Do you think that the fact Jaime, Tyrion and even Tywin (to an extent) are beloved by the fandom while Cersei is hated indicates some sexism?

[BalerionTheCat]

13 hours ago, frenin said:

At Winterfell she has chambers assigned to her, chambers where it's not weird for Jaime to follow her.

Then, why did they were in this tower where anyone could surprise them?

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Isn't your quote a proof that is Jaime the one who is always iniating it anyway? If she's always waiting...

She apparently likes it that way (is it sexist to blame not just him for that?). But sometimes, like Darry, she couldn't wait. Again, we can't say which case which one started it. And it doesn't really matter. It's how this kind of relation came to exist that matter.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

He certainly believes he has,

Not this case, obviously. Even he didn't care about the risks. BTW, by doing this, she evidences she doesn't care for her children either. They are just her tools. Because only thru them, can she rule.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Those are all men who by station or by relationship Cersei cannot subdue.

She tried anyway. For Ned at least. Robert and she made each other life miserable. I don't know who was not deserving it.

She succeeded only with Jaime. And only for a time.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Again, kinda like Jaime.

Not the same kind anyway. But there is some hope for him. Just read this thead. Not my posts.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

You keep getting upset when i use the word drone and then you turn around and come up with even more egregious descriptions. Enslaved? Really?

A slave thinks and sometime revolts. A drone, a robot, a machine, doesn't. Do you see the difference? This is where Jaime stands. Figuratively. We're not at Meereen.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

That she claims that Jaime was born holding her foot means that she's the older and that she believes she shoould be in charge, not that she ever was. 

Yes. There is a lot she believes she control when she's not. But more true for Jaime than for others. Then why does she believe this? Because she had some success with him. Not anymore.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

She never cared about those men but Jaime. And as I said before using sex to subdue someone, you better not care for them else you end up being the one subdued..

Yes. But she is more like Littlefinger there. Only loving herself. She is quite the narcissist. She believes she loves her children, Jaime. But her actions are all for herself. Yes, she became very dependent on Jaime. About sex to. But love is a weird thing for her.

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Arguing that Cersei's responsible of Jaime's jealousy, regardless of how nasty and sexist Cersei's character is, is indeed sexist.

It's not Jaime's jealousy which is the problem. I don't understand why he was caring for her for so long (unless...). It's the fact that they came to this kind of abomination. I think the Lannister family, those who had the care of the children, are the most to blame. But because of it, we have this Cersei and that Jaime. Or there was some rotten, incurable flaw in her. Like in some Targaryens.

[Ring3r]

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I fundamentally disagree, for a few reasons.

Firstly that's a dangerous road imo where you're likely to whitewash like, Nazi eugenics or you know, some other Nazi shit. So, that's not great.

The other major reason is, who the hell really knows what it was like? Only some dying ex Nazis now, and they were practically children back then. 

All I know is the morals I was taught and learned, in the case of asoiaf GRRM is alive while I'm alive (can't say we're the same age lol) and raised and lived in a place not to far (in the grand schemes) from mine. So I believe the chances are good that we could see eye to eye on many things.

I expect we very likely do see eye to eye on plenty of things.  We had a bit of a disagreement, but we sorted it out.  It's very common for people to have disagreements when their opinion on something is CLOSE to the same but not quite.  Because then it's all about the details and for some people, the details are everything.  I suspect both you and I are in that club.

I understand your POV about the whole dangerous road thing, though I don't agree.  If people take the mindset of simply not judging people in the past at ALL...yeah, exactly what you said, you get people totally ignoring real major problems.  However, I would argue that there needs to be a balance....the culture at the time does need to be accounted for - not blindly, but the question "why" needs to be asked, because sometimes there are valid reasons.  Not to excuse it, but to understand it.  The flip side of what you said about nazis is....if no effort is made to view things from a historical perspective.....history will repeat, because people will not know why things happened the way they did.  One of the most common reactions to the holocaust is "I don't understand how the German people could have let this happen."

It's a balance.  Understanding how things happened, why they happened, not immediately judging, etc. 

For example, there were very real, VALID reasons why, in the past, women were not generally in leadership roles.  Prior to modern medicine, death during childbirth was not uncommon, and questions of succession regularly led to wars of succession. Producing an heir was of vital importance, literally to maintain the stability of the civilization.  Back then, for women, producing an heir literally put their life at risk.....not a good recipe for societal stability, should she die.  Suddenly you have NO clear monarch and things would immediately devolve into chaos.  That's a very real pragmatic concern, and it was written about in historical texts.  Despite that, there were several very successful historical leaders who happened to be women, so it wasn't some kind of rule...just a general practice.  Modern medicine has essentially eliminated that now...but it WAS a real problem. 

So, that sort of comparison is what I mean by not viewing things through a modern lens: I don't mean obviously horrible things like the holocaust, but subtle things that were influenced by very real pragmatic facts about the world in that time period.

Basically, I think it's extremely important to look at WHY things used to be the way they did.  When truly terrible things happened, examining the why allows us to hopefully avoid a repeat performance. And it also helps us gain perspective.  We, as humans, have not improved.  We've never changed. We're still capable of all the same evil and good.  I think it's very important to understand how and why the past played out the way it did, because all of us are capable of exactly the same things. Nobody wants to admit it, but it's true.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

I expect we very likely do see eye to eye on plenty of things.  We had a bit of a disagreement, but we sorted it out.  It's very common for people get in disagreements when their opinion on something is CLOSE to the same but not quite.  Because then it's all about the details and for many people, the details are everything.

Ok cool, so I'll take the (I hope lol) basic assumption that your heart goes out to Ukraine. So, when does history start and current events end? In Crimea? Georgia? How far do we have to go back before we can officially label Putin an asshole?

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

However, I would argue that there needs to be a balance....the culture at the time does need to be accounted for.  Not to excuse it, but to understand it. 

They're an ignorant bunch though, and the further we go back the stranger they often act. Eventually they're so strange I can't really recognize any type of morality, mainly the middle ages. 

I also don't get what's the harm in judging them, am I hurting Richerd the Lionhearts feelings?

Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a colonist. He thought that slavery was wrong and black people should be free... And move back to Africa. There were people at the time like Frederick Douglass who told him that was stupid, the colonists fear that black people and white people can't live in harmony was already proven wrong in some northern cities, and obviously 150 years later today it's taken as a fact. So I agree we should look at why, but if their ignorance is mistaken then so be it, it's still ignorant and wrong. (Could be wronger, and Abraham Lincoln is not Richard I but a paragon of greatness, even if he carries all this and more baggage, but like Richard, he's not accepting my compliment)

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

The flip side of what you said about nazis is....if no effort is made to view things from a historical perspective.....history will repeat, because people will not know why things happened the way they did.  One of the most common reactions to the holocaust is "I don't understand how the German people could have let this happen."

Cuz they were a bunch of nazis lol. Probably less then 40% in the 30s but god knows how many by the end. There were definitely brave Germans (Europeans) who took families in and hid them until who knows, so I'm certainly not ragging the whole nation(s) at the time but, there were also mad fucking nazis.

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

For example, there were very real, VALID reasons why, in the past, women were not generally in leadership roles.  Prior to modern medicine, death during childbirth was not uncommon, and questions of succession regularly led to wars of succession. Producing an heir was of vital importance, literally to maintain the stability of the civilization.  Back then, for women, producing an heir literally put their life at risk.....not a good recipe for societal stability, should she die.  Suddenly you have NO clear monarch and things would immediately devolve into chaos.  That's a very real pragmatic concern, and it was written about in historical texts.  Despite that, there were several very successful historical leaders who happened to be women, so it wasn't some kind of rule...just a general practice.  Modern medicine has essentially eliminated that now...but it WAS a real problem. 

But really the French revolution did away with that, or wwi eventually. I agree that the life of a princess in a tower sounds, um, worse then mine? I gotta say I can't feel too bad because their monarchy itself is worth judgment. 

And I do hear what your saying and it is pretty interesting but the life of women back then, queen or not wasn't fun for other reasons. The fucking dresses get me. If women wore pants the theory is they would immediately get on a horse and leave, so life sounds bad if that's the constant fear. Joan of Arc was burned alive for wearing fucking jeans, it's an ignorant and strange world.

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

Basically, I think it's extremely important to look at WHY things used to be the way they did.  When truly terrible things happened, examining the why allows us to hopefully avoid a repeat performance. And it also helps us gain perspective.  We, as humans, have not improved.  We've never changed. We're still capable of all the same evil and good.  I think it's very important to understand how and why the past played out the way it did, because all of us are capable of exactly the same things. Nobody wants to admit it, but it's true.

I think humans are capable of doing evil, sure. But I also think we can do good. More good then before too, progress is progress and all that 

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I also don't get what's the harm in judging them, am I hurting Richerd the Lionhearts feelings?

Feel free to berate him all you like. He nearly bankrupted England with his succession of wars and the time he got captured and his mother had to rescue him. Ransom nearly bankrupted the country. If he hadn't been so bad then maybe King Jon wouldn't have been so bad either (actually that's probably not true as John seemed to be a piece of work anyway, but...). So much bad about that man...

[the trees have eyes]

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They're an ignorant bunch though, and the further we go back the stranger they often act. Eventually they're so strange I can't really recognize any type of morality, mainly the middle ages. 

This kind of lazy sweeping statement is the problem.  Quite obviously we have thousands of years of human history and just because you don't see your own contemporary morals and personal values reflected in the past doesn't mean there aren't any.

And viewing a work of fiction through the same lens creates the same problem.  E.G. In story and in most characters' eyes Ned is a highly honourable and moral man yet you seem to have a particular problem with him.  No one's defending hereditary monarchy or the feudal system but most people are able to accept the framework of ideas and belief systems in world and understand characters in how they relate to them.

So Ned executing a deserter from the NW is not amoral, Jaime throwing Bran out of a tower window is.  Those folks from the middle ages would have had no problem judging the morality of Jaime's actions btw.

[Nevets]

In judging the morality of characters in a series like this one (and historical figures), I tend to look at whether they have reason to think differently.  For stuff like role of women and of children, feudalism, death penalty, etc., I go with the flow, as they have no contrary examples or ideas.  Stuff like slavery, rape during war, and the like are already widely considered wrong.  Simple pillaging of property is a gray area.  It seems to be accepted if not too violent.  Essentially I kind of use a sliding scale. 

[Hugorfonics]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Feel free to berate him all you like. He nearly bankrupted England with his succession of wars and the time he got captured and his mother had to rescue him. Ransom nearly bankrupted the country.

I heard a story that when Elanor paid Richards ransom the Austrians put all the money into defense and a few hundred years later wound up defeating the turks and saving christendom, so its kinda funny to think Richard was actually successful in the crusades

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

If he hadn't been so bad then maybe King Jon wouldn't have been so bad either (actually that's probably not true as John seemed to be a piece of work anyway, but...). So much bad about that man...

I kinda like him lol. My theory is if the whole middle ages sucked then the antagonists maybe werent that bad. Like many of the cushy govt jobs were given to smallfolk and foreigners which from a noblemans perspective is terrible but from mine its just a meritocracy. I also respect robbing the church blind and then writing a letter saying "lol, jk" and having the pope forgive you and then becoming best friends at the expense of the noblemen. 
It sucks he lost his dads empire, but his dad was lucky to have created it anyway, and his brother really did his best to weaken it.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

This kind of lazy sweeping statement is the problem.

What seems to be the problem officer? Who cares if I judge, say, Christopher Columbus?

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Quite obviously we have thousands of years of human history and just because you don't see your own contemporary morals and personal values reflected in the past doesn't mean there aren't any.

For sure, just that their morals and values often come up sort

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

And viewing a work of fiction through the same lens creates the same problem.  E.G. In story and in most characters' eyes Ned is a highly honourable and moral man yet you seem to have a particular problem with him. 

I have problems with Eddard, sure. But I wouldnt say its his immorality (except with Theon, fuck him for that. A few other things too) but more like his lethargy. I do think that Ned knows the difference between wrong and right, which I wouldnt about most asoiaf characters.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

No one's defending hereditary monarchy or the feudal system but most people are able to accept the framework of ideas and belief systems in world and understand characters in how they relate to them.

Accept their framework? Theyre barbarians, And honestly the barbarism of Westeros isnt lost on its people, Arya and co all see what Hoster did in RR. I understand how these characters work, and im not in favor of it.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

So Ned executing a deserter from the NW is not amoral, Jaime throwing Bran out of a tower window is.  Those folks from the middle ages would have had no problem judging the morality of Jaime's actions btw.

Taking your 6 your old to watch you decapitate some dude for the crime of temporary insanity is immoral, I could care less what the (fictious) contemporaries have to say.

eta
So I do understand that Ned is helping Bran enter this dark world we call Westeros, likely I understand why Balon should give up a hostage. So while I disapprove of both, one being hard parenting the other being human trafficking, I do understand that in their world this is good politics. Idk, its hard to see Bran being pushed into this strange world but I suppose Im in it for the ride, Theon however, I could never apporve of taking a crying child away from his grieving parents (unless, reasons, but modern reasons lol. Like the parent is likley to cause harm to the child, I promise, Theons mom does not want to harm her hild)

[frenin]

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Then, why did they were in this tower where anyone could surprise them?

Why did they were in the sept where anyone could surprise them? Why do it next to Robert's sleeping body?

Dunno man, these siblings live for the thrill.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

She apparently likes it that way (is it sexist to blame not just him for that?). But sometimes, like Darry, she couldn't wait. Again, we can't say which case which one started it. And it doesn't really matter. It's how this kind of relation came to exist that matter.

The relationship came to exist because they were both attracted to each other.

Unless you're arguing Cersei forced him into love him her.

 

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

She tried anyway. For Ned at least. Robert and she made each other life miserable. I don't know who was not deserving it.

She succeeded only with Jaime. And only for a time.

She tried to get leverage with Ned in exchange of sex, that's not submission.

She succeeded with Jaime by creating a codependent relationship? That's not submission.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Not the same kind anyway. But there is some hope for him. Just read this thead. Not my posts.

I have, I disagree with them.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Not this case, obviously. Even he didn't care about the risks. BTW, by doing this, she evidences she doesn't care for her children either. They are just her tools. Because only thru them, can she rule.

 

 

I mean, caring about your children it's not exempt from making selfish decisions  but no, I don't believe Cersei is a good mother.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

A slave thinks and sometime revolts. A drone, a robot, a machine, doesn't. Do you see the difference? This is where Jaime stands. Figuratively. We're not at Meereen.

Your argument is that Jaime is brainwashed into making idiotic decisions right up he loses his hand.

Then Jaime neither thinks nor does he rebel. He's effectively a drone.

 

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes. There is a lot she believes she control when she's not. But more true for Jaime than for others. Then why does she believe this? Because she had some success with him. Not anymore.

She believes this because she's literally the older.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes. But she is more like Littlefinger there. Only loving herself. She is quite the narcissist. She believes she loves her children, Jaime. But her actions are all for herself. Yes, she became very dependent on Jaime. About sex to. But love is a weird thing for her.

She's a narcissist, like Jaime.

He believes he loves her but he only wants to possess her ans and dreams about beating her bloody when he hears she slept with others.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Theons mom does not want to harm her hild

Theon's mom is not the one responsible of Theon. It's his idiotic dad, the one who had just gotten three of his other sins killed and a lot of his people slaughtered. Since you cannot give Theon's mom full custody and replacing Balon with another Lord would likely mean more uprisings and killing Theon anyway. Taking Theon is more humane and pragmatic.

Good guy Ned.

[Hugorfonics]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Theon's mom is not the one responsible of Theon. It's his idiotic dad, the one who had just gotten three of his other sins killed and a lot of his people slaughtered. Since you cannot give Theon's mom full custody and replacing Balon with another Lord would likely mean more uprisings and killing Theon anyway. Taking Theon is more humane and pragmatic.

Good guy Ned.

But not more humane or pragmatic the doing, you know, nothing.

A good guy he may be, but a fool and a hopeless player he is too. What did Theons abduction accomplish? Did it stop Balon from going to war? Did it create an unbreakable bond between Greyjoy and Stark? Or did it just fuel Theon with revenge and information on how to take Winterfell?

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

What seems to be the problem officer? Who cares if I judge, say, Christopher Columbus?

Who cares about your value judgments?  But your comment was 

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They're an ignorant bunch though, and the further we go back the stranger they often act. Eventually they're so strange I can't really recognize any type of morality, mainly the middle ages. 

"any type of morality".  From the middle ages and by extension any period beforehand.  That's a lazy sweeping comment that is astonishingly silly.  Value systems and morals are as old as human thought and there's any number of philosophers, scholars, jurists, clerics, political theorists and diarists writing about these concepts from the ancient world onwards.  You could try a public library or Amazon if you're really scratching your head.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Accept their framework? Theyre barbarians,

How so?  Is it the lack of enlightenment philosophy that defines their ignorance in your eyes? 

It's a pointless judgment.  The story is set in a medieval world and yet our characters are not amoral barbarians.  Well, not all of them....  We're meant to be able to tell the difference or at least argue about it, not condemn them all with a few keystrokes 

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Taking your 6 your old to watch you decapitate some dude for the crime of temporary insanity is immoral, I could care less what the (fictious) contemporaries have to say.

In contemporary terms it would be both an illegal and amoral act.  Taking a child along to watch would also be irresponsible if not abusive and would likely lead to some questions from child welfare services.

But of course the whole scenario is both preposterous and impossible to imagine in our world.

In a fictional medieval setting it's absolutely unremarkable by the author's rules.  There is no defence of temporary insanity and the man is a deserter who knows well this punishment.  Bran is deemed old enough to watch and neither of his parents or any of his siblings find this contentious or worthy of note.

If you think them all amoral barbarians what do you get out of reading this?

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I could care less what the (fictious) contemporaries have to say.

Then you do care, just not an awful lot, since you could care less. 

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Then you do care, just not an awful lot, since you could care less. 

I don't understand the logic behind this variation of the expression. Where I live we say "couldn't care less", which actually conveys what it's supposed to...

[Aldarion]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't understand the logic behind this variation of the expression. Where I live we say "couldn't care less", which actually conveys what it's supposed to...

It is just people not knowing English.

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

It is just people not knowing English.

Proposal: Instead of 'British English' and 'American English', there should be 'English' and 'American'.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Who cares about your value judgments?  But your comment was 

"any type of morality".  From the middle ages and by extension any period beforehand.  That's a lazy sweeping comment that is astonishingly silly.  Value systems and morals are as old as human thought and there's any number of philosophers, scholars, jurists, clerics, political theorists and diarists writing about these concepts from the ancient world onwards.  You could try a public library or Amazon if you're really scratching your head.

I believe humans are inherently good, so for sure there was like maybe a few dude giving bread to a homeless man a bunch of times over a few thousand years but humans are also born ignorant. So we can look at Sparta and their Helots and think borderline evil but does that make the Athenian democrats good? Now for sure, their invention of democracy was a shining moment of humanity but it's not what I would call a democracy because it's fundamentally ignorant and wrong.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

How so?  Is it the lack of enlightenment philosophy that defines their ignorance in your eyes? 

It helps

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's a pointless judgment.  The story is set in a medieval world and yet our characters are not amoral barbarians.  Well, not all of them....  We're meant to be able to tell the difference or at least argue about it, not condemn them all with a few keystrokes 

The story is set in a made up land, it's more horror show then anything real. Scary land with monsters and Professor x's. I think we can understand why theyre stuck in the dark ages and constantly at war.

There are characters who are more barbaric then others, sure. But (almost) all are warlords who only want to carve their share of power. That is a similarity with our middle age.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

In a fictional medieval setting it's absolutely unremarkable by the author's rules.

Ned succeeded in rebellion, he took the capitol and the throne itself. I don't understand why he follows rules, especially if they're immoral.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

If you think them all amoral barbarians what do you get out of reading this?

Idk, entertainment? What does anybody get out of this. I like the bad guy, Tony Montana like. 

Besides I don't think all, I like Davos and Brienne and Edmure. I also see the struggle in most characters like Tyrion Dany Catelyn Jon, etc. 

 

26 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Then you do care, just not an awful lot, since you could care less. 

Lol thanks for that. Missed you Kissd 

[kissdbyfire]

27 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't understand the logic behind this variation of the expression. Where I live we say "couldn't care less", which actually conveys what it's supposed to...

That was the point I was trying to make…

 

21 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lol thanks for that. Missed you Kissd 

welcome and ditto! 

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

That was the point I was trying to make…

I am not very intuitive with these kinds of things over the internet 

[Jaenara Belarys]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is just people not knowing English.

You should see some people I know. 

It amazes me that some people can get through years of schooling and not know that "I" needs to be capitalized. 

I think we need a Davos. 

[Ring3r]

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ok cool, so I'll take the (I hope lol) basic assumption that your heart goes out to Ukraine. So, when does history start and current events end? In Crimea? Georgia? How far do we have to go back before we can officially label Putin an asshole?

They're an ignorant bunch though, and the further we go back the stranger they often act. Eventually they're so strange I can't really recognize any type of morality, mainly the middle ages. 

I also don't get what's the harm in judging them, am I hurting Richerd the Lionhearts feelings?

Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a colonist. He thought that slavery was wrong and black people should be free... And move back to Africa. There were people at the time like Frederick Douglass who told him that was stupid, the colonists fear that black people and white people can't live in harmony was already proven wrong in some northern cities, and obviously 150 years later today it's taken as a fact. So I agree we should look at why, but if their ignorance is mistaken then so be it, it's still ignorant and wrong. (Could be wronger, and Abraham Lincoln is not Richard I but a paragon of greatness, even if he carries all this and more baggage, but like Richard, he's not accepting my compliment)

Cuz they were a bunch of nazis lol. Probably less then 40% in the 30s but god knows how many by the end. There were definitely brave Germans (Europeans) who took families in and hid them until who knows, so I'm certainly not ragging the whole nation(s) at the time but, there were also mad fucking nazis.

But really the French revolution did away with that, or wwi eventually. I agree that the life of a princess in a tower sounds, um, worse then mine? I gotta say I can't feel too bad because their monarchy itself is worth judgment. 

And I do hear what your saying and it is pretty interesting but the life of women back then, queen or not wasn't fun for other reasons. The fucking dresses get me. If women wore pants the theory is they would immediately get on a horse and leave, so life sounds bad if that's the constant fear. Joan of Arc was burned alive for wearing fucking jeans, it's an ignorant and strange world.

I think humans are capable of doing evil, sure. But I also think we can do good. More good then before too, progress is progress and all that 

Sure, of course I feel for the people of Ukraine.  Hell, back when Crimea was seized, a man who I attended the Captains Career Course with (the military does exchange programs to cross train with allies) died.  He'd been recalled from class to go back to Ukraine and we were informed he was KIA less than a month later.  War is always awful for the people, regardless of where it is.  The government is another story.....BOTH sides' leaders are bad.  Zelinsky immediately jailed his political competition upon gaining office and there's a huge contingent of nazi groups in the country that are receiving direct support from the government (and everyone elses).  Nothing is ever simple.

As for people in the past being an ignorant bunch....that's kind of what I'm trying to get at:  We are too.  500 years from now people will be reading history books and laughing at how stupid we are.  And 500 years after that, the same will happen to them.  Every generation thinks they're so far advanced from the previous...when all that's changed is the tools at our disposal.

 

[Ring3r]

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But not more humane or pragmatic the doing, you know, nothing.

A good guy he may be, but a fool and a hopeless player he is too. What did Theons abduction accomplish? Did it stop Balon from going to war? Did it create an unbreakable bond between Greyjoy and Stark? Or did it just fuel Theon with revenge and information on how to take Winterfell?

Actually, Theon being raised in Winterfell DID prevent Balon from going to war.  He didn't go to war until Theon was back under his control.  And as the story progresses, it does seem that it DID create a bond between Greyjoy and Stark.  Not Balon, for sure...but Theon yes. As he recovers, I think you'll find that he's quite loyal to the Starks.