|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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
Throwing a child out of a window is the epidome of being good of corse. Who could ever find a fault in that?
Did he have to fuck his sister in Winterfell? NO! They took the risk on their own. I'm disgusted by the suggestion, that this was not an evil thing to do.
|
I have been following and reading this thread for a while and I have come to see that there are 2 types of people in this forum.
People that watch this show and obviously don't think about anything they see and take everything at face value. Those people should probably either not talk on the DISCUSSION forum or watch some other show more suited to them with explosions and an obvious 3 phase story arc and clearly cut out protagonist/antagonist. Too many posts I see people whining about lack of plot progression, which leads to the second type of people.
People who are actually thinking about the story with a more open mind and appreciate the story telling involved. These people are constantly having to defend the story and correct the others points about lack of progression. They actually want to discuss the multidimensional story and characters within it and look deeper than just whats shown.
One of the greatest and most captivating things for me in GoT is the lack of defined good and bad guys, and the nature of chaos throughout the story, nobody is safe from grrm killing them, no body is perfect and lives totally by 1 set of rules.
This season has shown a lot of character development and change to some of the previously "evil" characters. When jamie lost his hand it was a very clever way to essentially kill a character while still keeping them alive(as mentioned in behind the episode) Jamie's world has basically turned upside down and he questions a lot of his own actions and his lifestyle and so of course naturally he changes in a way.
I read a post that said little finger is NOT charismatic, perhaps they over looked the fact he basically rose from nothing to become a lord, and is very devious in getting what he wants. He plays the game very well and every action and every word he says goes towards him elevating himself even higher in the realm.
For those who think the 3rd season should be the whole 3rd book, you wont regret them splitting it up. The last quarter of the book has a lot of stuff happening and it would be too much to cram in to one season. It is not a ploy to get more money... as someone mentioned earlier.
|
On May 15 2013 04:44 Greenei wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 Throwing a child out of a window is the epidome of being good of corse. Who could ever find a fault in that? Did he have to fuck his sister in Winterfell? NO! They took the risk on their own. I'm disgusted by the suggestion, that this was not an evil thing to do. As I said earlier in the thread, if he didnt kill Bran what would the repercussions be? He, his sister, and their childrens lives would be forfeit. Tywin would attempt to defend them, and probably drag another house into the war as well, resulting in the deaths of all the members of the Lannister family, and tens of thousands of bannermen, as well as thousands more of peasents.
It would of been insane [and evil] not to push Bran out the window.
|
On May 15 2013 04:37 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 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 Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:36 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 02:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
shall we have a debate on most evil character? ^_^ The mountain, littlefinger, or that new maester seem to my pick. 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? 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. 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.
Can you show me this immoral means evil definition thrown around somewhere? I'm interested because you seem so concrete.
Immoral means evil, by definition, clear and simple.
Doing "evil" things doesn't inherently make you evil just as doing good things doesn't make you good, if littlefinger saved a falling girl from a building you wouldn't be ready to say "he's such a saint" yet when he turns Ros over to Joffrey, who was going behind his back and fucking with his plans while being his most trusted partner, he's evil!.
You shade things as black or white when they're frankly not.
So as I said, Littlefinger is neutrality at its finest, he does exactly what benefits him and nothing else whether that action is the most saintly thing imaginable or the worst thing ever thus he is a sociopath and unempathetic but not evil, I fail to see where you have given any showing as to why he's evil inherently.
|
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.
No you're wrong. There is nothing evil about acting solely in your own self-interest. It's in my self-interest to drink this bottle of water, that doesn't make it evil.
With regards to your example of "law of the jungle" - these actions are not evil because someone is following their self interest. They are evil moreso because they infringe upon and hurt others.
Being selfish can result in evil or good but in-of-itself is neither. The context is the deciding factor.
If you want to argue Littlefinger is evil, his cunningly ambitious pursuit of self-interest is not the reason why.
|
Pushing Bran out of the window was an "evil" fact, he was 100% innocent and it wasn't his fault in any way that they were doing what they were doing.
But doing an evil deed doesn't make Jaime evil. He didn't do it because he enjoys hurting or killing innocents, but because it was either him, his loved sister and their children or Bran. And he doesn't care about Bran at all.
Jaime is the absolute poster boy for a grey character, he's not a sadistic psycho but in the end he's like most of the human race and only gives a shit about himself and those close to him. Well, at least until losing his hand made him rethink life and Brienne made him see that there is value even in people that may seem beneath him.
That's why he's such a liked character, not because he's good (and he isn't, not by a long shot) but because he's human, just like us the viewers, not one of the extremes like psycho Jeoffrey or a saint like Ned.
|
On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 02:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
shall we have a debate on most evil character? ^_^ The mountain, littlefinger, or that new maester seem to my pick. 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?
Littlefinger sees all things as means to an end - his own ends. He hasn't been involved in many tremendously evil acts but I don't doubt he'd happily undertake them if they benefited him. He easily sees other people as less than human: as investments or tools. I'd place him as evil.
Theon's torturer and the Mountain are probably worse: the former needs no explanation. The latter I'm not really sure of - he's either simply a mad dog with no real conception of morals that acts on animalistic instincts, or a completely evil individual.
|
On May 15 2013 04:45 Chase123 wrote:
People that watch this show and obviously don't think about anything they see and take everything at face value. Those people should probably either not talk on the DISCUSSION forum or watch some other show more suited to them with explosions and an obvious 3 phase story arc and clearly cut out protagonist/antagonist. Too many posts I see people whining about lack of plot progression, which leads to the second type of people.
Or maybe some people completely love season 1 and 2, but not so much with season 3? I don't think those disappointed in S3 are the type of people you point out to be, but ok lets go ahead with your ignorant categorization of negative critics.
|
On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:37 Yoav wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 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:On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 02:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
shall we have a debate on most evil character? ^_^ The mountain, littlefinger, or that new maester seem to my pick. 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? 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. 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. Can you show me this immoral means evil definition thrown around somewhere? I'm interested because you seem so concrete. Doing "evil" things doesn't inherently make you evil just as doing good things doesn't make you good, if littlefinger saved a falling girl from a building you wouldn't be ready to say "he's such a saint" yet when he turns Ros over to Joffrey, who was going behind his back and fucking with his plans while being his most trusted partner, he's evil!. You shade things as black or white when they're frankly not. So as I said, Littlefinger is neutrality at its finest, he does exactly what benefits him and nothing else whether that action is the most saintly thing imaginable or the worst thing ever thus he is a sociopath and unempathetic but not evil, I fail to see where you have given any showing as to why he's evil inherently.
When Varys said Littlefinger would let the whole world burn just so he could rule the ashes, Varys was saying Littlefinger is evil. Perhaps the brilliance of Littlefinger is that he can come off as neutral when he is almost certainly evil. His willingness to sacrifice others and his singular interest in power above all else makes him evil. Afterall, a sociopathic megalomaniac is a good starting ground for an evil character.
I'm getting the impression that Littlefinger is one of the grand architects of this entire game of thrones. It seems he's sowing as much chaos as possible so that he may climb the ladder and rise above his station. And frankly, starting a war to gain position is pretty evil. Of course, this all depends on whether Littlefinger is creating the chaos or merely thriving in it.
|
On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:37 Yoav wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 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:On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 02:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
shall we have a debate on most evil character? ^_^ The mountain, littlefinger, or that new maester seem to my pick. 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? 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. 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. Can you show me this immoral means evil definition thrown around somewhere? I'm interested because you seem so concrete.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Immoral means ‘failing to adhere to moral standards.’ Amoral is a more neutral, impartial word meaning ‘without, or not concerned with, moral standards.’ An immoral person commits acts that violate society’s moral norms. An amoral person has no understanding of these norms, or no sense of right and wrong. Amoral may also mean ‘not concerned with, or outside the scope of morality’ (following the pattern of apolitical, asexual). Amoral, then, may refer to a judicial ruling that is concerned only with narrow legal or financial issues. Whereas amoral may be simply descriptive, immoral is judgmental.
On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:Doing "evil" things doesn't inherently make you evil just as doing good things doesn't make you good, if littlefinger saved a falling girl from a building you wouldn't be ready to say "he's such a saint" yet when he turns Ros over to Joffrey, who was going behind his back and fucking with his plans while being his most trusted partner, he's evil!. You shade things as black or white when they're frankly not. So as I said, Littlefinger is neutrality at its finest, he does exactly what benefits him and nothing else whether that action is the most saintly thing imaginable or the worst thing ever thus he is a sociopath and unempathetic but not evil, I fail to see where you have given any showing as to why he's evil inherently.
Littlefinger is not neutral: he lied about Tyrion (thus starting a war), he betrayed Ned, he murdered Ros. He has explicitly said that chaos is his goal, in an age where chaos means widespread murder and rape. He has also declared his fundamentally motivating principle is revenge, to "fuck" all those who have "wronged" him. He is as close to a morally unambiguous character as we have met. I do expect him to grow more complex, but for now he is the darkest character in the show.
More importantly, however, I 100% agree with you that "doing evil things doesn't make you inherently evil." People are more complicated than that, and those million factors that go into every decision are of the utmost importance in actually evaluating the degree of evil. For instance, Khal Drogo's little kindness in defending his wife's seizure of the slaves can be seen as more morally significant than that he burned a village to the ground, based on his circumstances. Jaime Lannister is one particularly complex character, with great charities and great evils to his name.
|
On May 15 2013 04:47 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:44 Greenei wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 Throwing a child out of a window is the epidome of being good of corse. Who could ever find a fault in that? Did he have to fuck his sister in Winterfell? NO! They took the risk on their own. I'm disgusted by the suggestion, that this was not an evil thing to do. As I said earlier in the thread, if he didnt kill Bran what would the repercussions be? He, his sister, and their childrens lives would be forfeit. Tywin would attempt to defend them, and probably drag another house into the war as well, resulting in the deaths of all the members of the Lannister family, and tens of thousands of bannermen, as well as thousands more of peasents. It would of been insane [and evil] not to push Bran out the window.
This assumes a whole lot: 1. Bran talks about what happened, 2. People believe him, 3. Tywin starts a war over it...
And don't even try to tell me he thought about "the realm" or whatever when he pushed him down. He thought about himself and Cersei and maybe his children. I don't even think that when they would've just confessed, that the children would have to die, because they were at Winterfell at that time and Ned probably wouldn't have allowed it.
Or try to flee with the children and go to exile. Or try to threaten Bran.
This is what a character would have done who isn't completely egoistic.
And even if it is true what you say. Then the mere act of fucking the kings wife is a completely immoral action in and of itself if your discovery results in the death of thousands of people. No matter how you turn it, Jaime acted evil.
|
i was going to say varys or littlefinger are the "most evil". the people that does the work unknown to everyone else. joffery is too stupid to be called "most evil" since he can never be a mastermind. not evil in its essential sense but i guess "dark" and calculated cruelty instead of emotional outburst like joffery or the mountain.
i think jaime always has some good in him but it was always oppressed by his lannister-ness and having to see fucked up shit while in kingsguard and look the other way (mad king, so he cant do anything while the mad king enjoys his shit)
|
On May 15 2013 04:47 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:44 Greenei wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 Throwing a child out of a window is the epidome of being good of corse. Who could ever find a fault in that? Did he have to fuck his sister in Winterfell? NO! They took the risk on their own. I'm disgusted by the suggestion, that this was not an evil thing to do. As I said earlier in the thread, if he didnt kill Bran what would the repercussions be? He, his sister, and their childrens lives would be forfeit. Tywin would attempt to defend them, and probably drag another house into the war as well, resulting in the deaths of all the members of the Lannister family, and tens of thousands of bannermen, as well as thousands more of peasents. It would of been insane [and evil] not to push Bran out the window.
I don't mean to be offensive, and truly don't care for this debate one way or the other, but everyone one of your points is baseless assumption.
at best one may assume fucking the queen is punishable by death, maybe. his kids and the queen could easily live otherwise. hell being a lannister, kings guard, and the queens sister could probably get him off too.
/end assumptions
|
On May 15 2013 05:07 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 04:37 Yoav wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 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:On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 02:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
shall we have a debate on most evil character? ^_^ The mountain, littlefinger, or that new maester seem to my pick. 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? 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. 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. Can you show me this immoral means evil definition thrown around somewhere? I'm interested because you seem so concrete. From the Oxford English Dictionary: Immoral means ‘failing to adhere to moral standards.’ Amoral is a more neutral, impartial word meaning ‘without, or not concerned with, moral standards.’ An immoral person commits acts that violate society’s moral norms. An amoral person has no understanding of these norms, or no sense of right and wrong. Amoral may also mean ‘not concerned with, or outside the scope of morality’ (following the pattern of apolitical, asexual). Amoral, then, may refer to a judicial ruling that is concerned only with narrow legal or financial issues. Whereas amoral may be simply descriptive, immoral is judgmental. Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:Immoral means evil, by definition, clear and simple. Doing "evil" things doesn't inherently make you evil just as doing good things doesn't make you good, if littlefinger saved a falling girl from a building you wouldn't be ready to say "he's such a saint" yet when he turns Ros over to Joffrey, who was going behind his back and fucking with his plans while being his most trusted partner, he's evil!. You shade things as black or white when they're frankly not. So as I said, Littlefinger is neutrality at its finest, he does exactly what benefits him and nothing else whether that action is the most saintly thing imaginable or the worst thing ever thus he is a sociopath and unempathetic but not evil, I fail to see where you have given any showing as to why he's evil inherently. Littlefinger is not neutral: he lied about Tyrion (thus starting a war), he betrayed Ned, he murdered Ros. He has explicitly said that chaos is his goal, in an age where chaos means widespread murder and rape. He has also declared his fundamentally motivating principle is revenge, to "fuck" all those who have "wronged" him. He is as close to a morally unambiguous character as we have met. I do expect him to grow more complex, but for now he is the darkest character in the show. More importantly, however, I 100% agree with you that "doing evil things doesn't make you inherently evil." People are more complicated than that, and those million factors that go into every decision are of the utmost importance in actually evaluating the degree of evil. For instance, Khal Drogo's little kindness in defending his wife's seizure of the slaves can be seen as more morally significant than that he burned a village to the ground, based on his circumstances. Jaime Lannister is one particularly complex character, with great charities and great evils to his name.
Firstly he never said chaos was his goal, he said that all there is left is chaos and it's a ladder and references his climbing through it to the top.
Secondly the act of betraying Ned nor turning Ros over (he never murdered Ros) was inherently an evil act; Robb betrayed the lord (can't recall his name) when he married the wrong girl yet he stands not evil, betrayal for self-interest is not an action that, again, inherently makes you evil.
Also can you reference where he lies about Tyrion? That was Tyrion's blade if I recall correctly, this was no lie.
You haven't, in anyway, made a case that he's anything but a self serving sociopath whom does evil things to benefit himself just as he would do good things if that would also benefit his path. Seems like the same argument I made no? That's because it is and that's because he's not evil.
|
On May 15 2013 04:47 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:44 Greenei wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 Throwing a child out of a window is the epidome of being good of corse. Who could ever find a fault in that? Did he have to fuck his sister in Winterfell? NO! They took the risk on their own. I'm disgusted by the suggestion, that this was not an evil thing to do. As I said earlier in the thread, if he didnt kill Bran what would the repercussions be? He, his sister, and their childrens lives would be forfeit. Tywin would attempt to defend them, and probably drag another house into the war as well, resulting in the deaths of all the members of the Lannister family, and tens of thousands of bannermen, as well as thousands more of peasents. It would of been insane [and evil] not to push Bran out the window.
Now you're just trolling. Come on. I'm hesitant to even explain why pushing an innocent child out the window is a no-no, but here you go.
First, as the other poster mentioned and you ignored, he most probably fucked his sister for amusement. The problem he tried to solve by murdering a child was self-made. Second, every non-cold-blooded person would have tried to have a serious talk with Bran making clear to him that he absolutely must not talk about what he saw. Threaten him with whatever, if you like. Third, as Jaime said himself in season 1 when his sister freaked out about Bran being alive, they could dismiss his account as a child's fantasy/lie. Make up some story why he would lie. Who would believe a child versus the Lannisters, especially when believing the child would bring upon them the inconvenience of making enemies of the Lannisters? Since the accusation of incest is highly offensive and would equal slandering the queen, and the king as well by implying the queen is a pervert, it would have been easy to shut everyone up who dares to make it. Fourth, saying "The things I do for love" before pushing the boy doesn't suggest that he did it for any greater good.
"Tywin would attempt to defend them" against who? You think Ned Stark would call his bannermen to war because Bran says he saw Jaime fuck his sister? Ned Stark, while the whole thing is none of his business, would say to the king, queen, and Lannisters that he doesn't have any proof whatsoever but chooses to believe his 10-year-old? Wtf? And killing Lord Stark's son which very much makes it his business is totally risk-free? We saw that it wasn't. It drew a lot of attention, unsurprisingly.
Tywin would defend them exactly the way we see him doing it now - by denying it.
|
Does it make me a sick fuck that I actually love the Theon scenes? It stirs so much stuff inside of me, and I want to just turn the head, but simply allowing all emotions to just swim up is quite something. Its not that I like it, its really scary in fact, so much pain and suffering. And as all this stuff is floating up, its like there is something within me that is at peace with all this. That hurting the body is not actually hurting you. Its some deep shit. The fear of losing your cock, and behind all this, deep down, it does not matter.
Im just glad we finally have a TV show that has the balls to show us crazyness of the world.
|
On May 15 2013 05:21 Greenei wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 04:47 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 04:44 Greenei wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 Throwing a child out of a window is the epidome of being good of corse. Who could ever find a fault in that? Did he have to fuck his sister in Winterfell? NO! They took the risk on their own. I'm disgusted by the suggestion, that this was not an evil thing to do. As I said earlier in the thread, if he didnt kill Bran what would the repercussions be? He, his sister, and their childrens lives would be forfeit. Tywin would attempt to defend them, and probably drag another house into the war as well, resulting in the deaths of all the members of the Lannister family, and tens of thousands of bannermen, as well as thousands more of peasents. It would of been insane [and evil] not to push Bran out the window. This assumes a whole lot: 1. Bran talks about what happened, 2. People believe him, 3. Tywin starts a war over it... And don't even try to tell me he thought about "the realm" or whatever when he pushed him down. He thought about himself and Cersei and maybe his children. I don't even think that when they would've just confessed, that the children would have to die, because they were at Winterfell at that time and Ned probably wouldn't have allowed it. Or try to flee with the children and go to exile. Or try to threaten Bran. This is what a character would have done who isn't completely egoistic. And even if it is true what you say. Then the mere act of fucking the kings wife is a completely immoral action in and of itself if your discovery results in the death of thousands of people. No matter how you turn it, Jaime acted evil. The assumptions I made are rather likely to occur. You cant whatsoever bet on an eight year old [or w/e] not telling someone that he saw two of the most famous people in the fucking world fuck eachother, especially when its incest and treason. It will happen. Even if people dont believe him right off the bat, it adds ridiculous credence to existing suspicions, which very likely will result in greater investigation. Tywin would start a war over the death of his children and grand children, thats axiomatic. And ned would have no say in the Childrens death, hes warden of the north, Robert is the king. He'd want them dead, and they would die. That simple. Also, explain to me how Cersei and Jaime magically escape Roberts grasp? There in winterfell, right beside him and his men. Even if the shit hit the fan later, they are with Roberts entourage, or in his city-- fuck, they're in his kingdoms, where half the people would want them dead on a good day.
And no, its not immoral to fuck someone who you love and are attracted to, merely because its risky. Its irresponsible and short sighted, not evil.
edit: And so what if he wasnt thinking of the realm [though its entirely plausible that he was] ? It would still be immoral not to defend your children, your sister and your lover. That was the only plausible means of defending them. Bribing or threatening Bran is trite naive nonsense.
|
If you think chaos is Littlefinger's end goal, you didn't pay any attention to his dialogue.
Chaos isn't his ends. Chaos is the means for a man such as Littlefinger to "climb".
|
I don't know what I should think of the last 2 episodes. Basically nothing happened. We have now 2 full seasons with Rob not doing shit at all! At the end of season 1 I thought he would just march to kings landing and kill goeffrey or at least fight a big battle. What happened since then? Nothing! He sits in his tent and fucks his new wife. And from time to time he kills a "traitor". I hope the last 4 episodes of this season will do something crazy.
There was no major shift in the story this season.
Rob will probably conquer Casterly Rock this season but I don't expect any other major events to take place. Season 2 was pretty disappointing, I hope Season3 will deliver more.
|
On May 15 2013 05:32 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 05:07 Yoav wrote:On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 04:37 Yoav wrote:On May 15 2013 03:34 biology]major wrote:On May 15 2013 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:13 Dfgj wrote:On May 15 2013 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I liked Jaime better when he was fucking his sister and killing everybody around. He was an awesome amoral character. No he is on that dumb annoying cliché redeption path. I hate redemptions. I want my awesome vilains to keep being awesome and evil. Thinking he was definitively a villain and evil was the mistake on your part. Fortunately, there's no lack of other evil characters to amuse us all. 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 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:On May 15 2013 03:51 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 03:07 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 15 2013 02:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:On May 15 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
shall we have a debate on most evil character? ^_^ The mountain, littlefinger, or that new maester seem to my pick. 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? 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. 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. Can you show me this immoral means evil definition thrown around somewhere? I'm interested because you seem so concrete. From the Oxford English Dictionary: Immoral means ‘failing to adhere to moral standards.’ Amoral is a more neutral, impartial word meaning ‘without, or not concerned with, moral standards.’ An immoral person commits acts that violate society’s moral norms. An amoral person has no understanding of these norms, or no sense of right and wrong. Amoral may also mean ‘not concerned with, or outside the scope of morality’ (following the pattern of apolitical, asexual). Amoral, then, may refer to a judicial ruling that is concerned only with narrow legal or financial issues. Whereas amoral may be simply descriptive, immoral is judgmental. On May 15 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:Immoral means evil, by definition, clear and simple. Doing "evil" things doesn't inherently make you evil just as doing good things doesn't make you good, if littlefinger saved a falling girl from a building you wouldn't be ready to say "he's such a saint" yet when he turns Ros over to Joffrey, who was going behind his back and fucking with his plans while being his most trusted partner, he's evil!. You shade things as black or white when they're frankly not. So as I said, Littlefinger is neutrality at its finest, he does exactly what benefits him and nothing else whether that action is the most saintly thing imaginable or the worst thing ever thus he is a sociopath and unempathetic but not evil, I fail to see where you have given any showing as to why he's evil inherently. Littlefinger is not neutral: he lied about Tyrion (thus starting a war), he betrayed Ned, he murdered Ros. He has explicitly said that chaos is his goal, in an age where chaos means widespread murder and rape. He has also declared his fundamentally motivating principle is revenge, to "fuck" all those who have "wronged" him. He is as close to a morally unambiguous character as we have met. I do expect him to grow more complex, but for now he is the darkest character in the show. More importantly, however, I 100% agree with you that "doing evil things doesn't make you inherently evil." People are more complicated than that, and those million factors that go into every decision are of the utmost importance in actually evaluating the degree of evil. For instance, Khal Drogo's little kindness in defending his wife's seizure of the slaves can be seen as more morally significant than that he burned a village to the ground, based on his circumstances. Jaime Lannister is one particularly complex character, with great charities and great evils to his name. Firstly he never said chaos was his goal, he said that all there is left is chaos and it's a ladder and references his climbing through it to the top. Secondly the act of betraying Ned nor turning Ros over (he never murdered Ros) was inherently an evil act; Robb betrayed the lord (can't recall his name) when he married the wrong girl yet he stands not evil, betrayal for self-interest is not an action that, again, inherently makes you evil. Also can you reference where he lies about Tyrion? That was Tyrion's blade if I recall correctly, this was no lie. You haven't, in anyway, made a case that he's anything but a self serving sociopath whom does evil things to benefit himself just as he would do good things if that would also benefit his path. Seems like the same argument I made no? That's because it is and that's because he's not evil.
Do I take it from your silence on the other issues that we are agreed on them? They are, to me, the primary point, with the Littlefinger case as just one example.
On Littlefinger:
I'm not saying anyone is evil for one evil act, or even for a thousand. But I do hold that betraying Ned was evil, as was Robb's oathbreaking (not that he really ought to have made the oath to begin with). But it seems false to me to argue that betrayal for self interest is not evil. Again, note I speak of the action, not the person.
Tyrion's blade was his, but Littlefinger went on to encourage them to see Tyrion as responsible for the murder, when--I think we can credit Littlefinger with at least having an ear to the ground--he knows quite well that Tyrion would not have ordered the attack, particularly with his own blade. (Seriously, who arms an assassin sent to kill a child with a blade of such value and rarity when a kitch knife would have done just as well? It was always a transparent set up only invisible to the Starks who know not how the game is played).
Your argument that he didn't kill Ros seems suspiciously like the arguments made with regard to extraordinary rendition... we didn't torture them, just handed them over to those we knew would. Or really any killing by delegation. Mobsters asking a friend to "take care of" someone come to mind.
On chaos: his goal is the crown. He sees chaos as his means to it. He is 10,000th or worse in the line of succession... that means either killing off or cowing every one of those people. His ambition and talent make him cool... I love Littlefinger scenes. But his actions have thus far largely been self-serving and evil. Perhaps he will surprise us--love does things to a man--and I certainly hope he will both as a human and from a literary standpoint. And I am not prepared to say he IS evil, any more than any of us are. But he has done very few things, if any at all, out of a concern with principles or the greater good.
But let's not argue endlessly about just Littlefinger. Someone else said that Varys is evil. Come again? He's a utilitarian, to be sure. But I believe he's truthful about really wanting to help "the realm." Which is rare to non-existent as a concern. Even if his plan is to start a war and have Dany ride in triumphantly to end it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
