Your aunt? Or Dany? Cuz one of those.... :O

Are you saying that from personal experience? Are you blonde?

1.) Twice I believe.  And don't strawman the argument. I didn't say it's not ok to question the source. Daenerys is free to do that.
I wouldn't have any complaints if she did because she knows that her source was a magical unconventional one. The issue is that Jon asked what's normally a very intimate and innaprpriate question that coincidentally happened to not such an answer.
"I tried many times, but I always had a miscarriage" would have been a very possible response. It was not appropriate for Jon to ask that at this point.
Similar to when Jon, one of the most polite and formal characters in the series, called her "Dany" all of a sudden. That's not great writing. That's out of character, and fanfic material.

2.) Yeah, my thoughts exactly when I watched that scene. It seemed like D&D were only thinking about what Dany would reply, rather than what what someone normally could have replied, from Jon's perspective. And why a person in Jon's position would not ask that question.

3.) Daenerys could get pregnant in the books without discrediting the witch as an unreliable source. That's a dumb way to go about it. And if there's enough supporting evidence, it's not a major assumption. Just in the past two-three episodes, Tyrion brought up the question of succession. Jorah told Jon to pass Longclaw down to his children. And now Jon suggests that maybe she can get pregnant after all, shortly before he has sex with her.
When you say it's good writing, I'm not going to wait two years to point out when it is not, or when it may not be.
Whether she ends up pregnant or not, Jon asking her about such intimate details, and calling her Dany, was out of character. And if she does because "the witch was just wrong", that's shitty writing.

4.) Speaking of major assumptions though, what evidence supports that Targaryen rule on the iron throne has "nothing to do with the wheel"? "You once spoke to me of breaking the wheel. Aegon built the wheel."
Aegon is obviously refering to Aegon the Conqueror. Otherwise they would specify which one they were refering to. He was the first king of the seven kingdoms. He created that system. The wheel probably refers to the iron throne ruling system supported by the major houses of the seven kingdoms that push the wheel forward.

5.) Asha was reportedly renamed Yara to avoid confusion with the wildling Osha. Jon was not named Aegon to avoid any such confusion.

6.) To have a proper discussion about the writing.
Unlike that comment of yours, which is obviously just flamebait, because you know exactly what the point was.
Childish provocation attempts and adding "lol" every other sentence only makes it look like you don't have confidence in your arguments to speak for themselves. Which is why I stopped doing that when I was 14. <-- Example: I could have added an "lol" here.

Rant:

Why would you give two of your children the same exact name? It seems like the only reason the show writers did that was because there is an Aegon Targaryen (supposedly) alive in the books. So it was just some stupid fanservice? Will some random person be called Stoneheart next?

And I wasn't a fan of how the negotiations went. I expected them to say that they don't think they can beat the dead on their own. And point out the difference between a Wight and a Whitewalker, and that if they lose, they will be added to the armies of the dead immediately, etc. Cercei later mentions that she's heard stories about Whitewalkers as a child, but it's unclear if she fully understands the threat they're dealing with. She speculates about the loss of a Dragon without considering that it may be an undead dragon now. And we didn't get to hear exactly what Tyrion said to "convince" her.

I wish Euron wasn't in the background for most of the season.  Hopefully he gets more screentime for season 8.

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.

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.