I didn't say it had monstrous characters. I said that even if it did that wouldn't automatically disqualify it to me. I wasn't even casting a moral argument against or even for it. You were. You're accusing me of something that you're doing that has nothing to do with my argument. It's like shadow boxing. Speaking of that...
you’re so aggro everytime
Says you, being the one and only person leaping at me in this thread, with built-in grievances ready to go, defending a treat that by your own claim you haven't even read. You're casting moral judgements against the Iliad and at the same time claiming that it surely must be worse than GRRM (in a category of judgement I wasn't even getting into to begin with, and I made no claim to agree with Homer's particular ethical arguments or lack thereof for that matter, only in how the material is presented and what is emphasized in that perspective), which again you haven't even read the work you're defending, by your own claim.
What are you even doing besides "aggro" knee-jerk treat defending here? You're never going to like my point of view, and you're barely even listening to mine except to find what you think are "gotcha" moments to try nail me with, and by your own admission you know less about GRRM's work than I do, and that's not even a high bar to clear.
What is even your goal here? It looks like a petty grudge to me, especially with how the apparent crux of your argument is "I didn't read the work I'm defending but I don't like you, especially when you criticize the treats that I don't consume. How dare you."
I didn't say it had monstrous characters. I said that even if it did that wouldn't automatically disqualify it to me. I wasn't even casting a moral argument against or even for it. You were. You're accusing me of something that you're doing that has nothing to do with my argument. It's like shadow boxing. Speaking of that...
Says you, being the one and only person leaping at me in this thread, with built-in grievances ready to go, defending a treat that by your own claim you haven't even read. You're casting moral judgements against the Iliad and at the same time claiming that it surely must be worse than GRRM (in a category of judgement I wasn't even getting into to begin with, and I made no claim to agree with Homer's particular ethical arguments or lack thereof for that matter, only in how the material is presented and what is emphasized in that perspective), which again you haven't even read the work you're defending, by your own claim.
What are you even doing besides "aggro" knee-jerk treat defending here? You're never going to like my point of view, and you're barely even listening to mine except to find what you think are "gotcha" moments to try nail me with, and by your own admission you know less about GRRM's work than I do, and that's not even a high bar to clear.
What is even your goal here? It looks like a petty grudge to me, especially with how the apparent crux of your argument is "I didn't read the work I'm defending but I don't like you, especially when you criticize the treats that I don't consume. How dare you."
You're doing nothing but "aggro" here. Stop.