EPTOn May 15 2013 02:47 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
My vote is for book-readers. They're the most evil.
My vote is for book-readers. They're the most evil.
Books: the most evil invention in human history.
[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 832
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
Books: the most evil invention in human history. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote: Someone throwing a kid thourgh a window, even to protect himself and the one he loves, is evil. In a show and in reality. Thing is, he was much better than other evil characters, because he was also light hearted and utterly cool, while Joffrey is a maniac and people like littlefinger don't have any of his charisma. Oh well, I hope they don't fuck up the "good" Jamie. Saving 4 lives for the price of 1 is evil? take this evil/good argument out of this thread pls, this isn't grade school | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:33 dudeman001 wrote: I also think the two most evil characters come down to Joffrey and the torture guy. The torture guy is probably worse since his actions have been so detailed. Joffrey is still just like a bully with a lot of power. Torture guy isn't just brutalizing Theon, he's completely destroying Theon's will. Nah it's got to be Joffrey. So far we have seen that J will kill innocents, the torturer (who by the way I think is connected to Bolton owing to the X he has Theon strapped to) has only been torturing Theon who, you know, burned down Winterfell. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:41 sc4k wrote: Nah it's got to be Joffrey. So far we have seen that J will kill innocents, the torturer (who by the way I think is connected to Bolton owing to the X he has Theon strapped to) has only been torturing Theon who, you know, burned down Winterfell. Theon burned Winterfell while being knocked out? | ||
|
TotalNightmare
Germany139 Posts
While he clearly is willing to sacrefice almost if not everything for the ones he loves he is also completely ruthless in doing so, furthermore he has quite a liking for his drama. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote: Yes, it absolutely is evil, actually.Littlefinger's not evil, he's just immoral; the difference is he is neutral and only does what benefits him where The Mountain, for instance, holds his brothers face to the fire fo touching a wooden knight he hadn't touched for years. Neutrality (doing whatever benefits himself the most) isn't really 'evil'. Also who is the new maester? On May 15 2013 03:10 chillpenguin wrote: His code of ethics involves performing live experiments on the unwilling. Having "a code" doesnt mean you arent evil for fucks sake. His 'code' [which we have no indication he has one, merely that hes willing to experiment on living people to satiate his own curiosities] is barbaric and cruel.Qyburn, the maester who was at Harrenhal who patched up Jaime. He definitely isn't evil, he just follows a different code of ethics than your standard maester. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote: Yes, it absolutely is evil, actually. His code of ethics involves performing live experiments on the unwilling. Having "a code" doesnt mean you arent evil for fucks sake. His 'code' [which we have no indication he has one, merely that hes willing to experiment on living people to satiate his own curiosities] is barbaric and cruel. He has saved more people through his medicine than he killed. I can easily argue how he is good, it is all about context | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:47 CrimsonLotus wrote: Theon burned Winterfell while being knocked out? well he took winterfell and killed the kids and did he kill the old guy too? I forgot exactly what he did. But if the torturer is connected to Bolton then he does technically have some sort of reason for finding Theon to be a criminal and not innocent like Joffrey's victims. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On May 15 2013 04:10 sc4k wrote: well he took winterfell and killed the kids and did he kill the old guy too? I forgot exactly what he did. But if the torturer is connected to Bolton then he does technically have some sort of reason for finding Theon to be a criminal and not innocent like Joffrey's victims. The only truly terrible thing Theon did was kill those two innocent farmer's boys in place of Bran and Rickon; it was made clear that pretty much everything else was done by his fellow Iron Islanders or the Bolton's who took over the city after their desertion. In a sense, Theon's torture is a very real punishment for what ended up being a largely illusory tyranny on his part. Edit: I suppose I forgot Rodrik's execution, so yeah, he did some bad shit, but I daresay most of it was predicated on his perverse desire to be accepted by his own people rather than any inherent evil. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Again, I am justifying only this one small aspect and nothing else. I must stress that. And since Qyburn is simply an extension of this aspect, then yes, people are being saved (including Jaime) thanks to the unwilling sacrifices of previous dying patients. | ||
|
Jophess
United States95 Posts
On May 15 2013 04:10 sc4k wrote: well he took winterfell and killed the kids and did he kill the old guy too? I forgot exactly what he did. But if the torturer is connected to Bolton then he does technically have some sort of reason for finding Theon to be a criminal and not innocent like Joffrey's victims. Theon took over Winterfell, killed Ser Rodrik, and pretended that two dead children were Bran and Rickon. The Iron men then knocked Theon out, killed Maester Luwin and left. I believe that's about all we know in regards to what happened at Winterfell. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On May 15 2013 04:15 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: You have to kill a few to save many. By pushing forth his unorthodox experiments on the dying, Qyburn was able to figure out how to save later patients by using his experimentation. A real-life parallel would be how we can save a lot more people from hypothermia-related problems due to the experiments performed in the Holocaust. Yes, the Holocaust itself was a huge atrocity, second only to Stalin's Great Purges in my opinion, but this one small aspect of it, the icewater experiments, turned the lives of 100 prisoners into great advances in that area of medicine that allows us to save thousands today. If it were not for the 100, this research would take longer to develop and more people would die in the interim. Again, I am justifying only this one small aspect and nothing else. I must stress that. And since Qyburn is simply an extension of this aspect, then yes, people are being saved (including Jaime) thanks to the unwilling sacrifices of previous dying patients. wow. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On May 15 2013 04:15 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: You have to kill a few to save many. By pushing forth his unorthodox experiments on the dying, Qyburn was able to figure out how to save later patients by using his experimentation. A real-life parallel would be how we can save a lot more people from hypothermia-related problems due to the experiments performed in the Holocaust. Yes, the Holocaust itself was a huge atrocity, second only to Stalin's Great Purges in my opinion, but this one small aspect of it, the icewater experiments, turned the lives of 100 prisoners into great advances in that area of medicine that allows us to save thousands today. If it were not for the 100, this research would take longer to develop and more people would die in the interim. Again, I am justifying only this one small aspect and nothing else. I must stress that. And since Qyburn is simply an extension of this aspect, then yes, people are being saved (including Jaime) thanks to the unwilling sacrifices of previous dying patients. You can't reduce good/evil down to a mechanical comparison between lives saved and lives lost. Defining good and evil is a lot more complicated than that. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 15 2013 04:21 Mercy13 wrote: You can't reduce good/evil down to a mechanical comparison between lives saved and lives lost. Defining good and evil is a lot more complicated than that. You can if that is how your view is structured, would you kill 50 to save 100? That is why this debate is pointless, good and bad are not inherent within us, but rather things we created. | ||
dravernor
Netherlands6191 Posts
He is a somewhat good character in my opinion, just misdirected and he doesn't think before he acts. Also he treated his 'salt wife' atrociously. Minus points there. | ||
|
CursedRich
United Kingdom737 Posts
On May 14 2013 11:19 SamsungStar wrote: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say then that it is now transitioning into an ensemble show? The Tyrells are major figures. Stannis is still a major figure. Geoffrey is setting himself in opposition to his grandfather, so the Lannisters are starting to split into multiple factions. Littlefinger is building into a major player and Lord Bolton seems to be making moves as well. The war is spreading and becoming more chaotic, less good vs evil. People are trying to judge GoT now as if each season needs a full narrative arc, when the story doesn't necessarily lend itself to that structure. Also, I totally disagree that Season 2 can simply be summed up as Tyrion's rise and fall. Tyrion was a major plot arc but it's arguable that Season 2 was more about the fall of House Baratheon and the vengeance of House Stark than Tyrion. Which is why analyses like these tend to be rather futile. Plot progression is quite simply learning new details and events about the main narrative of the series, which is the Game of Thrones. Who is going to sit the Iron Throne when the dust settles? And there's been plenty of new information and events in Season 3 that affect who takes the throne. Anyone who argues otherwise has not been paying attention. To me, some of the biggest plot events have been the further cementing of an alliance between House Tyrell and Lannister. The loss of Jaime's hand and his possible death. The beheading of Karstark, which is a HUGE event. Just because there wasn't some huge bang-up battle doesn't mean it wasn't a massively important event. Robb Stark lost half his damned army with one stroke of his sword. That to me is way crazier than some random on-screen battle. The wildlings are confirmed crossing the wall. Daenerys gaining an army. How can one possibly say the plot hasn't moved forward? I just wanted to compliment you on this post, I was going to write something similar. I would just add that the significance of Lord Bolton's actions is also a HUGE event and something that i'm finding compelling at the moment- because like you - I enjoy the addition of these new layers because of what implications they may or may not have going forwards and that for me is why this story and all its disparate threads and complexities is so deep and rewarding compared to other TV. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Did you see the look on Qyburn's face when he was performing on Jaime? When has Littlefinger ever been sadistic? Littlefinger is more of a chaotic neutral if anything. Doing what benefits you personally isn't evil at all, it's selfish - and some might even argue rational. Definitely not evil though, or all of us are evil and the distinction becomes meaningless. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On May 15 2013 04:25 biology]major wrote: You can if that is how your view is structured, would you kill 50 to save 100? That is why this debate is pointless, good and bad are not inherent within us, but rather things we created. Debatable, but this probably isn't the place : ) I def. agree that this debate is silly though. Sentinel's viewpoint was just sillier than most. No one who puts any thought into it can seriously argue that absolutely the only thing that matters is lives saved on one hand, versus lives lost on the other. If you want to discuss this further please pm me. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote: Yes, it absolutely is evil, actually. Just saying "it absolutely is evil" isn't any type of counter argument to personal neutrality... He doesn't do what he does for any evil notion but to push him to the top, there's no sadism or psychopathic jerks that compel him, he's calculated and extremely competent; you can argue he is a sociopath but not evil or if you do, say more then "absolutely" as if that holds any merit. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote: Saving 4 lives for the price of 1 is evil? take this evil/good argument out of this thread pls, this isn't grade school Most grade schools actually don't do much moral philosophy. Most universities do quite a bit of it. It's even important in your major, re: Maester Experiments-a-lot On May 15 2013 04:36 Hitch-22 wrote: Just saying "it absolutely is evil" isn't any type of counter argument to personal neutrality... He doesn't do what he does for any evil notion but to push him to the top, there's no sadism or psychopathic jerks that compel him, he's calculated and extremely competent; you can argue he is a sociopath but not evil or if you do, say more then "absolutely" as if that holds any merit. Just when I thought you and I were on the same page on this after the "rape" debate. Rape is rape. Evil is evil. A million things go into an evil decision, as into any, but that doesn't change its fundamental character. Immoral means evil, by definition, clear and simple. Amoral means without moral cumpunction, which is what you're talking about. But it is wrong to say that it is not "evil" to act solely on your interests, as though sociopaths are the only people in the world capable of evil. The "law of the jungle," where the strong take from the weak, the rich oppress the poor, and men mistreat women is evil. We all follow it sometimes, usually quite often, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. | ||
| ||
