HBO: Game of Thrones (Song of Ice and Fire)

[Anders]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

[BurtReynolds]

It's kinda weird that for all the talk of morally ambiguous, complex characters, the Starks are pretty much saints. And there is no shortage of absolutely evil villains either (Joffrey, Ramsay, Euron).

I'm a big fan of the mix, actually.

[epilogue]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

[E.H. Ruddock]

that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

uh, wildfire or dragon glass sword, duh.

[Anders]

Nobody is going to be sitting on the Iron Throne at the end of this. And the idea that anyone has a right to rule because of some birthright is silly. This isn't the story of daenerys taking back what is hers. It was never hers to take.

that would be a great direction for this to take. I've never felt particularly sympathetic to Dany's claim.

It's very unlikely that any society will live with anarchy. Pretty much every human society has ended up with a leader. The chair is not important, the position is. They could split into smaller regions again of course.

Jon is practically democratically elected, at least by medieval standards, by both The Watch and The North. So was Robb.

This is true. He is the heir to both Robert Baratheon, The Mad King, Rhaegar, and the elected king of the north. He is also a good person and a good ruler.

[Anders]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

She mentioned history, so it was natural to reply about it.

[malice]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

forget it dct, he's obviously more intelligent than the likes of me, so much so that repeated statements of the same thing obviously blow my points to pieces.

I am defeat incarnate.

[epilogue]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

forget it dct, he's obviously more intelligent than the likes of me, so much so that repeated statements of the same thing obviously blow my points to pieces.

I am defeat incarnate.

Wanna go grab a beer?

[Anders]

How do you judge a character then? Was Joffrey ok? Ramsay? Theon? Dany? No, none of them in any definition. Even in a Fantasy series. Ned Stark and Jon Snow are obviously good.

[Anders]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

forget it dct, he's obviously more intelligent than the likes of me, so much so that repeated statements of the same thing obviously blow my points to pieces.

I am defeat incarnate.

I don't get the attitude in the middle of a normal argument.

[epilogue]

How do you judge a character then? Was Joffrey ok? Ramsay? Theon? Dany? No, none of them in any definition. Even in a Fantasy series. Ned Stark and Jon Snow are obviously good.

This kind of argument shows either zero understanding or willful disregard of nuance, subtlety and/or degree. If all you care about is "he is good" and "she is bad" then I'm not sure either of us is going to be able to make much headway with the other. Just as in life, this show is about so much more than just good/evil and black/white. You seem to value only "good" and "obvious good" at that. Again, that's not valuable to me and not something I have much interest in discussing as it regards Game of Thrones and its characters.

[Anders]

How do you judge a character then? Was Joffrey ok? Ramsay? Theon? Dany? No, none of them in any definition. Even in a Fantasy series. Ned Stark and Jon Snow are obviously good.

This kind of argument shows either zero understanding or willful disregard of nuance, subtlety and/or degree. If all you care about is "he is good" and "she is bad" then I'm not sure either of us is going to be able to make much headway with the other. Just as in life, this show is about so much more than just good/evil and black/white. You seem to value only "good" and "obvious good" at that. Again, that's not valuable to me and not something I have much interest in discussing as it regards Game of Thrones and its characters.

I see nuance in a lot of characters. But it is fairly clear that we will not agree on Dany. Whatever I say is sort of tossed away as something not thought through, or perhaps just silly.

I think though, you may now see why I would think it would be a bad idea for Jon Snow to bend the knee. Even if you don't agree.

[Norah]

He'll pull a Torrhen Stark and go down there with no intention of bending the knee. Then he'll see some dragons and be like "welp, Warden of the North, King in the North, what's the difference?"

[epilogue]

How do you judge a character then? Was Joffrey ok? Ramsay? Theon? Dany? No, none of them in any definition. Even in a Fantasy series. Ned Stark and Jon Snow are obviously good.

This kind of argument shows either zero understanding or willful disregard of nuance, subtlety and/or degree. If all you care about is "he is good" and "she is bad" then I'm not sure either of us is going to be able to make much headway with the other. Just as in life, this show is about so much more than just good/evil and black/white. You seem to value only "good" and "obvious good" at that. Again, that's not valuable to me and not something I have much interest in discussing as it regards Game of Thrones and its characters.

I see nuance in a lot of characters. But it is fairly clear that we will not agree on Dany. Whatever I say is sort of tossed away as something not thought through, or perhaps just silly.

I think though, you may now see why I would think it would be a bad idea for Jon Snow to bend the knee. Even if you don't agree.

I'm not tossing away anything you're saying as silly, I'm saying you're using false equivalence to make a point, thereby invalidating your argument. You may know a lot about world history but that's irrelevant to a discussion about a fictional fantasy tv show that isn't playing by real world rules; even if some of the plot lines were inspired by actual events.

At which point in world history did an army of blue-eyed, frozen, undead, zombie monsters rise up from a thousand year sleep to invade the lands of the living? At which point did a woman survive a burning inferno unscathed and hatch three dragon eggs? The rules of the game are different in the show than in real life. You can't play one game using a different game's rule book. It's like trying to use the rules of Monopoly to understand how Wall Street works.

And, no, I still don't understand your point about Jon not bending the knee. As far as I can tell it still makes sense from a character perspective and from a story perspective and from a political perspective.

[Anders]

He'll pull a Torrhen Stark and go down there with no intention of bending the knee. Then he'll see some dragons and be like "welp, Warden of the North, King in the North, what's the difference?"

Perhaps. The dragons might love him though.

[malice]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

forget it dct, he's obviously more intelligent than the likes of me, so much so that repeated statements of the same thing obviously blow my points to pieces.

I am defeat incarnate.

I don't get the attitude in the middle of a normal argument.

you do not allow for discussion of various interpretations of the characters or the story universe, you only allow for agreement of your opinion. That deserves whatever it is you're labelling as attitude, although had you known me better, you'd know this type of comment is nowhere near attitude.
You don't want a dissenting opinion such as mine? Cool, i cried uncle. And for it i get labeled with 'attitude'. So surprised!

[Norah]

He'll pull a Torrhen Stark and go down there with no intention of bending the knee. Then he'll see some dragons and be like "welp, Warden of the North, King in the North, what's the difference?"

Perhaps. The dragons might love him though.

Even if he doesn't fear them personally doesn't mean he can't acknowledge their power.

[Anders]

How do you judge a character then? Was Joffrey ok? Ramsay? Theon? Dany? No, none of them in any definition. Even in a Fantasy series. Ned Stark and Jon Snow are obviously good.

This kind of argument shows either zero understanding or willful disregard of nuance, subtlety and/or degree. If all you care about is "he is good" and "she is bad" then I'm not sure either of us is going to be able to make much headway with the other. Just as in life, this show is about so much more than just good/evil and black/white. You seem to value only "good" and "obvious good" at that. Again, that's not valuable to me and not something I have much interest in discussing as it regards Game of Thrones and its characters.

I see nuance in a lot of characters. But it is fairly clear that we will not agree on Dany. Whatever I say is sort of tossed away as something not thought through, or perhaps just silly.

I think though, you may now see why I would think it would be a bad idea for Jon Snow to bend the knee. Even if you don't agree.

I'm not tossing away anything you're saying as silly, I'm saying you're using false equivalence to make a point, thereby invalidating your argument. You may know a lot about world history but that's irrelevant to a discussion about a fictional fantasy tv show that isn't playing by real world rules; even if some of the plot lines were inspired by actual events.

At which point in world history did an army of blue-eyed, frozen, undead, zombie monsters rise up from a thousand year sleep to invade the lands of the living? At which point did a woman survive a burning inferno unscathed and hatch three dragon eggs? The rules of the game are different in the show than in real life. You can't play one game using a different game's rule book. It's like trying to use the rules of Monopoly to understand how Wall Street works.

And, no, I still don't understand your point about Jon not bending the knee. As far as I can tell it still makes sense from a character perspective and from a story perspective and from a political perspective.

I wasn't using world history as an argument at all until I was confronted with European history. I simply replied to that.

I made a historically impossible, purely fictional example of modern day America, simply as an illustration of the violent and megalomaniac quotes that I borrowed directly from Dany. If you are a citizen in King's Landing, I do not think those would make you sleep well at night.

Jon as he knows it, had his uncle and grandfather killed by her father. He is now king of the North, and none there wants him to be ruled by her. You are saying he should bend the knee to someone who has never been in the north, never lived in Westeros, has conquered no land, and has a foreign army known for a brutal culture beyond what is normal in Westeros, and all of these use a religion that is hated by his people.

[Anders]

He'll pull a Torrhen Stark and go down there with no intention of bending the knee. Then he'll see some dragons and be like "welp, Warden of the North, King in the North, what's the difference?"

Perhaps. The dragons might love him though.

Even if he doesn't fear them personally doesn't mean he can't acknowledge their power.

True. A powerful weapon against the white walkers they can be.

[Anders]

Because you're applying modern concepts of rational behavior when they don't apply.

My point exactly

But still wrong.

No, it's not. This isnt a historical dramatization of humanity and tge rise and fall of civilizations, it's a fantasy based world that exists in a time period that see a crossbow as the coolest most advanced weapon out there.

European history isnt terribly civilized btw, you fuckerz squabbled over thrones in just as barbaric and uncivil ways as the show, just minus the dragons etc. But ok you are the ultimate authority, im a lowly slob who holds not validity in my statements. Naturally.

I've studied world history, and no doubt Dany would be considered a crazy invader at any point in history.

I guess it's a good thing that GAME OF THRONES ISN'T A HISTORICAL DRAMA then.

forget it dct, he's obviously more intelligent than the likes of me, so much so that repeated statements of the same thing obviously blow my points to pieces.

I am defeat incarnate.

I don't get the attitude in the middle of a normal argument.

you do not allow for discussion of various interpretations of the characters or the story universe, you only allow for agreement of your opinion. That deserves whatever it is you're labelling as attitude, although had you known me better, you'd know this type of comment is nowhere near attitude.
You don't want a dissenting opinion such as mine? Cool, i cried uncle. And for it i get labeled with 'attitude'. So surprised!

Then I must apologize. That was not my intention.