Did you just try to rape a woman which is common practice for armies to do in my world setting

Geez, I thought Jon didn’t want to be king, but he’s sure acting like it. It doesn’t seem fair to call dibs after someone is already mid way through starting the act of rape

>rape is fine because i can do what i want and you cant stop me
>woah dont murder me bro please i cant stop you

It wasn’t evil. Unless you’re assuming every soldier on both sides is evil, because if you read the books, whenever there’s a siege the armies rape and pillage the place. He would’ve been 1 out of 1,000’s of soldiers claiming the spoils of war. But you didn’t think about that did you? No, he’s a victim to his environment if anything

>Oh yeah, it’s okay to execute someone who isn’t breaking the law and is doing what everyone else is doing because GOU find it morally wrong
Also you’re putting Jon into our modern sensibilities when rape wasn’t seen as that bad in that setting so Jon’s actions were far more outrageous

Attached: 1625332988637.jpg (554x555, 33.59K)

Ok but how is this an appropriate reaction image to our convo. There’s a thing called moral relativism. If you just got done fighting and are in a warrior state of mind and still on the come down from that high, and everyone else is raping women because it’s a medieval setting where tons of fucked up shit happens to everyone (which is the theme of the book) why draw the line and start executing your own men for that. You didn’t instantly draw the line at all the innocent civilians and surrendered soldiers being killed did you Jon

>There’s a thing called moral relativism
No you're a liberal fuckhead. There's no such thing as moral relativism. There is an absolute morality and an absolute good and evil.

Attached: 1616792663420.jpg (1144x1710, 454.83K)

>advocating for letting soldiers rape is liberalism
kek, your brain is so fried you just apply that word to everything

Well that’s a whole different philosophical argument. My only point is if you were in a world where soldiers raping women was a normal occurrence, and war crimes weren’t scoffed at, it hardly makes you a good person to enforce your own equally brutish standards and kill people for it. That’s the point. What if it was absolutely morally wrong to eat animals so Jon stabbed someone in the head for eating steak. If 1,000 years in the future that was seen as a bad thing to do you wouldn’t root for present Jon, WOULD YOU

Typically you were only allowed to rape for the first 72 hours of the conquest

i bet you think it's ok to rape kids too. a 14 year old and 11 year old boy raped in ukraine. tell me how the rapists were victims of their environments.

>false equivalences

You don't stop to rape in the middle of battle.

OK retard

Explain what is objectively good then

Bonus points if it’s not what you personally like

I don’t think rape is okay. What I’m saying is I wouldn’t take it into my own hands to kill someone for doing something I thought was morally wrong, especially if they themselves and society as a whole didn’t view it that way. What fucked up way of thinking is that where you think you have the right to kill someone for doing something you find morally wrong? That’s literally what Jon did there. It wasn’t a heroic action, it was a psychopathic one

Kek, I could use this

Nobody cares about Ukraine stay on topic here. We're discussing if the soldier's actions were justified and if Jon was in the wrong. This is true. Soldiers are entitled to spoils of war during pillaging, it would only be a crime if the act was committed during peace time.

It's more moral if man loses his life than woman loses her dignity, even if she enjoyed it.

Attached: slav-pepe-132361.png (840x1129, 298.85K)

I mean, Jon has the right to sentence people to death. And he believes that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword, so....

And soldiers raping people is not allowed in Westeros. Only Tywin Lannister lets his armies rape and pillage in the Riverlands but they don't do it while flying a Lannister banner. Stannis has some of his soldiers castrated for raping wildling women. Read the books faggot.

you're objectively evil for allowing evil to exist. There is no situation in which rape can be justified.

Attached: moneypikachu.jpg (500x375, 21.18K)

>rape isn't against westerosi law
Post proof please.

If a soldier responded to anything his commanding officer ordered him to do by doing anything besides obedience he was well within his right to kill him for cowardice, insubordination etc.

Rape is absolutely against Westerosi law.

>Post proof please
This. Could we get some tax codes while we’re at it

Jon wouldn’t have that right. Dany would be the one to have that right. Jon didn’t actually have any power or right to try to stop someone. And I don’t know if they give explicit permission for the soldiers to start raping, but it’s definitely something all the armies did. Even the northmen raped and killed 3 random girls just for having sex with lannister soldiers, and that wasn’t even after a battle

Stannis was the exception, not the rule. Raping and plunder is common place in Westeros and Essos, there's no law against it, infact it is encouraged in newly conquered cities as a form of payment.

Also Jon has no right to kill somebody without a proper trial. The "crime" in question was not properly discussed before the execution, and there was no passing of a sentence in presence of arbitrators and witnesses.

Jon killed his own soldier in favour of some peasant whore from the opposing faction during an active seige. His head resting on a spike is the only justice that can come out of this situation.

A lot of people don't know this, but Germany was the only country within the past 200 years that specifically had laws within their military that forbid things like this. My grandfather was in the Werchmant during WW2 & any German soldier who was caught raping or abusing women or children would be given two choices: 1) be executed w/out trial 2) or go to the Eastern front & stay there until the war was over - if they tried to go AWOL the weather conditions would have killed them anyways. In WW1 it was the same, but instead of going to the Eastern front they would be part of every single assault or defense on the frontlines.

Attached: Screen Shot 2022-03-28 at 4.16.34 PM.png (982x674, 220.35K)

Rape is against westerosi law only during peacetime you faggot. In war it's open season in the opposing faction. Maybe you don't know how war actually works, but a major objective of war is to terrorize peasants so that they lose confidence in the ability of their lords to protect them and either switch sides or start rioting/deserting/looting in their own cities/towns. This in turn sends a grim message to other peasants in other cities/towns and the whole thing snowballs into a conquest.

Well then Jon should’ve reported the crime to Dany, because he didn’t have the authority to kill him even if you believe he had the moral high ground in opposing it

Jon is the king in the North, or atleast a warden of the North. His men are subject to his law, so he is within his rights to execute one of his men for suspected criminal activity without consulting Dany.

>you can't compare a lemon and lime because they are slightly different!

Attached: 1558366816095.jpg (1063x1080, 154.38K)

fuck authority, if I see evil I will stop it.

That’s fucking retarded no commander wants his troops off breaking ranks and raping or looting or whatever else in the middle of a battle. Jon was well within his rights to kill some insubordinate dumbasses

>rape is evil
I'd ask to post tits but you're probably a disgusting tranny. Your holes are less than worthless.

...

The only problem is that still isn’t what Jon is. Sansa is warden of the north not him. At least get your facts straight

>Rape is against westerosi law only during peacetime

Source or GTFO. Some lords might look the other way, that doesn't mean it's legal. And anyone who thought Jon fucking Snow would look the other way from a soldier raping a peasant is insane.

Wrong. It was not a battle it was plunder, if a city has been breached by opposing forces it normally means the opposition has nothing left to fight with and the war is lost.

Also go read up on any seige where the beseiged city fell after fighting you historylet, plunder was used as a form of payment for soldiers and commanders would turn a blind eye to the first few days of whatever happened after a city fell. There's nothing "wrong" here, only moral faggotry that is in complete contrast to the reality of the situation.

>slightly different!
Trying to stop a rape, and then defending yourself when the rapist tries to stab you for it, is more than slightly different from killing someone for eating meat.

Sansa became warden after Jon resigned you faggot. Jon is the king in the North and northern men are his to do with as he pleases.

Ned Stark wasn't king of anything when he executed the Night's Watch deserter in the very first episode/chapter. There was no trial or deliberations. And even in real life, military commanders can execute soldiers for refusing to follow orders during a battle.

>JUN SNOW doesn't stop people with deadly force when they kill people but acts mad
>gets mad and kills when it's rape
oh, the guy attacked him? jon didn't go out of his way to stop murders though

Attached: cersei.jpg (1095x1645, 280.18K)

>Source
Literally every real life war or any war even from the books itself you retard. Rape is not legal but there are no laws that dictate the activity of a soldier in a freshly fallen city, it's not some lords that look the other way, it's all lords except Stannis.

Are you intentionally being stupid? Because the point is you can’t execute people for doing something that is morally objectionable when it’s widespread accepted by today’s standards. Raping women after a successful siege was widespread accepted in Jon’s time. What he did was kill someone for what literally every soldier in his army was also probably doing at the time

Yes it’s still a dangerous situation the keep hadn’t been taken they hadn’t captured the royals they could still mount a defense or escape and the commander of an army determines what is right or wrong if he says no rape you better listen to him and you’re a historylet if you think looting wasn’t allowed AFTER a battle not during like some retarded barbarians

Ned was the warden, and by the looks of people around him and the man itself who openly confessed to deserting it can be concluded that the trial had already taken place before hand.

Also military superiors cannot execute soldiers IRL for deserting without trial, there's this little thing called court martial to prevent military from turning into another feudal society

>it's all lords except Stannis

All lords except Stannis and Jon Snow apparently. Also,

>Rape is not legal

Then it's illegal. Jon was well within his rights to execute this man.

so if there is no law saying it's legal to drink water it's illegal? great path of logic, bud

>What he did was kill someone for what literally every soldier in his army was also probably doing at the time
Not every soldier in His army was trying to kill him.
Jon killed in self defence.

Except execution is not the correct punishment, gelding is the proper form of justice here. So even if we do consider your precious Jon snow to be in the right, which he wasn't btw, he didn't even administer proper justice.

Justice that goes through 'proper' channels isn't justice, a swift beheading is justice

>historylet
Yeah I'm thinking you're 13 yrs old.

>guybeingshotbyrittenhouse.jpeg

So you can assault someone and hold a sword up to them in a threatening manner, and then when they retaliate at all suddenly it’s self defense? You would almost have a point if Jon wasn’t the aggressor and one who initiated their confrontation. And also you don’t know if he was going to try to kill him, all he did was lunge at him while not even holding a weapon

>t. le capeshit connesuir
How about you drink your soi and watch your capeshit in peace and let the big boy stuff be handled by people who actually know what they're doing

Jon was a fucking lord paramount of the north, you do as your lord says when he tries to warn you instead of chopping you up into many pieces.

Where the fuck did I say that shit for brains?

> If 1,000 years in the future that was seen as a bad thing

Doesn't matter because there are objective standards of Good and Evil.

>Explain what is objectively good then
I don't have absolute knowledge as I am not God. But absolute knowledge exists and absolute good and evil also exists.

You guys are a bunch of moral degenerates.

he didn wun it