Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. The question is: why is there still a NW? There's no threat of the WW anymore and wasn't the free folk now free to go south and all? what is the NW defending the realm from now?
  3. Triskele

    NBA Playoffs 2019 - Kawhi So Serious?!

    People in this thread plus at least a couple ESPN commentators like Billups.
  4. Knight Of Winter

    What binds people together (?)

    I really don't see any condescension either way. If I made a wrong reading of your tone or your meaning - simply point it out and I'll try to correct it. Without implying condescension. Sigh...I only used that phrase because you yourself quoted it from Kalbear's post. It's simple and straightforward, so I assume everyone will understand my meaning. Yeah...that's how inductive reasoning works. If you get repeated evidence for A, you'll assume A is indeed correct, unless you have some good reason to believe otherwise. Else you couldn't prove or disprove existence of anything: you couldn't infer the non-existance of unicorns from repeated observation of non-unicorn animals. So, overall, are there some evidence that morality is at least in part hardwired in brain - yes. Is there evidence to the contrary - that morality is completely taught - no, as far as I know. So I don't see how would it be logically fallacious to assume the former as truth. Of course, if you have proof for the latter case - please present it. Ok, maybe I didn't clarify enough in my first post. There was no two sets of experiments. When I said that A knew that B would reject the "unfair" offer, I thought it was clear that A used his innate moral sense of fairness to see that e.g. 90-10 offer will be considered unfair and assume (correctly) that B will be outraged to even hear it suggested; hence he refrained from making such an offer in the first place. I really didn't come here to dabble in semantics, and my knowledge of English is not good enough to know how strong of a claim wording "pretty much" describes. So I'll put it in simpler terms: every society that I know of, and every society that psychologists I know of who researched that subject - like Haidt and Pinker to a lesser extent - has some universal principles for its morality: fairness, care, purity etc. Yes, they may differ on opinions about "what is pure" or "what is harmful", but core principles remain the same. I won't go into much depth, Kalbear already did it in his response. Of course, should you have any counterarguments which prove the opposite, I'm all ears. I understand your argument here and don't disagree with it much. My point was that "traditional" in-group feeling was based on personal knowledge of your fellow in-group member: he was a part of your tribe; or a colleague; or a freind - in any case, someone whom you knew and interacted on a regular basis; and your "in-group" sentiment was based on that personal relationship the two of you shared. I find it remarkable achievement of human psyche that that same in-group feeling started (in case of nationalism) being based not on personal knowledge of said individual, but on the fact that both of you belong to some vague abstract concept, such as state or religion. Nationalism (in the way we today understand the word) is indeed a recent invention - for it is based of a presumption that all inhabitants of some country share a connection, a bond that unites them into a greater whole known as state. For the most of human history, such a feat was impossible: you could maybe invoke a sense of national pride in e.g. Spanish noble or perhaps a citizen; but majority of population was made of farmers and peasants who couldn't care less about some abstract entity which doesn't influence their daily lives at all. They could perhaps feel a sense of belonging to a local community or some other kind of local-patriotism, but that's as far as it went. Some common connection based of a fact that all of them are part of Spanish nation was non-existent. Peasant from Leon felt no common ground with peasant from Aragon whatsoever. Only in cca 19th century did countries became strong enough, and technology advanced enough for rulers to reach all of their subject and instill in them a sense of common national belonging. As for racism, it's indeed old and common - what I said was that it was not universal; that it was far from norm. Some societies were racist, others weren't. I questioned whether something sporadic (such as racism) could be considered an offshoot of something well-established and universal (such as monkeysphere).
  5. It is worth considering the value of a human with magical blood who can influence of dragons....considering you just fought an army of literal dead I have a hard time understanding how you could think her alliance to you wouldn't be worth what ever the cost considering the futures which were shown as possible. What ever Danys rule would be, what has been demonstrated is that she isn't the worst there is(not by a long shot). Which makes the ending even less believable. She's simply too valuable to kill.
  6. Slurktan

    NBA Playoffs 2019 - Kawhi So Serious?!

    Who is saying this?
  7. Yes, but ... I was commenting on this from you: My comments were the counter-examples that disprove those statements. She was ramping up, not simmering down after KL. And her reign in Essos could have been much death. I am not providing any value judgments on this. The sad thing is that she would not have likely gotten too far with her conquest. One dragon, less than 4,000 Unsullied, and who knows how many Dothraki. She would have had trouble subduing Westeros, particularly if she was ruling only through fear. At best, she gets as far as Braavos. Then the Faceless Men step in, if they don't do so before.
  8. If Dick Cheney, Colon Powel, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, etc. haven't been prosecuted, I don't see Obama going down anytime soon. Ditto Comey, too many powerful friends, especially compared to Trump. It would never fly.
  9. Back door hodor

    The "Val" Option, Jon´s alternative to the Iron Throne?

    The Maesters have thier own agenda, nothing they say can be taken as face value.... In fact in many cases They suppresse actual knowledge and spread falsehoods, evidence by the way the Maesters of the current day refer to the works of Septon Barth, who, spoiler alert, is actually correct about pretty much everything he writes about. As to the OP, I agree with your idea and also agree that thier is no way Lord Snow is going to be smart enough to figure it out. In my opinion, he should have already done it, he refused partly because of who offered it to him(Stannis), which I think was a mistake.
  10. Lady of Mercia

    Why aren’t people intimidated by the dragons?

    And during the Dance a mob killed a bunch of dragons in the Dragonpit. So they would know that it's been done before (even though a ton of people got killed trying).
  11. Dude, you can go back to Washington and you still wouldn't have a sample size large enough to make that kind of determination.
  12. Rose of Red Lake

    Tyrion and Sansa...

    I think they just had to have Yara be a voice of dissent - logic be damned. She's representing a queen that is dead, and she has no clue what Dany was even doing. Dany left her to rot as Euron's prisoner too - this is how Dany treats her allies. Yara didn't even care that Theon had died (we got no reaction from her). A complete rewrite of a character.
  13. the trees have eyes

    People's reaction to Dany turning Mad Queen says something about us as humans

    I think if the Doom of Valyria had been as devastating as the Long Night and if the forces of Fire were as linked to that existential threat of another Doom we might have something massive to be menaced by. As it is we have inhuman ice demons and a legion of zombies on the one hand (clearly not you average run of the mill bad news cycle) but Fire itself seems a magical force embodied by dragons but equally accessible to humans like the Red Priests and is a tool used by and a religion worshiped by humans (not universally but still nowhere near an extinction level threat). The book forum has long seen arguments that the Starks embodied Ice and that Bran or Jon would go Team Ice (or Team Others) and we would have some epic meta-level conflict between primal and magical forces of ice and fire. That didn't happen except in the sense that Fire was a tool for Humanity to defeat Ice but fire didn't menace humanity at all. So it's the imbalance with Fire really being a power to be used by Man that had to be put in the hands of a Mad Queen for us to be reconciled to the message that fire as well as ice, both dragons (Targaryens too) and ice demons have to go. My takeaway atm is that WMD in the hands of unstable ideologues is a bad thing so lets get rid of the WMD and the unstable ideologues too but GRRM (ok, D&D) must appreciate we already thought that. What about Maester Aemon? Incest has it's consequences, sure but Targaryen character is likened to being settled by a coin flip rather than determined by a racial or caste philosophy. Blood in the sense of royalty or nobility matters hugely in this society and it's not particular to the Targaryens. As you're using book as a guide I have to disagree here as I think you use isolated examples that kind of obscure the main point and the change in her thinking. The main point is that she embraces Dothraki culture. She does not do it immediately because she is a terrified 13 year old girl being married to a man at least twice her age and instantly being transported into a culture and way of life that is utterly new and alien to her. She does not speak a word of Dothraki and her husband and most Dothraki do not speak the Common Tongue. But that changes, she adapts, she takes pride in how she integrates into Dothraki culture and in short she goes native. She even makes a Dothraki shirt for Viserys and it is Viserys who shows his scorn for the Dothraki and their culture, calling her a horselord's slut and prompting her memorable rejoinder that he had no right to wear bells in his hair as he had won no battles. That's thinking and talking like a Dothraki. Isn't taking something of the Dothraki mindset towards the Lhazarene - and she hardly goes full hog here - indicative of adapting to one culture's views of another rather than looking down on it from her own supreme self-regard Irri and Jhiqui are valued servants she relies on. I think you mischaracterise her relationship with them as much as you mischaracterize the (two) sexual interactions between Dany and Irri (one initiated by Irri, one by Dany. Well, yes, conceptually. And this is the most fearful thing in human experience, whether Pol Pot emptying Phnom Penh for the Killing fields of Cambodia or Mao deciding that the only thing stopping the Chinese people achieving what he wanted them to achieve was the Chinese people themselves and deciding first to remake society - five year plans and collectivization of agriculture - and then to remake the Chinese people themselves - the cultural revolution - and causing tens of millions of deaths and ushering in immeasurable chaos and suffering. But is there really that much of a wheel to break in Westeros compared with Essos? And do we really need to be shown that using fear and coercion to make people into what you want them to be and slaughtering those who get in the way, whether class enemies, imaginary bourgeois reactionaries, or kulaks or teachers is a bad thing? It takes a particular cold ruthlessness, even sociopathic personality to be so casual about the destruction of so many lives, livelihoods and the things people hold dear to hammer a them into the mould you set for them and ignore the consequences. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all indifferent to human life, it's a pretty hard sell for the girl who wanted to do justice.
  14. Angel Eyes

    Tyrion and Sansa...

    Until she dies and a succession crisis breaks out.
  15. King Jon Snow Stark

    Tyrion and Sansa...

    Yara is still team Dany. She would be keeping tabs.
  16. Rose of Red Lake

    Tyrion and Sansa...

    Greyworm is really far away and I doubt he's keeping tabs. I hope he's hanging out on Naath getting attacked by butterflies.
  17. King Jon Snow Stark

    Tyrion and Sansa...

    They have to hide the id of kid of course. Or Grey Worm will return to kill Jon.
  18. Rose of Red Lake

    Why Did the Show Turn on Jon?

    They really did a complete rewrite of Jon. D&D did a hatchet job on this guy, insisting in interviews that Jon could never tell a lie. But Jon has lied many times in the book so far and I expect him to lie again at some point with Dany. 1. He lied so he wouldn’t have to hang out with his friends: “My lord, will you sup with us? Owen, shove over and make room for Jon.” 2. He lied to his best friend about why his girlfriend was crying: 3. He lied to the wildlings about the defenses at the Wall: 4. He lied to Mance about his loyalties and lied about belonging to Ygritte: 5. He lied to Mance about how many men were at the Fist: 6. He lied about his reasons to avoid fucking Ygritte: 7. He lied by sin of omission to Ygritte: 8. He lied to his girlfriend and pretended to be hers forever and ever: 9. He didn’t tell his friends that they would all probably be dead soon: 10. He lied to his best friend, for the second time, about the fucked up shit he did to his girlfriend, and Aemon clocks that it was a choice indicating maturity: 11. He lies to Mormont about the condition of his burned hand. 12. He intentionally lies to Stannis about the characteristics of Mance's son vs. Crasters to hide his ruse. Later, he admits that if Stannis found out it would be treason. So Jon is already willing to commit treason when necessary.
  19. ummester

    Moral of each characters story?

    I like your overall take on the entire sagas moral message - I thought it was enforced change is dangerous/destablizing but not dealing in absolutes walks hand in hand and fits even better. re the highlighted point - it was an obvious and oft repeated part of the books and show - the things we love destroy us. Getting close to people is dangerous - I think this is a part of how GRRM writes and many people view it as nihilistic because they think that life is all about the relationships they have with other humans but that is only a part of life. I think this is also part of GRRMs philosophy - yea humans, by and large, are bad for each other but that doesn't mean there are not things out there to be happy about.
  20. Are we debating her experiences aren't what caused her actions? Her prior threats were focused on cities where the population truly deserved to be burnt. Kings Landing is more questionable but the circumstances leading to her actions are also more extreme and ultimately they did, as free people, choose to side with Cersi.
  21. Rose of Red Lake

    Why Did the Show Turn on Jon?

    The nobility didn't know about the wildfire and Aerys' wishes to burn them all. They thought Jaime just killed him on a whim to benefit his family. There is no evidence in the show that the nobility doesn't care about the destruction in E5. Cersei's destruction of the sept was similar to what Maegor did. Dany went even further and destroyed the entire city of half a million people. She exterminated people like they were vermin. She flew her dragon up and down the streets like she was plowing a field. Then she gave a speech that indicated she would continue to do this to other places. Dany is the one who makes air strikes and has nuclear weapons. No one else has that ability and her actions are unprecedented.
  22. The Snow Queen

    The "Val" Option, Jon´s alternative to the Iron Throne?

    @wvchemteach No, I actually believe that the dynamic between Jon and Dany in the books will be roughly the same as the tv show. There is some foreshadowing of Jon possibly manipulating Dany and being her treason for love in the books. In Dany's house of undying vision, she sees a sweet-smelling blue winter rose that grows from a chink in a wall of ice. "Sweetness" and "sweet" are very strongly linked with treachery and deceit (covering foulness), poison, sinister people, and death in ASOIAF. For a while, the fandom didn't know what to take from this quote since Jon usually isn't the treacherous and manipulative type. I happen to believe that Jon will manipulate Dany into helping the North for the battle of dawn. Since you watched the show, I assume you have heard of the Political!Jon theory? That may have ended up being nothing in the show, but in the books, though, I see it fully taken place. The character who most likely took Young Griff's storyline in the show is Cersei.
  23. Comey and Clinton close enough? I still see plenty of confident right-wing commentary predicting prison for Obama and Clinton. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html
  24. Today
  25. Loge

    What ever happened to Faceless Man?

    In the books, there's obviously more to them, with their origin as a band of escaped Valyrian slaves. They may actually have been behind the Doom. The show never cared.
  26. Actually, she had been threatening to burn cities since early seasons. King's Landing was merely her finally acting on those threats, and when she did restrain herself, it was always thanks to the external advice. But she suffered losses because of that restraint, and so stopped listening. Everything else you list is just cherry on the top.
  1. Load more activity
×