Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="yasas bandara" data-source="post: 20161699" data-attributes="member: 246044">Really? Let’s see how your arguments changed overnight…1.    Early comment   <<All those lies he told himself and others defending himself and his actions, now he understands them for what they were. And now he tries to cleanse himself by doing the right thing.>>You said three things here (A) Jamie lied to himself (2) He lied to others (3) He understands later that he lied to himself and others.After I pointed out that there’s not a single piece of evidence to support A, B or C you changed your opinion-Late comment - <<It's not what he says to others that are lies. It's what he says to himself to justify his actions & that he points out those things to others which are lies.>>So, did he lie to others or not? You produce a volume of text to prove that his character changed. I get that. Everyone who read the canon knows he changed. You still fail to produce a single piece of evidence from the canon to prove that he lied to himself and later understood that. He’s a POV character. We know what he’s thinking. For an example, we know that Jamie believes he can defeat The Mountain in combat. How? ‘Cause it’s there in his POV chapters. Do we know that he’d lied to himself and later understood that? No we don’t because it’s not anywhere in the text. 2.       Early comment  - << If you think that Jaime had a concious at that time, then you are wrong. Actually the only thing he cared about that time is Cersei.  He didn't want to be knighted.>>After I pointed out that he was proud to be a Knight and said so to the Lady of Tarth,Late comment  << Ok I may agree that Jaime was proud to be a knight (I read that part), but the vows? puh! He only sought his own gain.>>Now, it’s about the Gain! Really?And please answer me this, you accept one thing Jamie says to Brienne (I earned my Knighthood but the kingsguard spoiled me) but refuse to accept another thing he says (I did not say anything to others to protect my oath) to the SAME PERSON. Why? Is every other comment out of his mouth a lie? Both these things are about his feelings.3.    Early comments  - << His father's soldiers were right outside the walls, raping and murdering beyond count. I don't recall jaime sparing them a second thought, or even attempting to get his family's army to stop murdering.>><< Did he stop Tywins men from raping women, & murdering children after that? He simply sat and stayed on the throne.>>When I pointed out that he DID try and even gave specific instructions,Late comments  - <<HE COULD'VE STOPPED THE SACK OF KINGS LANDING. At least tried.>><<So even before the Sack started he could've gone to Tywin & co and came to an understanding. Or even sent a message.>>And now it’s about STOPPING the sack! And he should have done so BEFORE? Really? You can’t argue anymore about the time AFTER he killed MK so now you switch to the time BEFORE he acted.4.    You went into details about the specific duties of a Kingsguard and what they should and should not do. At the same time you are asking repeatedly as to why Jamie did not break just about all of these.<< Jaime knew that chestled got burned because he spoke out against aerys plan to burn the city. He could have killed aerys then.>><< Jaime knew about aerys's plan to burn the city for months. He watched as aerys burned innocent people alive and did nothing.>>Can’t you see that Jamie followed the vows to the letter up until he learnt about Rossart? Doesn’t he say “I was there, protecting his secrets” to Lady Tarth?<<So even before the Sack started he could've gone to Tywin & co and came to an understanding. Or even sent a message. >>He was following the oath to the letter. How can he go to an enemy of the king to make a deal without the king’s permission? That’s betraying the king big time! Can he even leave the king’s side? He’s the only KG available. He can even go to the other family members of the MK because of the oath that says guarding the king comes first.5.    Early comment - << He does not go after fame or does not try to justify his actions. For the simple fact he does not care.>>I pointed out that he DID care. It’s right in the text (POV). 1. He thinks “there’s no time for me to hide and escape this” 2. He sees the blame in the eyes of his father’s men and knows that there’s going to be BLAME. If he’s the person you say he is, why would he care?Late comment – Still waiting for this one. Care to change that too?<<Why would he kill Aerys there when he could simply captured him and held him accountable for his actions in a trial?>>Let me try one last time to explain why MK has to die (you won’t accept of course).What does Jamie say? “I killed the king before he could pass the massage to another”. Can we accept this? Yes. Why? Because there are still people loyal to the king fighting and dying in his name. We know this because Jamie thinks it (POV, mentioned in text) and asks his father’s met to spare them if they surrender. If Jamie had kept MK alive, it will only take ONE of these men to carry a simple massage like “Go ahead with the plan” to one of the Pyromancers and that would have been the end of thousands. That’s all it takes. Just 3-4 words. The messenger doesn’t even have to know what they mean. And what about one of the Kingsguard whose brain is hardwired to the stupid oath? Varys and his birds? There are so many possibilities of getting the deed done. The only logical, simplest easiest method was to kill the MK then and there. It makes sure that his plan stays inactivated till Jamie get to kill the others.We can use the same argument about his other comment about trying to protect the MK’s secrets after his death. You say that any sane person would have done what he did. But would any sane person have gone to the length of what Jamie did just to hide the truth? He hunted down each and every pyromancer and killed them one by one. “Any sane person” would have just told Ned/New Hand/Robert/Any Lord about the plan and the name list and let them make all the efforts. Why would Jamie (the person who you say don’t care about anyone) take all this effort (without even trying to defend his name) if not for protecting the one oath he still has left? Do you have any other rational explanation? Do you have any evidence from the text to prove that?The only available explanation is the ONLY one we find in the book. That’s what Jamie says. You’re having none of it simply because you’re biased.   You repeatedly point out that his character changed. Why can’t you accept that he was doing his best to follow the KG oath to the letter till he CHANGED after that Rossart s#it?And you are completely silent about him killing the king’s Hand. Is there any way he could have avoided killing him? Killing the Hand is betraying the King big time. You’re keeping silent because you can’t seriously use the “Jamie should have captured him alive” line.<< You can't hide behind the fact of killing Aerys to save innocent people. Because the innocent people were killed whether he killed Aryes or Not.>>Yes. Because MK refused negotiations. Because MK had other plans. Because that stupid oath was in the way. Because Jamie was still trying to keep that oath. Any other reasons you need? What if the White Bull was in Jamie’s shoes? Would he have tried to negotiate with Lannister men without the King’s permission?<<Jaime killed Aerys to save the City? That's just Blasphemy. It was already lost.>>Really? Thousands of men women and children burnt to death no matter what? I must have missed that part. << And you're telling that Jaime sought out everything you pointed out about betraying his oath from killing rossart to the trials in a same thought???? That he had planned out how it'll work out??>>What about the “I don’t have time” part? Isn’t that enough? Enough to make him rush towards Rossart and kill him?And one final word about these KG oaths you seem to care so much about,The only available evidence in the text about the relative importance of different oaths is what Jamie says. “No matter what you do, you’re breaking one oath or another”. This is the simple truth and you know that. Jamie could never have stopped the mass murder without breaking one oath or another. Even attacking the Hand would be counted as betraying the king.And Jamie sees no different between KG oaths and Kinght Oaths. This is a man who’s proud of being a knight (not a KG). Whether or not you accept his opinion, his opinion is still a valid one.I understand that KG oaths serve a system and help it keep going. So Jamie butchers the oaths. What happened? Did the kings lose their faith and disbanded KG. No. Robert appointed Barristan as the commander of KG and kept Jamie around. Renley commanded his army “kill everyone except Barristan”. Stannis wanted Barristan fished out of Renley’s army. They still trusted KG.What about common men? Did the ground fall under them? They lost sleep? Lost corps/livestock? Nothing like that happened. A dog was killed like a dog. That’s it.</blockquote>

Verification: Payakata winadi keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom