Game of Thrones

[Brekkie]

I mean .. look at Eddard Stark. He was by the looks of it a just man and lord. Yet he beheaded a young man for abandoning his post in the Northen Watch, that's a bit cruel by today standards ain't it, it's not like he killed anyone(well the crime he was being beheaded for atleast)? But that was the law, that was what he was supposed to do because he was the King's man(don't remember the right word for it) and it was his duty. Watch the start of the first episode, he certainly doesn't look thrilled to do it(watch the part where he's with his wife and he gets the news) and he even makes his youngest son watch it

Technically, in present day deserting during a time or war or abandoning your post if you are a guard in a combat zone are both punishable by death under current military law.
And rightfully so.

[tinalt]

I mean .. look at Eddard Stark. He was by the looks of it a just man and lord. Yet he beheaded a young man for abandoning his post in the Northen Watch, that's a bit cruel by today standards ain't it, it's not like he killed anyone(well the crime he was being beheaded for atleast)? But that was the law, that was what he was supposed to do because he was the King's man(don't remember the right word for it) and it was his duty. Watch the start of the first episode, he certainly doesn't look thrilled to do it(watch the part where he's with his wife and he gets the news) and he even makes his youngest son watch it

Technically, in present day deserting during a time or war or abandoning your post if you are a guard in a combat zone are both punishable by death under current military law.
And rightfully so.

True that it's punishable by death, but then again it seems like 1/3 of the UCMJ has "punishable by death during wartime" as one of the options. It's rare for it to make it that far in todays society.

[Brekkie]

Just saying that, at least in 'MERICA, sentencing someone to death from crimes both in civilian law and military law is hardly some forgotten memory from a primitive, brutish past.

[alayire]

Just saying that, at least in 'MERICA, sentencing someone to death from crimes both in civilian law and military law is hardly some forgotten memory from a primitive, brutish past.

Ok, just because this punishment still exists in most countries and it's not something of the past, doesn't make it less cruel(by today standards). There are more then enough people that would say/argue this is barbaric and unjustified.
Not only that there is a clear difference between "punishable by death" and "is punished by death". the former states that it can lead to death but rarely does happen, where the latter leaves no room for interpretation, the sentence is death. Also, even if people still get death sentence these days, how many of them are beheaded? Not to mention he could have just as easily ordered someone to do it, yet he did it himself.
Even so, my example was not meant to point out what a cruel punishment he delivered, but the fact that he did what he had to do, no matter how cruel or barbaric it seems to us because those were the times, those were the laws. Maybe back then people didn't even think it was barbaric, maybe all they felt was the man wasted his life for nothing by doing this. It was meant to show that they had no mercy for whom the law dictated should die. And the king could sentence someone to die for no apparent good reason, it was his right.

[Brekkie]

Just saying that, at least in 'MERICA, sentencing someone to death from crimes both in civilian law and military law is hardly some forgotten memory from a primitive, brutish past.

Ok, just because this punishment still exists in most countries and it's not something of the past, doesn't make it less cruel(by today standards). There are more then enough people that would say/argue this is barbaric and unjustified.
Not only that there is a clear difference between "punishable by death" and "is punished by death". the former states that it can lead to death but rarely does happen, where the latter leaves no room for interpretation, the sentence is death. Also, even if people still get death sentence these days, how many of them are beheaded? Not to mention he could have just as easily ordered someone to do it, yet he did it himself.
Even so, my example was not meant to point out what a cruel punishment he delivered, but the fact that he did what he had to do, no matter how cruel or barbaric it seems to us because those were the times, those were the laws. Maybe back then people didn't even think it was barbaric, maybe all they felt was the man wasted his life for nothing by doing this. It was meant to show that they had no mercy for whom the law dictated should die. And the king could sentence someone to die for no apparent good reason, it was his right.

You think the death penalty is "cruel by today's standards" and "barbaric". There are many who would agree with you, but also many who would disagree.
But let's not derail the GoT thread with this topic. If you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to, just make a new thread.

[Brekkie]

Lots of departures from the book in this most recent episode. Some I thought were well done, some I have no clue why they did them.

Also, mmmmmmmm Ygrette. Would smash.

[Thalia]

Aergis and I freaked out last episode, was totally feeling like I was watching Walking Dead lol.

[Milius]

What was with the ending of the episode with Daenyris in Qarth, I literally sat there for a few minutes thinking "That wasn't in the book....was it?".

Did I miss the memo ?

[econ21]

No, it was not in the book. But then I struggled to understand what was going on in the book with the warlocks - the TV version makes the motivations a little more transparent.

[alayire]

cliff hangers x4. they sure know how to get you hooked. wonder if reading the books might spoil everything.

edit: As I was watching the end of the episode, I was fairly certain that *they* got away(not wanting to spoil anything) and all's good. then I remembered that the author was not too squeamish of killing off people in the books, not even the people that seemed to be the main leads(unlike other authors, which btw is an interesting thing). Upon realizing this I just sat there for about 10 minutes thinking, damn I really hope they didn't die, did they? maybe I should have read the books. Darn it .. another week to find out.

[econ21]

wonder if reading the books might spoil everything.

After the first season, I just had to read the books in order to learn what happened next. But the story is sufficiently rich and the TV production so strong, that I don't think reading the books has diminished my enjoyment. If you'd read the Lord of the Rings before watching the movies, it is very analogous to that.

[Fetzie]

If you'd read the Lord of the Rings before watching the movies, it is very analogous to that.

I still think that I would have enjoyed the LotR movies more had I not read the books beforehand, and been thinking "why was that missing, hey they forgot that scene that is really fun etc." all the time.

[Skye1013]

[Thalia]

Holy shizz you just made me pee myself.

[Fivelives]

This is topical.