, but if I had I'd list the million times Dany (whom you obviously worship, and that's an understatement) did the same.

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

29 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Not Ned's words, he says all justice flows from the king, not that he's personably responsible for every case, that's disproven by the execution of Gared.

If you want to keep arguing keep arguing, but don't come here only to act insulting, repeat nonsense arguments that many people have corrected you on before and then leave. Debate or don't debate, you can't do both (well I would say what you did can't be called 'debate' it was mostly screaming nonsense).

Ned says the literal topic in question has to be brought before the King, not only justice generally, this specific issue. You can't claim his authority and ignore his words and sound anything other than ridiculous.

You keep using terms like illegal which has no place in the discussion, and ignore the text itself. There is no debate, you just resist learning, so the discussion no longer seems worth it.

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

25 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Ned is a fool for doing the right thing, while Cat is Cruella DeVill for the same thing?!

No, Cat does not do the right thing. She abducts an innocent man with no right to do so resulting directly in both innocent deaths and a war. She fails both in method and results, as the means and the ends are both unjust.

25 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

The enforcer must follow the rules. Otherwise, he is being a hypocrite and not fit to lead.

You can't play fast and loose with the rules and still be legitimate justice. Equally applicable to all parties.

TheLastWolf · October 27, 2020

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

34 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Ned is a fool for doing the right thing, while Cat is Cruella DeVill for the same thing?!

No, Cat does not do the right thing. She abducts an innocent man with no right to do so resulting directly in both innocent deaths and a war. She fails both in method and results, as the means and the ends are both unjust

This is subject to difference of opinion (unlike how Roose/Ramsay/Walder Frey being good). I stand with CamRP here.

9 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

34 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

The enforcer must follow the rules. Otherwise, he is being a hypocrite and not fit to lead.

You can't play fast and loose with the rules and still be legitimate justice. Equally applicable to all parties

If you'd looked more closely, I was quoting someone else again.

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

3 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

This is subject to difference of opinion

It's really not.

You can think what she did was understandable, or that she was somehow justified, you are entitled to an opinion.

But, per the text itself, it was not justice and it clearly had bad results.

To claim abducting Tyrion, and innocent man, was right, is willful ignorance.

TheLastWolf · October 27, 2020

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

It's really not.

You can think what she did was understandable, or that she was somehow justified, you are entitled to an opinion.

But, per the text itself, it was not justice and it clearly had bad results.

To claim abducting Tyrion, and innocent man, was right, is willful ignorance.

Let's just A2D

CamiloRP · October 27, 2020

21 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned says the literal topic in question has to be brought before the King, not only justice generally, this specific issue.

That doesn't mean Tyrion can only be tried by the king.

Quote

You can't claim his authority and ignore his words and sound anything other than ridiculous.

She doesn't claim his authority, she's has it, she's the regent of The North, if she disobeys Ned he might make her stop being the regent of The North, but until he does, she has authority to arrest Tyrion, therefore the arrest is valid.

Also Ned thought it was a necessity that her trip to KL would remain a secret, so her running into Tyrion changes things, as she either lets him go, telling his family she was in KL and likely knows about their evil plans or she captures him and starts with an advantage, she couldn't have known what Ned would prefer her to do in that situation.

Quote

You keep using terms like illegal which has no place in the discussion, and ignore the text itself. There is no debate, you just resist learning, so the discussion no longer seems worth it.

Yet you keep replying to only one point, maybe because you know you can't defend your position on the other points? You are the one who's claiming things that make me question whether you read the books or not. The king is not the only person capable of administering justice, lords and regents can too, Cat is a regent, therefore she can.

I asked you four times (five now) what leads you to believe she can't, you haven't replied once.

Again, if you don't want to argue with me don't, but don't claim you don't want to argue only as an excuse to ignore those points you know to be false and can't explain

Mourning Star · October 27, 2020

41 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I asked you four times (five now) what leads you to believe she can't, you haven't replied once.

This is a claim you have failed five times to back up with anything and isn't worth replying to.

41 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

That doesn't mean Tyrion can only be tried by the king.

Clearly, he CAN be tried by others, lol, that doesn't make it just.

You can't claim Ned's authority and then ignore his words, you sound silly.

41 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

She doesn't claim his authority, she's has it, she's the regent of The North

No she is not. Please show me anything to support this claim. She is left in charge of Winterfell, a post she neglects then abandons. The North is not a kingdom at this point, and she leaves the North, one can't be a regent in absentia lol.

Again, it's becoming increasingly clear you either don't understand how words like regent and legal should be used or willfully ignore their meaning.

41 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Yet you keep replying to only one point, maybe because you know you can't defend your position on the other points? You are the one who's claiming things that make me question whether you read the books or not. The king is not the only person capable of administering justice, lords and regents can too, Cat is a regent, therefore she can.

I asked you four times (five now) what leads you to believe she can't, you haven't replied once.

Again, if you don't want to argue with me don't, but don't claim you don't want to argue only as an excuse to ignore those points you know to be false and can't explain

You have no points... what even is your argument? Cat is a regent (she's not), something something legality (there aren't codified laws in Westeros), and that somehow thinking someone is guilty means it's ok to abduct them from a public place, lie about where you are going, and not take them to face the king's justice like the one from whom you claim to derive authority (you don't have) said should be done while using your dad's name to coerce men into letting you?

Men died.... even Cat recognizes it is her fault... an innocent man is imprisoned and tortured. It was wrong both in practice and in results, there isn't anything to debate.

It is a case study in the follies of acting on wild supposition and hearsay.

I've pointed out how you are objectively wrong repeatedly. I'm trying to explain to you the basic meaning of words at this point, so it's clearly a waste of time to continue.

CamiloRP · October 27, 2020

13 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is a claim you have failed five times to back up with anything and isn't worth replying to.

What? that I have asked you or that you haven't answered? When in the text does someone thing what she did was 'unjust'?

Quote

Clearly, he CAN be tried by others, lol, that doesn't make it just.

If he can be tried by someone else, why is it unjust then?

Quote

You can't claim Ned's authority and then ignore his words, you sound silly.

Why not? Ned is the lord of The North on Roberts authority, he disobeys him, he's still the lord of The North. Ned gave cat the rule of The North, she has to rule, if what she does isn't to Ned's liking he can remove her.

Quote

No she is not. Please show me anything to support this claim. She is left in charge of Winterfell, a post she neglects then abandons. The North is not a kingdom at this point, and she leaves the North, one can't be a regent in absentia lol.

You said it yourself, ned left her in charge, as the person in charge of The North she has the ability to arrest and put anyone on trial.

Quote

Again, it's becoming increasingly clear you either don't understand how words like regent and legal should be used or willfully ignore their meaning.

If you would've had the decency to read my other comment you would have seen that I argued Westeros has a codified law, as they have a master of law and Dornish law is codified, we have no reason to believe Westerosi law isn't.

Quote

You have no points... what even is your argument? Cat is a regent (she's not),

She's the rruler of The North in Ned's stead.

Quote

something something legality (there aren't codified laws in Westeros),

Why do you think that?

Quote

and that somehow thinking someone is guilty means it's ok to abduct them from a public place,

Or, you know, arrest them, which is what happened. Everyone who's arrested is innocent until the end of the trial.

Quote

lie about where you are going,

which changes not the validity of the arrest, as I have stated.

Quote

and not take them to face the king's justice

She did take him to face the king's justice, the king's justice doesn't need the king, like Gared's case, was that not the king's justice despite the king not being there?

Quote

like the one from whom you claim to derive authority (you don't have)

She does

Quote

said should be done while using your dad's name to coerce men into letting you?

She did it so Tyrion couldn't bribe them. Everyone of the men who went with her thought what they were doing to be just under the kings law, or else they wouldn't have.

Quote

Men died.... even Cat recognizes it is her fault

That means nothing for the validity of the arrest.

Quote

... an innocent man is imprisoned and tortured.

Which is both not what cat Intended or wanted (she protested against it) and Westerosi standard. So it means nothing for the validity of the arrest.

Quote

It is a case study in the follies of acting on wild supposition and hearsay.

That it is, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a just arrest for Westerosi standards and under the king's justice.

Quote

I've pointed out how you are objectively wrong repeatedly. I'm trying to explain to you the basic meaning of words at this point, so it's clearly a waste of time to continue.

Nope, you keep making wild claims with no evidence to back them up and claiming things mind-bogglinly dumb such as 'all arrests are abductions' 'if the king isn't in the trial then the trial is unjust' and 'lying about where are you holding trial makes the arrest unjust'.

But still you keep arguing, only to one point, cause you know you can't defend the rest. If you don't want to continue, don't, but if you do, reply to my former message, here, I'll copy/paste it for you: