literaphile

I have nothing to add except that I also joined a while back (2006), and mostly lurk and post a comment once every few years.

FYI he's Gregor Clegane, not Robert Strong, in the show.

A lawyer doesn't take his place. The other poster is wrong.

Because the Tysha story played a very small role in the show. It would have been strange and underwhelming for Tyrion to use that as an excuse to kill his father. Shae, on the other hand, played a very prominent role in the show and also served a similar purpose to Tyrion (i.e., Tyrion loved her). So, instead, the writers chose to use the Shae storyline as kind of a proxy for the Tysha storyline, which I thought worked pretty well.

"Different" is not the same as "superior". Books and TV are extraordinarily different media, and necessarily have to focus on different things, as well as approach stories from different angles. Don't be one of those snobs who says that "the book is always better", because it's not true. They're just different. In fact, it's probably best just to consider the book and the TV show as two entirely different stories. That's what I do.

Yes please. Remember the definitions of "threat/use of force" and "coercion" before you do, though - paying taxes is a trade-off for choosing to live in a certain place. You are always free to leave that place if you don't like how the taxes work. Just remember, though, that you may find yourself in a tough spot trying to find a country that has no taxes at all. You do know how the government pays for things like roads, right? Or do you carry your own little cement-mixing kit with you and make new roads as you walk?

It's pretty obvious that he's just trolling now. Provoking for the sake of provoking. I've yet to see him actually argue anything coherently. He just spouts rhetoric and aphorisms with no actual evidence to back anything up.

I also want to say that it's presumptuous and arrogant to imply that, simply because I attended "government-approved" institutions, that my education is somehow limited. This is a classic ad hominem attack: you have nothing to say about the actual merits of my arguments so you attack me as a person. Again, stop deflecting and start actually presenting evidence to support what you say. I've yet to see any evidence of any of this "statist" nonsense that you're spouting.

First, interspersing your post with silly, meaningless pictures makes your argument look desperate, weak, and hard to follow. Second - I may be a lawyer but I used to be a historian, mostly ancient (Roman and Greek) history. I've published a book on the subject. So yes, I've read history. Third, you don't give any references to back up your "arguments", except for pointing to some random, mostly non-scientific websites to back up what you say about the number of deaths that "statism" has caused. You make a lot of sweeping, grandiose statements - like "Governments do not create new value, it is extracted by the threat/use of force and coercion from one group of people in the economy to redistribute to another" - but you provide no evidence to back them up. And no, people dying is not evidence. People have always died and will always died. Finally, to say that murder and other kinds of intentional death only happen in the "statist" world is naive and suggests to me that it is your knowledge of history, not mine, that is lacking. It's well-documented that murder happens in non-state societies as well, and usually at a higher rate per capita than in state societies. On that point you should read Jared Diamond's "The World Until Yesterday". Oh and just about your "argument" about the origins of words like an anarchy and government - the origins of words often have nothing to do with their modern usage. The fact that the roots of those words may derive from some ancient words that have a particular meaning does not mean that the modern words also have that meaning. Again, it seems that you're a bit naive here and perhaps uneducated in the field of linguistics. You should read up on that a bit to see why your argument there doesn't really hold much water. I studied ancient Greek and Latin for 6 years, BTW.

I don't know about that. Cersei was a great character for the first couple of seasons but has moved to the periphery in the latter couple. She began as a real "woman who pulls the strings" type, but that's faded away. Arya has potential to develop into a strong female character but she doesn't get nearly enough screen time right now. As for Sansa, though - I actually tend to agree. Although she was a damsel in distress for basically three and a half seasons, she's been evolving this season and, in light of her last appearance with Little Finger, has the potential to turn into a powerful character. But I don't think it's happened yet.

Well, that's a clever way to admit that you haven't figured out how to respond yet. Go ahead, take your time. Although that goes without saying, since you're an anarchist you probably don't subscribe to the statist idea of "time".

I gather from your posts that you just finished a critical theory class or some other similar philosophy class. Congrats. Now let's get back to the real world - oops, sorry, the "statist" world. You know, otherwise known as reality. And reality says that you're not allowed to walk down a residential street brandishing firearms, and then shoot the police when they confront you about it. You can talk about whatever "class" you think the police belong to all you want, and you can flaunt the fact that you've read some esoteric political theory, but at the end of the day it doesn't have any bearing on reality.

But the thing is, they do quantify courage and heart. If courage and heart don't translate into some kind of tangible stat - and not just goals/assists, but blocked shots, hits, takeaways, TOI, etc. - then I dare to say they're not adding much anyway.

My guess is that someone will name Jaime Lannister as their champion - otherwise why the storyline about his training with Bronn?

You're right, Daniel Sedin has only won the Art Ross and the Ted Lindsay. And he's only led the Canucks in scoring three times. And he's only been to two all-star games. Definitely not top six material!