Hiku said:
JakDaSnack said:
1) I didn't strawman the argument, you should look up the definition before making the claim.
2) What is a sensitive and a personal question depends on the person/culture, Dany brought up the topic giving Jon permission to ask her the question. If he brought it up himself then maybe I might see your point of view, but given the situation there is no way that was offensive.
3) The witch didn't make her barren in the show, so frankly they could have just left it out. Either way, I will gladly reevaluate my position when and if she does indeed have a child both in the books and tv.
4) Your entire argument is that the wheel will no longer be broken because Dany fancy's Jon. You are judging an episode based on what might happen in the future. Chances are he may call it off once he finds out he's a targaryen.
5) We don't know Jon's true name in the books, so it could literally be the exact same situation.
6) I did not provoke you, you took offense to the term "lol". I say lol for various reasons, but rarely to provoke. I couldn't for the life of me understand how you could take so much offense to one line(still don't). I also did not understand the whole point of your statement. I see now that you bolded the word "writing", which I initially missed. But even then, you are saying that the writing of the whole 81 minutes of television was bad because of one simple line.
So no, it was not flamebait, nor was I being childish. Though you were quick to make that accusation.
|
1.) I questioned how appropriate it was for Jon to ask what he did, when he did. Your only reply to that was"possibly after 3 times", without elaborating. You then went on to talk about questioning the source in a general sense. But I never argued that. It's fine if Dany does it.
"giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
Textbook strawman.
You have just presented the definition, and still think I'm giving a strawman? seriously....like seriously? I'm sorry, but if you go back, it's blatently obvious I wasn't strawmaning....if you can't see it then there is no point in continuing this conversation, we can just agree to disagree....I said that after being asked 3 times(or twice whatever) that he then brought it up, and then gave an example as to why I think it was appropriate. THAT IS NOT STRAWMANNING!!!!!!!!
2.) It's pretty evident that the intricate details of procreation are of intimate nature for the characters involved, as it occurs in private, under specific conditions, and the details are seldom talked about.
I figured that your reasoning here would be "she gave him premission by bringing it up", but that's simplifying the situation. Bringing up something in a formal sense does not mean it's automatically ok for the other person to ask for specific intimate details of it.
If someone (you're not in an intimate/close personal relationship with) tells you that their family member is dead, it's not automatically ok to ask how they know this when the answer could be "I saw his splattered corpse on the pavement". Even if their answer conveniently happens to be that they only heard it from an unreliable source. You wouldn't assume that's the only, or most likely, answer.
And even if you do know the person fairly well, and they told you they went to the gynocologist, they're not giving you permission to ask questions that would lead them to explain exactly how they know that they have a specific problem they were diagnosed with. Etc.
The question Jon asked could have very likely prompted an uncomfortable, intimate, and perhaps painful, reply.
And Jon had little reason to even question it in the first place, as if Daenerys wouldn't have thought to questioned it herself if it was warraneted.
That's why he shouldn't have asked that. It's as if the writers only considered the reply Dany would give based on what they know, and not on what someone from Jon's perspective would be thinking.
Have you heard of the word empathy? It means the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. You are judging one line off a tv show with how you perceive the world. Not everyone shares the same feelings as you, just because you took offense, doesn't mean what he said was meant to be offensive. Nor does it mean that the show writers felt it would be offensive. Jon has never been in contact with a barren women before, we might assume that he could have read about it in a book growing up, but that would be assuming. So assuming that he meant that offensively, is wrong on your part. Yes, this would be pleading the ignorance card, but not everyone gets offended by such comments and Dany is depicted as a very strong women in the show, so her getting offended by such a comment would NOT be in character.
3.) I don't recall if there was any significant difference in the book in regards to the witch. But I can't wait years to reply to a comment in a discussion topic about what may come to pass, and what we think of it if it turns out to be the case.
then don't judge it now
4.) What happened to "The wheel has nothing to do with Targaryen ruling"? Specifically the succession of power from the iron throne passed down to children, which is what I specified. What was your interpretation of the wheel that you assessed that the succession of the iron throne had nothing to do with it?
A democracy of sorts.
And my entire argument is not based on Dany fancying Jon. It's if all this about Iron Throne succession, Jora's comment, questioning if Dany is able to have children after all, and them having sex, in the span of two episodes is foreshadowing that her successor will be her own child. Nothing wrong with speculating if there's something to support it, and critique the writing in advance if the alternative is waiting years as I won't be able to comment on what you said then. If it doesn't turn out this way, then I'll be happy.
And I'm certainly not judging the entire episode based on this. I have other complaints about the episode besides just this.
No, there is nothing wrong about speculating, there is something wrong about passing judgement on something that hasn't happened yet.
5.) Sure. But what makes it probable? And at least Yara doesn't have a sibling named Yara. That in itself would cause some confusion.
Irrelevent, I'm not arguing anything. You are turning a suggestion into an argument.
6.) ??? I said "childish provocation attempts and adding lol". Emphasis on the "and". Now you're claiming that I considered the "lol" the provocation and that I took so much offense to it. Only replying to a sentence by saying "Umm ok lol" has its own implications.
Only that I found your comment obsurd (still do). Doesn't mean it is, you might have a decent argument, I just don't see it that way.
But I said that you claiming not to know the point of my post was the attempted provocation. Because it was very obvious what the point of my post was.
It was to you, but as you have made clear time and time again, you love assuming.
I quoted a very very very short sentence by you, where you only mentioned two subjects. Acting and writing.
| Acting and writing were on point this episode. |
Did I say a single word about acting?
No. Then how come it was such a mystery to you what I was refering to?
I didn't even have to bolden the word "writing" for it to be crystal clear that I was questioning the writing, when all I talked about was in regards to writing, and I said things like:
"so that the TV series can bypass the rules that GTRR Martin established"
and
"I also question the writing in regards to *insert a second subject*"
So when you ask what the point of my entire post was, it doesn't sound like you actually have any trouble figuring that out.
Sigh.....Sorry, but arguing with someone who is constantly assumes and calls me a liar is not in my best interest. Like I said last post, I missed you bolding the word "writing". I don't get into a lot of arguments online so I don't always see things being bolded. Yes, I could "assume" that you were saying the writing was bad, but that isn't something I do.
|
