|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 08 2013 00:40 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 00:35 Talin wrote:On June 08 2013 00:24 SamsungStar wrote:
No. Producing illegitimate heirs and trying to pass them off as legitimate is a grievous crime in Westeros. That is why cuckolding the rightful lord of a holding is considered more morally wrong than sleeping with the miller's wife. Please understand how feudal society works. You have literally no evidence for that whatsoever. I understand exactly how feudal society works in terms of law and custom - but you're applying those principles as arguments in context of morality, which is inherently wrong. To say it in simple terms - a person wouldn't feel more guilty for sleeping with a Queen as opposed to sleeping with a miller's wife. He would just feel more scared (of the punishment if found out). This is the difference you're failing to acknowledge. A society's laws are based on the overall agreed upon moral code of the people. Even if it's not at the first, then eventually everyone is made to see it as so.
There's no overall-agreed-upon moral code in this case. In historical terms, something like that could only fall into the domain of religious doctrine. Such was the case with medieval Christianity.
The crime is greater simply because the ruling class, being the ultimate law in the land, WANT IT to be greater to protect their power and family line, and are not overly concerned with adultery involving a miller's wife. There is no inherent feeling of wrongness that is more present in one case than the other. Feudal law is purely practical in origin, it is not based on moral values of the general population.
|
On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
She's not compassionate. Compassion is all-encompassing. It is not based on morality. Daeny choosing to help one group and slaughter the other is not compassionate. It's just biased. This has been discussed in the thread before, as has the futility of judging based on your own moral compass rather than that of the world they live in. Yet you continue to do it, which shows you don't understand how the fantasy genre works.
You don't understand how life works. You judge people by your morality. If your morality is grossly out of line with the rest of enlightened humanity, you are probably immoral. Dany is compassionate. Just because she is ruthless to slavers does not make her not compassionate. She cares about people, doesn't like seeing them hurt or whipped unnecessarily. I wouldn't look at things done in the past and say 'well, slavery in America was morally valid because it was accepted'. I would say 'the immoral practice of slavery in America was accepted as morally valid because they were an unenlightened society'.
On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
Of those who are playing the game, who is NOT the most good?
Cersei? She's protecting the lives of her SONS. If she loses the war, her entire family is slaughtered. Can you blame her for fighting the war?
Cersei is not a good person she is obviously not the worst but not great. She couldn't care less about helping anyone and she doesn't have a caring bone in her body for anyone who is not related to her.
Stannis? He's protecting the lawful integrity of the kingdom. To him, he is the most righteous of all the claimants, and when Renly stole his bannermen and tried to claim the throne for himself he betrayed his family thereby forfeiting his life. If Stannis loses, Westeros becomes a land of chaos where illegitimate bastards are allowed to rule.
That's got nothing to do with morality. Stannis is not a particular moral or immoral person.
Robb? Avenging his murdered father, his kidnapped sisters, his maimed brother. All he did was win battles. I didn't see anything too morally reprehensible out of him in terms of mass murder/genocide/atrocities. And if he lost, his family would obviously be destroyed and his own life forfeit. He had very little choice in the matter.
He's dead.
The other people are Tywin (basically ruthless with no redeeming moral features), Frey (no redeeming features), Greyjoy (similarly ruthless and uncharitable), Tyrell (basically female version of Tywin), Joffrey (criminally insane), Margarey (not sure if anything she does is legit). Not many others really. Dany is clearly the goodest of them.
|
Cersei is not a good person she is obviously not the worst but not great. She couldn't care less about helping anyone and she doesn't have a caring bone in her body for anyone who is not related to her.
And doesn't really get along with most of her family at this point anyway.
|
Wooooo. You're spending way too much time discussing which people are good and which people are bad.
People aren't good or bad. People are people. When they do good things, they're good. When they do evil things, they're bad. It's not contradictory for someone to be completely good one day and completely evil the next. Now depending how you want to paint the person, you can look at either the good or the bad stuff.
Discussing which characters are good in Martin's world is missing the point by a mile. It's pretty sad, really, that you are still stuck on this.
|
On June 08 2013 00:55 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 00:40 SamsungStar wrote:On June 08 2013 00:35 Talin wrote:On June 08 2013 00:24 SamsungStar wrote:
No. Producing illegitimate heirs and trying to pass them off as legitimate is a grievous crime in Westeros. That is why cuckolding the rightful lord of a holding is considered more morally wrong than sleeping with the miller's wife. Please understand how feudal society works. You have literally no evidence for that whatsoever. I understand exactly how feudal society works in terms of law and custom - but you're applying those principles as arguments in context of morality, which is inherently wrong. To say it in simple terms - a person wouldn't feel more guilty for sleeping with a Queen as opposed to sleeping with a miller's wife. He would just feel more scared (of the punishment if found out). This is the difference you're failing to acknowledge. A society's laws are based on the overall agreed upon moral code of the people. Even if it's not at the first, then eventually everyone is made to see it as so. There's no overall-agreed-upon moral code in this case. In historical terms, something like that could only fall into the domain of religious doctrine. Such was the case with medieval Christianity. The crime is greater simply because the ruling class, being the ultimate law in the land, WANT IT to be greater to protect their power and family line, and are not overly concerned with adultery involving a miller's wife. There is no inherent feeling of wrongness that is more present in one case than the other. Feudal law is purely practical in origin, it is not based on moral values of the general population.
Religion was THE biggest moral force in medieval society. Did you think peasants were not religious people? That they did not buy wholesale the ideas of divine right? Feudal law is not purely practical. It is justified almost entirely on moral grounds. Please study more about feudal law and the attitudes of the people living in that society. I assure you that the commoners were just as invested and supportive of the system as the lords. Of course, there are rebellions and dissenters in every society, but that is neither here nor there. The majority believed in their validity. Or else the society would have never been able to function. No society is able to function without a tacit agreement by the majority.
|
On June 08 2013 01:00 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
She's not compassionate. Compassion is all-encompassing. It is not based on morality. Daeny choosing to help one group and slaughter the other is not compassionate. It's just biased. This has been discussed in the thread before, as has the futility of judging based on your own moral compass rather than that of the world they live in. Yet you continue to do it, which shows you don't understand how the fantasy genre works. You don't understand how life works. You judge people by your morality. If your morality is grossly out of line with the rest of enlightened humanity, you are probably immoral. Dany is compassionate. Just because she is ruthless to slavers does not make her not compassionate. She cares about people, doesn't like seeing them hurt or whipped unnecessarily. I wouldn't look at things done in the past and say 'well, slavery in America was morally valid because it was accepted'. I would say 'the immoral practice of slavery in America was accepted as morally valid because they were an unenlightened society'. Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
Of those who are playing the game, who is NOT the most good?
Cersei? She's protecting the lives of her SONS. If she loses the war, her entire family is slaughtered. Can you blame her for fighting the war? Cersei is not a good person she is obviously not the worst but not great. She couldn't care less about helping anyone and she doesn't have a caring bone in her body for anyone who is not related to her. Show nested quote +
Stannis? He's protecting the lawful integrity of the kingdom. To him, he is the most righteous of all the claimants, and when Renly stole his bannermen and tried to claim the throne for himself he betrayed his family thereby forfeiting his life. If Stannis loses, Westeros becomes a land of chaos where illegitimate bastards are allowed to rule.
That's got nothing to do with morality. Stannis is not a particular moral or immoral person. Show nested quote +
Robb? Avenging his murdered father, his kidnapped sisters, his maimed brother. All he did was win battles. I didn't see anything too morally reprehensible out of him in terms of mass murder/genocide/atrocities. And if he lost, his family would obviously be destroyed and his own life forfeit. He had very little choice in the matter.
He's dead. The other people are Tywin (basically ruthless with no redeeming moral features), Frey (no redeeming features), Greyjoy (similarly ruthless and uncharitable), Tyrell (basically female version of Tywin), Joffrey (criminally insane), Margarey (not sure if anything she does is legit). Not many others really. Dany is clearly the goodest of them.
Sorry but there's not point discussing this any further with you. Your understanding of basic principles concerning virtually everything is just beyond repair. As is your understand of GoT. Tyrell is a female version of Tywin. LOL.
|
On June 08 2013 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
Wooooo. You're spending way too much time discussing which people are good and which people are bad.
People aren't good or bad. People are people. When they do good things, they're good. When they do evil things, they're bad. It's not contradictory for someone to be completely good one day and completely evil the next. Now depending how you want to paint the person, you can look at either the good or the bad stuff.
Discussing which characters are good in Martin's world is missing the point by a mile. It's pretty sad, really, that you are still stuck on this.
Thinking that all people are on some equal level of morality just because they are capable of bad and good is so facile and missing the point. Some people are better than others because they care more about others in general, are able to feel more sympathy and generally do less bad things. And they are called good people.
On June 08 2013 01:16 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:00 sc4k wrote:On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
She's not compassionate. Compassion is all-encompassing. It is not based on morality. Daeny choosing to help one group and slaughter the other is not compassionate. It's just biased. This has been discussed in the thread before, as has the futility of judging based on your own moral compass rather than that of the world they live in. Yet you continue to do it, which shows you don't understand how the fantasy genre works. You don't understand how life works. You judge people by your morality. If your morality is grossly out of line with the rest of enlightened humanity, you are probably immoral. Dany is compassionate. Just because she is ruthless to slavers does not make her not compassionate. She cares about people, doesn't like seeing them hurt or whipped unnecessarily. I wouldn't look at things done in the past and say 'well, slavery in America was morally valid because it was accepted'. I would say 'the immoral practice of slavery in America was accepted as morally valid because they were an unenlightened society'. On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
Of those who are playing the game, who is NOT the most good?
Cersei? She's protecting the lives of her SONS. If she loses the war, her entire family is slaughtered. Can you blame her for fighting the war? Cersei is not a good person she is obviously not the worst but not great. She couldn't care less about helping anyone and she doesn't have a caring bone in her body for anyone who is not related to her.
Stannis? He's protecting the lawful integrity of the kingdom. To him, he is the most righteous of all the claimants, and when Renly stole his bannermen and tried to claim the throne for himself he betrayed his family thereby forfeiting his life. If Stannis loses, Westeros becomes a land of chaos where illegitimate bastards are allowed to rule.
That's got nothing to do with morality. Stannis is not a particular moral or immoral person.
Robb? Avenging his murdered father, his kidnapped sisters, his maimed brother. All he did was win battles. I didn't see anything too morally reprehensible out of him in terms of mass murder/genocide/atrocities. And if he lost, his family would obviously be destroyed and his own life forfeit. He had very little choice in the matter.
He's dead. The other people are Tywin (basically ruthless with no redeeming moral features), Frey (no redeeming features), Greyjoy (similarly ruthless and uncharitable), Tyrell (basically female version of Tywin), Joffrey (criminally insane), Margarey (not sure if anything she does is legit). Not many others really. Dany is clearly the goodest of them. Sorry but there's not point discussing this any further with you. Your understanding of basic principles concerning virtually everything is just beyond repair. As is your understand of GoT. Tyrell is a female version of Tywin. LOL.
Ok maybe when you finish your first year of philosophy at uni and progress a little we can continue the discussion.
Or perhaps I need to develop my 'understand' a little further.
|
On June 08 2013 00:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
She doesn't necessarily have to put on armor and lead a charge, but she still hasn't done anything. All of the actual logistics are left to the competent servants she has. The only things she's actually done out of her own accord and effort were 1) getting some respect from Khal Drogo so she can treat the women better and 2) tricking the leader of Astapor so he gets roasted (but let's not forget that she immediately orders the slaughter of countless people right after this).
You do realize you can downplay any non-martial character's accomplishments that way, right?
By all rights, she should have been mass raped or sold/taken into slavery the very moment Drogo died. She had no real " protection" once he was gone, and if looks were her only asset, this is exactly what would have happened (and what would have happened to anybody else in her position). This was before the dragons hatched and "she walked in some fire", mind you.
The people that follow her aren't the kind of people that would blindly follow a teenage girl on a nigh impossible quest just because they think she's hot. Neither would a savage tribal chief like Drogo come to respect and even defer to her because of that. She certainly wasn't being compared to Rhaegar because of her looks.
The eggs were a wedding gift, but gifts can easily be taken away. What could she have done against anybody who wanted to take the eggs, or even hatched Dragons the size of a chicken? It's like taking candy from a little girl - in fact that's actually exactly what it would be.
If she managed to do all that by, as you say, not lifting a finger - than that's only a testament to the greatness inherent to her character.
|
On June 08 2013 01:16 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
Wooooo. You're spending way too much time discussing which people are good and which people are bad.
People aren't good or bad. People are people. When they do good things, they're good. When they do evil things, they're bad. It's not contradictory for someone to be completely good one day and completely evil the next. Now depending how you want to paint the person, you can look at either the good or the bad stuff.
Discussing which characters are good in Martin's world is missing the point by a mile. It's pretty sad, really, that you are still stuck on this. Thinking that all people are on some equal level of morality just because they are capable of bad and good is so facile and missing the point. Some people are better than others because they care more about others in general, are able to feel more sympathy and generally do less bad things. And they are called good people. Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:16 SamsungStar wrote:On June 08 2013 01:00 sc4k wrote:On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
She's not compassionate. Compassion is all-encompassing. It is not based on morality. Daeny choosing to help one group and slaughter the other is not compassionate. It's just biased. This has been discussed in the thread before, as has the futility of judging based on your own moral compass rather than that of the world they live in. Yet you continue to do it, which shows you don't understand how the fantasy genre works. You don't understand how life works. You judge people by your morality. If your morality is grossly out of line with the rest of enlightened humanity, you are probably immoral. Dany is compassionate. Just because she is ruthless to slavers does not make her not compassionate. She cares about people, doesn't like seeing them hurt or whipped unnecessarily. I wouldn't look at things done in the past and say 'well, slavery in America was morally valid because it was accepted'. I would say 'the immoral practice of slavery in America was accepted as morally valid because they were an unenlightened society'. On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
Of those who are playing the game, who is NOT the most good?
Cersei? She's protecting the lives of her SONS. If she loses the war, her entire family is slaughtered. Can you blame her for fighting the war? Cersei is not a good person she is obviously not the worst but not great. She couldn't care less about helping anyone and she doesn't have a caring bone in her body for anyone who is not related to her.
Stannis? He's protecting the lawful integrity of the kingdom. To him, he is the most righteous of all the claimants, and when Renly stole his bannermen and tried to claim the throne for himself he betrayed his family thereby forfeiting his life. If Stannis loses, Westeros becomes a land of chaos where illegitimate bastards are allowed to rule.
That's got nothing to do with morality. Stannis is not a particular moral or immoral person.
Robb? Avenging his murdered father, his kidnapped sisters, his maimed brother. All he did was win battles. I didn't see anything too morally reprehensible out of him in terms of mass murder/genocide/atrocities. And if he lost, his family would obviously be destroyed and his own life forfeit. He had very little choice in the matter.
He's dead. The other people are Tywin (basically ruthless with no redeeming moral features), Frey (no redeeming features), Greyjoy (similarly ruthless and uncharitable), Tyrell (basically female version of Tywin), Joffrey (criminally insane), Margarey (not sure if anything she does is legit). Not many others really. Dany is clearly the goodest of them. Sorry but there's not point discussing this any further with you. Your understanding of basic principles concerning virtually everything is just beyond repair. As is your understand of GoT. Tyrell is a female version of Tywin. LOL. Ok maybe when you finish your first year of philosophy at uni and progress a little we can continue the discussion. Or perhaps I need to develop my 'understand' a little further.
I'd say Tyrion is a better person then Dany by far really. He gave Bran blue prints to be able to ride a horse again, defended thousand of innocent lives at Kings landing while risking his own against attackers, defended Sansa Stark from Joffrey to the best of his ability and when forced to marry her didn't consummate the marriage because he knew she didn't want to.
Or Jaime Lannister? He broke his oath to save thousands of lives and got shit on for it for the rest of his life, he has killed ruthlessly but he has also saved many more people then Dany and gotten way more flak for it then she can even imagine. He also showed great sympathy towards Brienne riding all the way back to save her. Does that make up for pushing Bran out the window(Something he only did to save his life and the lives of his own children)?
Do you know for a fact that all those slave owners Dany killed were evil and treated slaves poorly? No, you can't possible know that. Yes owning slaves we can judge as being wrong, but if they didn't treat them that badly did they deserve to burn with the rest of the slave owners? How about all the people that died following her through the desert to Qarth? Do 'good' intentions make up for failure/incompetence and the death of hundreds?
As said to you before, discussing morality in GoT is laughable, half the point of it is that no one character is good or evil. Everyone has their flaws, every one makes mistakes and every one is capable of evil acts and showing sympathy depending on the situation.
|
On June 08 2013 01:12 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 00:55 Talin wrote:On June 08 2013 00:40 SamsungStar wrote:On June 08 2013 00:35 Talin wrote:On June 08 2013 00:24 SamsungStar wrote:
No. Producing illegitimate heirs and trying to pass them off as legitimate is a grievous crime in Westeros. That is why cuckolding the rightful lord of a holding is considered more morally wrong than sleeping with the miller's wife. Please understand how feudal society works. You have literally no evidence for that whatsoever. I understand exactly how feudal society works in terms of law and custom - but you're applying those principles as arguments in context of morality, which is inherently wrong. To say it in simple terms - a person wouldn't feel more guilty for sleeping with a Queen as opposed to sleeping with a miller's wife. He would just feel more scared (of the punishment if found out). This is the difference you're failing to acknowledge. A society's laws are based on the overall agreed upon moral code of the people. Even if it's not at the first, then eventually everyone is made to see it as so. There's no overall-agreed-upon moral code in this case. In historical terms, something like that could only fall into the domain of religious doctrine. Such was the case with medieval Christianity. The crime is greater simply because the ruling class, being the ultimate law in the land, WANT IT to be greater to protect their power and family line, and are not overly concerned with adultery involving a miller's wife. There is no inherent feeling of wrongness that is more present in one case than the other. Feudal law is purely practical in origin, it is not based on moral values of the general population. Feudal law is not purely practical. It is justified almost entirely on moral grounds. Please study more about feudal law and the attitudes of the people living in that society. I assure you that the commoners were just as invested and supportive of the system as the lords.
Did you actually study that topic, or are you only saying that because you naturally assume you're correct and I disagree with your assumptions? You can only "assure me" by providing sources for the affirmative statements you're making, because I've never seen or read anything that would back your statements up (I would certainly like to, though).
Again, note that we're talking about personal morality here. Commoners were invested and supportive of the system because of the protection the system provided them and their families with. As for religion, Christian doctrine in itself does not differentiate between adultery based on the class of people involved, by the way.
|
How can you describe characters as good or bad in TV show that isn't even over yet ? To me, judging a character as black or white happens when you have complete information on said character, and even then, it's often impossible to judge. Some are easy : (history reference : Hitler, but even then you could look at his first 40 years of life and conclude he's a good guy. That's why it's important to have full picture (in before : he was a good guy during his first 40 years of life, still doesnt make him a good guy overall)) but they are rare. You can judge people in their action and determine whether or not they are good in specific domain, however judging them overall is very hard.
Heck I could make an argument as to Joffrey being a better ruler than Dany, doesnt make him a better person than Dany.
|
|
|
On June 08 2013 01:42 SpiZe wrote:
How can you describe characters as good or bad in TV show that isn't even over yet ? To me, judging a character as black or white happens when you have complete information on said character, and even then, it's often impossible to judge. Some are easy : (history reference : Hitler, but even then you could look at his first 40 years of life and conclude he's a good guy. That's why it's important to have full picture (in before : he was a good guy during his first 40 years of life, still doesnt make him a good guy overall)) but they are rare. You can judge people in their action and determine whether or not they are good in specific domain, however judging them overall is very hard.
Heck I could make an argument as to Joffrey being a better ruler than Dany, doesnt make him a better person than Dany.
Redemption can only get you so far. Once you do something terrible, you're bad. The good people still have a chance to be bad, sure. But bad is bad.
|
On June 08 2013 01:59 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:42 SpiZe wrote:
How can you describe characters as good or bad in TV show that isn't even over yet ? To me, judging a character as black or white happens when you have complete information on said character, and even then, it's often impossible to judge. Some are easy : (history reference : Hitler, but even then you could look at his first 40 years of life and conclude he's a good guy. That's why it's important to have full picture (in before : he was a good guy during his first 40 years of life, still doesnt make him a good guy overall)) but they are rare. You can judge people in their action and determine whether or not they are good in specific domain, however judging them overall is very hard.
Heck I could make an argument as to Joffrey being a better ruler than Dany, doesnt make him a better person than Dany. Redemption can only get you so far. Once you do something terrible, you're bad. The good people still have a chance to be bad, sure. But bad is bad.
Wouldn't you agree that realizing you did wrong and admitting it would make a mistake forgivable (with or without punishment but still forgivable) and thus making a person better?
|
I can't remember where I read it, but, its something like this...
If you commit 1 atrocity, you would have to compensate with 5 acts of good, of equal magnitude, to change peoples opinion about you.
Basically more weight is given to negative actions.
|
On June 08 2013 01:33 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
I'd say Tyrion is a better person then Dany by far really. He gave Bran blue prints to be able to ride a horse again, defended thousand of innocent lives at Kings landing while risking his own against attackers, defended Sansa Stark from Joffrey to the best of his ability and when forced to marry her didn't consummate the marriage because he knew she didn't want to.
Tyrion is definitely a good person but because he is not a major player he does not count. There are plenty of good people in the show but who are not actively aiming for the throne. I was originally (AGES BACK) saying that Dany is the only sensible choice to root for to get the throne if you support good people and good actions.
Or Jaime Lannister? He broke his oath to save thousands of lives and got shit on for it for the rest of his life, he has killed ruthlessly but he has also saved many more people then Dany and gotten way more flak for it then she can even imagine. He also showed great sympathy towards Brienne riding all the way back to save her. Does that make up for pushing Bran out the window(Something he only did to save his life and the lives of his own children)?
You can't do grossly immoral things but be excused because you did one very brave and righteous action in the past. The acts of slaughtering the Lannister in the cage as a method of escape and pushing Bran off the window are major minuses in Jaime's record. But I will concede that Jaime is not nearly as bad as he started out, he has 'redeemed' himself to a certain extent. He is not ruthlessly cruel but he is cruelly ruthless. The Brienne thing I file under 'a Lannister always pays his debts', I assume that means not just gold.
Do you know for a fact that all those slave owners Dany killed were evil and treated slaves poorly? No, you can't possible know that. Yes owning slaves we can judge as being wrong, but if they didn't treat them that badly did they deserve to burn with the rest of the slave owners? How about all the people that died following her through the desert to Qarth? Do 'good' intentions make up for failure/incompetence and the death of hundreds?
I already conceded that Dany's actions were over the top but they were not coming from a bad moral place. Dany hasn't displayed any failure or incompetence. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. From being married off into rape-slavery she has played the cards she was dealt better than any character in the show.
As said to you before, discussing morality in GoT is laughable, half the point of it is that no one character is good or evil. Everyone has their flaws, every one makes mistakes and every one is capable of evil acts and showing sympathy depending on the situation.
As I said, for the hundredth time, although this is true, if you can look beyond this facile point, there are clearly people who are more good or more bad than each other. Life is not full of people who are exactly 50% good and 50% evil and equally capable of performing good and bad acts. Some people genuinely are more compassionate than the majority of others and some genuinely are more selfish and cruel. That's why in morality tests, people do not receive the exact same marks.
Also, Joffrey is clearly as close to evil as you can get without growing a pair of horns. The guy murders prostitutes for fun.
On June 08 2013 01:42 SpiZe wrote:
How can you describe characters as good or bad in TV show that isn't even over yet ? To me, judging a character as black or white happens when you have complete information on said character, and even then, it's often impossible to judge. Some are easy : (history reference : Hitler, but even then you could look at his first 40 years of life and conclude he's a good guy. That's why it's important to have full picture (in before : he was a good guy during his first 40 years of life, still doesnt make him a good guy overall)) but they are rare. You can judge people in their action and determine whether or not they are good in specific domain, however judging them overall is very hard.
Heck I could make an argument as to Joffrey being a better ruler than Dany, doesnt make him a better person than Dany.
Well obviously we are judging them by their actions so far as we have seen them. If Dany does something evil or cruel then I'll be the first to stop supporting her and hoping that she 'wins'. Spize, it's not like this forum is life or death. We're all just humouring ourselves discussing the show.
Because you have to wait so god damned long for every episode and season!!!
|
On June 08 2013 01:16 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
Wooooo. You're spending way too much time discussing which people are good and which people are bad.
People aren't good or bad. People are people. When they do good things, they're good. When they do evil things, they're bad. It's not contradictory for someone to be completely good one day and completely evil the next. Now depending how you want to paint the person, you can look at either the good or the bad stuff.
Discussing which characters are good in Martin's world is missing the point by a mile. It's pretty sad, really, that you are still stuck on this. Thinking that all people are on some equal level of morality just because they are capable of bad and good is so facile and missing the point. Some people are better than others because they care more about others in general, are able to feel more sympathy and generally do less bad things. And they are called good people. Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:16 SamsungStar wrote:On June 08 2013 01:00 sc4k wrote:On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
She's not compassionate. Compassion is all-encompassing. It is not based on morality. Daeny choosing to help one group and slaughter the other is not compassionate. It's just biased. This has been discussed in the thread before, as has the futility of judging based on your own moral compass rather than that of the world they live in. Yet you continue to do it, which shows you don't understand how the fantasy genre works. You don't understand how life works. You judge people by your morality. If your morality is grossly out of line with the rest of enlightened humanity, you are probably immoral. Dany is compassionate. Just because she is ruthless to slavers does not make her not compassionate. She cares about people, doesn't like seeing them hurt or whipped unnecessarily. I wouldn't look at things done in the past and say 'well, slavery in America was morally valid because it was accepted'. I would say 'the immoral practice of slavery in America was accepted as morally valid because they were an unenlightened society'. On June 08 2013 00:17 SamsungStar wrote:
Of those who are playing the game, who is NOT the most good?
Cersei? She's protecting the lives of her SONS. If she loses the war, her entire family is slaughtered. Can you blame her for fighting the war? Cersei is not a good person she is obviously not the worst but not great. She couldn't care less about helping anyone and she doesn't have a caring bone in her body for anyone who is not related to her.
Stannis? He's protecting the lawful integrity of the kingdom. To him, he is the most righteous of all the claimants, and when Renly stole his bannermen and tried to claim the throne for himself he betrayed his family thereby forfeiting his life. If Stannis loses, Westeros becomes a land of chaos where illegitimate bastards are allowed to rule.
That's got nothing to do with morality. Stannis is not a particular moral or immoral person.
Robb? Avenging his murdered father, his kidnapped sisters, his maimed brother. All he did was win battles. I didn't see anything too morally reprehensible out of him in terms of mass murder/genocide/atrocities. And if he lost, his family would obviously be destroyed and his own life forfeit. He had very little choice in the matter.
He's dead. The other people are Tywin (basically ruthless with no redeeming moral features), Frey (no redeeming features), Greyjoy (similarly ruthless and uncharitable), Tyrell (basically female version of Tywin), Joffrey (criminally insane), Margarey (not sure if anything she does is legit). Not many others really. Dany is clearly the goodest of them. Sorry but there's not point discussing this any further with you. Your understanding of basic principles concerning virtually everything is just beyond repair. As is your understand of GoT. Tyrell is a female version of Tywin. LOL. Ok maybe when you finish your first year of philosophy at uni and progress a little we can continue the discussion. Or perhaps I need to develop my 'understand' a little further.
I know that we are young, and I know that you may love me... but I just can't be with you like this anymore, sc4kandro!!
|
SamsungStar did you just pull some GaGa on me? Oh no he di'ent.
|
On June 08 2013 01:16 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:09 Nebuchad wrote:
Wooooo. You're spending way too much time discussing which people are good and which people are bad.
People aren't good or bad. People are people. When they do good things, they're good. When they do evil things, they're bad. It's not contradictory for someone to be completely good one day and completely evil the next. Now depending how you want to paint the person, you can look at either the good or the bad stuff.
Discussing which characters are good in Martin's world is missing the point by a mile. It's pretty sad, really, that you are still stuck on this. Thinking that all people are on some equal level of morality just because they are capable of bad and good is so facile and missing the point.
I guess you ought to tell Martin, he's been on several interviews telling people about how that was the point... He's writing the story and he's missing the point, that's pretty bad for the story, wouldn't you say?
|
On June 08 2013 02:03 thOr6136 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 01:59 Gene wrote:On June 08 2013 01:42 SpiZe wrote:
How can you describe characters as good or bad in TV show that isn't even over yet ? To me, judging a character as black or white happens when you have complete information on said character, and even then, it's often impossible to judge. Some are easy : (history reference : Hitler, but even then you could look at his first 40 years of life and conclude he's a good guy. That's why it's important to have full picture (in before : he was a good guy during his first 40 years of life, still doesnt make him a good guy overall)) but they are rare. You can judge people in their action and determine whether or not they are good in specific domain, however judging them overall is very hard.
Heck I could make an argument as to Joffrey being a better ruler than Dany, doesnt make him a better person than Dany. Redemption can only get you so far. Once you do something terrible, you're bad. The good people still have a chance to be bad, sure. But bad is bad. Wouldn't you agree that realizing you did wrong and admitting it would make a mistake forgivable (with or without punishment but still forgivable) and thus making a person better?
oh, I don't know. if Jaime recognized he was wrong in pushing Bran out a window, would his potential forgiveness let Bran walk again?
no. he crippled a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
