War Won't Save The World

[Mourning Star]

2 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

When attacked, you should use enough force to put down the threat and make sure it never harms you again.

And the child of the man you strike down?

Do you kill them too? 

Even though they have done nothing wrong, but will grow up one day and might take vengeance on you themselves?

[Jaenara Belarys]

Just now, Jay21 said:

American, huh?

Yes, I'm American, is there a problem with being American?

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

And the child of the man you strike down?

Do you kill them too? 

Even though they have done nothing wrong, but will grow up one day and might take vengeance on you themselves?

Hmm, that's a hard question. My answer is no. You do not fight somebody because of something they might do. You attack them because of something they did. Necessary action. If the kid tries to attack me, I'll use enough force to make sure they can't come after me again.

[Jaenara Belarys]

How fun this is.

[Mourning Star]

7 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Hmm, that's a hard question. My answer is no. You do not fight somebody because of something they might do. You attack them because of something they did. Necessary action. If the kid tries to attack me, I'll use enough force to make sure they can't come after me again.

What you are kind of saying is usually referred to as "just war" doctrine, and I think it has some problems. 

In this case, I think it's worth noting how this sort of logic was used to justify the Iraq War and how GRRM is pretty clearly opposed to it.

Unfortunately, I have to run, but it's been a good chat and perhaps we can pick it up again another time.

Be well

[Jaenara Belarys]

You too. Can we resume tommorow?

[Jaenara Belarys]

Bye everybody, I hope to be back tomorrow. Thanks for the good conversation/argument.

[Nathan Stark]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

This isn't at all clear to me.

I think there is a better solution.

Did it though?

She began her war so she could have an army to fight another war...

I do not think the Others are the ones forcing the conflict.

We've barely seen the Others on the page at all.

A great point made by the story is that someone has to be the first one to reach out, the first one to forgive, the first one to show mercy... if there will ever be peace. From a practical point of view you may call that madness, but that doesn't mean it isn't morally the right thing to do.

The argument you are making is emblematic of one side of the great dichotomy between Tywin Lannister and Ned Stark, and actually ties in beautifully with the point above.

I for one think Rhaegar, The Prince of Dragonstone, might not have had all his kids killed, lol.

Morality and practicality are not the same thing.

And since this is a story, we see the repercussions of the Tywin and Ned approaches each play out... the vultures descend on the shit smelling corpse of Tywin (and I would be wiling to bet his precious line is extinguished by the stories end) while the north remembers.

Both ice and fire can destroy, that much is obvious. Perhaps you hold with those who favor fire... but how can you ever find a balance if you refuse to try and understand, communicate, and make peace with the other side.

See, here's the thing; every action we have seen the Others take on page has resulted in human fatalities. There has been absolutely no indication that the Others are behaving in any way peacefully. They have attacked twice in the written story, but have never seemed to behave defensively. What can they possibly be if not aggressors?

Even Ned Stark would act to defend his people from the Others if they were attacking and weightifying Northerners. If the Others want mercy, perhaps they should have shown some to Waymar Royce, who was defeated and no threat to them in any event. Perhaps they should have held off from attacking at the Fist of the First Men instead of engaging in a slaughter.

The thing about mercy is that it has to go both ways. If showing mercy to a foe means that your foe will imediately kill you afterwards, there isn't much point. Mercy is supposed to end bloodshed. The Others' actions here is actively encouraging bloodshed and making war more likely. That's why your comparison between Ned and Tywin falls apart. Tywin behaved aggresively in the Riverlands, ensuring that war became inevitable, and Ned responded by trying to isolate the aggresor by sending men under the royal banner. Who were promptly attacked regardless of their being representatives of the crown. Again, we have a situation where showing mercy quickly becomes more foolish than honorable, and Ned responded not with mercy but by empowering kings men to do some justice.

At this point, how would showing one of the Others mercy result in positive outcomes? How do you even initiate any sort of diplomacy against beings that don't speak any known language and who attack your people and reanimate your dead to join their army? I don't know. I do know that at this point, forgiving the Others and reaching out to them is very unlikely to acheive anything. The Others have to want peace first, and in war, that usually occurs after you score a decisive win. If there is to be some sort of peace, it'll be when the Others decide that pursueing war is more costly to them than pursueing peace. That is the time for mercy and forgiveness.

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Good point, good point. Video game and most movies.

Yeah, but this story isn't like most, is it?

 

2 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

So, quick question. You would rather attempt to talk to beings that are trying to kill you? Hmmm. Like you said it's your life. But I think I'd rather go down kicking than go down whimpering and pleading for mercy.

There's a big difference between being attacked and defending yourself in an individual level and being in war and not attempting to negotiate. In fact, if you are in a loosing position, negotiation is the way to go, or else you're gonna be obliterated.

On an individual level it'd be like three armed guys trying to rob you and you choosing to fight instead of just giving them your cellphone. 

[FictionIsntReal]

7 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Along comes Dany, who herself was sold as property

Nope, even if Viserys thought so. The Dothraki regarded the betrothal as more like a gift, to which they could respond with a gift of their own rather than an obligation. And Dany could never be sold to anyone else. In fact, after Drogo died she was to go to the Dosh Kaleen and would be prohibited from marrying anyone else. Dany & Drogo had a messed up relationship, but it was not one between owner & property (nor is the typical Westerosi marriage).

Quote

We did that here in the States after the Civil War, and 150 years of Jim Crow was the result.

The Civil War was over when the Confederates surrendered (not because Lincoln decided to give peace a chance), that's what the war was about. And people who think there was no difference between sharecrooppers under Jim Crow & slaves are just wrong. Plus, after the Civil War they could move north without any slavecatchers to force them back.

5 hours ago, Jay21 said:

So the plot of ASOIAF is essentially the same as a video game. Overwhelming odds against, the good guys send their armies but obviously they aren't going to be enough.  The hero has to go on a suicide mission to kill the big boss and then all of the big boss' minions die or melt or lose interest or whatever and the world is saved.

That sounds rather like LotR. ASoIaF is different from LotR, but so far that's mostly due to how much politicking there is among the humans.

5 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I do not think the Others are the ones forcing the conflict.

We've seen them do it repeatedly.

Quote

We've barely seen the Others on the page at all.

Only because GRRM has given so much space to the Game of Thrones. When we have seen them, they've been exactly the sorts of enemies of life as described in the pitch letter.

Quote

A great point made by the story is that someone has to be the first one to reach out, the first one to forgive, the first one to show mercy... if there will ever be peace.

Which story did that happen in? Even peace with the wildlings involve Stannis defeating them in battle, then executing "Mance" for refusing to kneel.

4 hours ago, Jay21 said:

American, huh?

I think that's something of a cultural universal. Cultures which didn't do that disappeared prior to the beginning of written history.

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

In this case, I think it's worth noting how this sort of logic was used to justify the Iraq War and how GRRM is pretty clearly opposed to it.

Iraq didn't actually attack the U.S. Japan did, and GRRM has said he approves of WW2 while he opposed war with Vietnam (who did not attack the US).

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

Yeah, but this story isn't like most, is it?

I think it's not as unique as people make it out to be. "Sopranos in Middle Earth" isn't terribly off (even if it's not quite as cynical as the Sopranos).

Quote

On an individual level it'd be like three armed guys trying to rob you and you choosing to fight instead of just giving them your cellphone.

The Others aren't muggers just after money. They're killing people and turning them into wights. There's no attempt to do anything else.

[Nathan Stark]

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Nope, even if Viserys thought so. The Dothraki regarded the betrothal as more like a gift, to which they could respond with a gift of their own rather than an obligation. And Dany could never be sold to anyone else. In fact, after Drogo died she was to go to the Dosh Kaleen and would be prohibited from marrying anyone else. Dany & Drogo had a messed up relationship, but it was not one between owner & property (nor is the typical Westerosi marriage).

That's semantics. The point is that she was treated like livestock instead of like a human being. Veiwing your bride as a "gift" implies a transfer of ownership. And while Drogo did come to love and respect Dany after a fashion, he could just as easily have treated her like actual property if he had wanted to.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The Civil War was over when the Confederates surrendered (not because Lincoln decided to give peace a chance), that's what the war was about. And people who think there was no difference between sharecrooppers under Jim Crow & slaves are just wrong. Plus, after the Civil War they could move north without any slavecatchers to force them back.

Okay. Then Reconstruction happened and the political and legal gains made by Black Americans started being stripped away. Sharecropping was not the same as slavery, but it also wasn't great for people living through it either. And the North wasn't especially enlightened towards people of color either. We see something similar in Meereen, where former slaves still get paid too little to live on while pro-slavery terrorists murder them if they try to advocate for themselves.

The rest of your comment I agree with.

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

That's semantics. The point is that she was treated like livestock instead of like a human being. Veiwing your bride as a "gift" implies a transfer of ownership. And while Drogo did come to love and respect Dany after a fashion, he could just as easily have treated her like actual property if he had wanted to.

Okay. Then Reconstruction happened and the political and legal gains made by Black Americans started being stripped away. Sharecropping was not the same as slavery, but it also wasn't great for people living through it either. And the North wasn't especially enlightened towards people of color either. We see something similar in Meereen, where former slaves still get paid too little to live on while pro-slavery terrorists murder them if they try to advocate for themselves.

The rest of your comment I agree with.

Dany was viewed pretty much as a chattel, by her brother and Illyrio.  The latter considered taking her as his mistress.  That would have been straightforward rape.   Neither man cared if she lived or died, after marrying Drogo.  One can argue that she was treated similarly to many aristocratic women in this world, but then, that tells you something about the treatment of women.  Many of the knights and lords of Westeros are essentially Dothraki who possess coats of arms.

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Not all the Wildlings though right?

What about Craster?

Why can't you talk to the white walkers? They can clearly talk...

And the True Tongue spoken by the singers is also described as the sounds of nature, in this case winter:

But yes, they probably did know how to fight the Others, or at least defend themselves.

Why would they make war with the Others when humanity is a larger existential threat to them?

 

The Others, I'm sure, have real grievances against humans.  But you go too far in trying to exonerate their actions, and in arguing in favour of turning the other cheek to them.

[Mourning Star]

15 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

See, here's the thing; every action we have seen the Others take on page has resulted in human fatalities. There has been absolutely no indication that the Others are behaving in any way peacefully. They have attacked twice in the written story, but have never seemed to behave defensively. What can they possibly be if not aggressors?

So many options... off the top of my head:

First, there is the tiny sample size all involving men intent on violence.

Second, there is an easy parallel to draw to dragons, in being more of a force of nature than evil aggressor.

Third, its extremely easy to imagine how men would be the aggressors from their point of view.

Quote

Even Ned Stark would act to defend his people from the Others if they were attacking and weightifying Northerners. If the Others want mercy, perhaps they should have shown some to Waymar Royce, who was defeated and no threat to them in any event. Perhaps they should have held off from attacking at the Fist of the First Men instead of engaging in a slaughter.

Waymar challenged the Other, the Other apparently fought one on one until Waymar was defeated... even by westerosi standards that is honorable. They even allowed his companion to escape.

It also still seems like you can't get past the vengeance thing. 

Someone has to be the bigger person to break a cycle of vengeance. Being wronged is not enough of a reason to do wrong.

Quote

The thing about mercy is that it has to go both ways.

No, it most certainly does not. That's kind of the whole point.

Quote

If showing mercy to a foe means that your foe will imediately kill you afterwards, there isn't much point. Mercy is supposed to end bloodshed.

Wrong again.

There is no guarantee that a good deed will be reciprocated. That doesn't make it any less the right thing to do. See Ned and Cersei.

Quote

The Others' actions here is actively encouraging bloodshed and making war more likely. That's why your comparison between Ned and Tywin falls apart. Tywin behaved aggresively in the Riverlands, ensuring that war became inevitable, and Ned responded by trying to isolate the aggresor by sending men under the royal banner. Who were promptly attacked regardless of their being representatives of the crown. Again, we have a situation where showing mercy quickly becomes more foolish than honorable, and Ned responded not with mercy but by empowering kings men to do some justice.

Wrong again.

What you see is the difference between vengeance and justice. There is a difference between enforcing the law and a personal vendetta.

Quote

"Vengeance?" Ned said. "I thought we were speaking of justice. Burning Clegane's fields and slaughtering his people will not restore the king's peace, only your injured pride." He glanced away before the young knight could voice his outraged protest, and addressed the villagers. "People of Sherrer, I cannot give you back your homes or your crops, nor can I restore your dead to life. But perhaps I can give you some small measure of justice, in the name of our king, Robert."

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XI

I would add that it is a very short sited analysis if you forget the role the brotherhood without banners plays in the story.

Quote

At this point, how would showing one of the Others mercy result in positive outcomes? How do you even initiate any sort of diplomacy against beings that don't speak any known language and who attack your people and reanimate your dead to join their army? I don't know. I do know that at this point, forgiving the Others and reaching out to them is very unlikely to acheive anything. The Others have to want peace first, and in war, that usually occurs after you score a decisive win. If there is to be some sort of peace, it'll be when the Others decide that pursueing war is more costly to them than pursueing peace. That is the time for mercy and forgiveness.

First, you learn their language, then you try to understand them as more than just evil aggressors.

This applies to any meeting of cultures, and while supernatural and fantastical, is a direct parallel to a society and the "other". Whether that other is human or ice creature seems immaterial to the morality of it.

The arguments you are making could all be made about the Wildlings for instance. Taking it even further it is the sort of argument made by colonists about natives, and I would say is pretty categorically recognized as immoral.

And again, doing the right thing in no way guarantees a positive outcome for you personally, nor does it mean others will certainly do the right thing. By the same token, the ends do not justify the means.

What we are seeing highlighted again is the core difference between tying to be moral or trying to be practical, trying to be Ned or trying to be Tywin.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

So many options... off the top of my head:

First, there is the tiny sample size all involving men intent on violence.

Second, there is an easy parallel to draw to dragons, in being more of a force of nature than evil aggressor.

Third, its extremely easy to imagine how men would be the aggressors from their point of view.

Waymar challenged the Other, the Other apparently fought one on one until Waymar was defeated... even by westerosi standards that is honorable. They even allowed his companion to escape.

It also still seems like you can't get past the vengeance thing. 

Someone has to be the bigger person to break a cycle of vengeance. Being wronged is not enough of a reason to do wrong.

No, it most certainly does not. That's kind of the whole point.

Wrong again.

There is no guarantee that a good deed will be reciprocated. That doesn't make it any less the right thing to do. See Ned and Cersei.

Wrong again.

What you see is the difference between vengeance and justice. There is a difference between enforcing the law and a personal vendetta.

I would add that it is a very short sited analysis if you forget the role the brotherhood without banners plays in the story.

First, you learn their language, then you try to understand them as more than just evil aggressors.

This applies to any meeting of cultures, and while supernatural and fantastical, is a direct parallel to a society and the "other". Whether that other is human or ice creature seems immaterial to the morality of it.

The arguments you are making could all be made about the Wildlings for instance. Taking it even further it is the sort of argument made by colonists about natives, and I would say is pretty categorically recognized as immoral.

And again, doing the right thing in no way guarantees a positive outcome for you personally, nor does it mean others will certainly do the right thing. By the same token, the ends do not justify the means.

What we are seeing highlighted again is the core difference between tying to be moral or trying to be practical, trying to be Ned or trying to be Tywin.

Being "moral" is not the same thing as being a pushover.

Ned took up arms against Aerys, after all.  If the wildlings or the Others crossed the Wall, of course Ned would fight in defence of his people.

[Mourning Star]

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Iraq didn't actually attack the U.S. Japan did, and GRRM has said he approves of WW2 while he opposed war with Vietnam (who did not attack the US).

The argument for the Iraq war was that WMDs posed an existential threat to the US.

The argument for Vietnam was that the spread of Communism was an existential threat to the US.

The argument for fighting the Others (who have not attacked the Seven Kingdoms) is that they pose an existential threat to Westeros.

WW2 is more complicated than just Japan attacking the US, although this is one difference from the above, there was also the entire European Theatre to consider.

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The Others aren't muggers just after money. They're killing people and turning them into wights. There's no attempt to do anything else

This is untrue.

Both the duel with Waymar and interactions with Craster point to more complex motivations.

It is absolutly worth finding out what they want! Which is part of understanding them.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Others, I'm sure, have real grievances against humans.  But you go too far in trying to exonerate their actions, and in arguing in favour of turning the other cheek to them

I have not exonerated anything or anyone.

Trying to communicate and striving for peace doesn't mean exoneration, it is just an attempt to do the right thing.

Also, trying to communicate and striving for peace isn't even the same as turning the other cheek (a biblical expression I find to be poor and wouldn't use, personally).

[Mourning Star]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Being "moral" is not the same thing as being a pushover.

Ned took up arms against Aerys, after all.  If the wildlings or the Others crossed the Wall, of course Ned would fight in defence of his people.

I agree, being moral doesn't mean being a pushover.

Ned was betrayed, he didn't surrender willingly… so I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I agree, being moral doesn't mean being a pushover.

Ned was betrayed, he didn't surrender willingly… so I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What I'm saying is that it is entirely legitimate, and in no way immoral, for people who are threatened by the Others to defend themselves and their loved ones from them.

[Mourning Star]

Just now, SeanF said:

What I'm saying is that it is entirely legitimate, and in no way immoral, for people who are threatened by the Others to defend themselves and their loved ones from them.

ok... again, I don't understand how that is relevant.

An individual under direct personal threat defending themselves is not comparable to large scale war.

Nor is defending yourself a solution to the conflict.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

ok... again, I don't understand how that is relevant.

An individual under direct personal threat defending themselves is not comparable to large scale war.

Nor is defending yourself a solution to the conflict.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

I think what I'm saying is entirely comprehensible