how is that fair!

ASOIAF Hogwarts Houses: Starks

Post 1 - The Starks

Honorable Mention: Rickon -. We dont even know how human he his, let alone his personality.


Hufflepuff - Hufflepuff is fair and just and unafraid of toil. The Father above makes fair judgements, as does this father. I almost had Ned as a Gryffindor, because those guys are supposed to hold ‘honour’ and ‘courage’ in high regard and Ned CERTAINLY is honourable, and has shown great courage, but I feel that he is motivated by a sense of duty, rather than a bold and fiery desire to DO WHAT IS RIGHT!! He is courteous, but has none of the brash chivalry or overconfidence that Gryffindors (like Brandon, Neds brother) often posses.


- Gryffindor - Ironically, Robbs trying to emulate his father, made him more like his uncle Brandon. I think Robb had the makings of a fair and just Hufflepuff, but once the whole ‘King in the North’ thing swept him up he got more and more Gryffindor. His headstrong boldness eventually caused his downfall with his marriage to Jeyne.

Jon - Gryffindor. Readers gravitate toward the hero archetype which Jon fits reasonably well, but I don’t think he’s such a cut and dry hero. He has alot of Hufflepuff in him, a lot of Ned. Jon’s central conflicts aren’t so much about good and evil, rather about duty, loyalty and allegiance. A Song of Ice and Fire is (Sorry JKR) more complex than Harry Potter, that’s on a story wide perspective and an individual character perspective, and as such, it’s characters are rarely easy to place into houses. Ultimately, Jon would not stand for immoral behaviour: case in point, Jon defended Sam from the bullies; Jon had Alys Karstark married, and imprisoned her uncle; Jon decided to go to save Arya despite it meaning that he breaks the NW vow of having no family ties. Gryffindors sometimes have to bend the rules to get justice, and Jon is a fine example of that.

Cat -  Ravenclaw. Definitely the hardest to place character. She has alot of all the houses: Hufflepuff, for being kind, while not excelling in anything; Ravenclaw for her shrewd counsel; Gryffindor for her courage at speaking out against the King in the North campaign, and the courage she showed as Robbs envoy to the Freys and to Renly; even Slytherin, for her secret freeing of Jaime, which was to save her family, and for what she said to Jon: ‘It should have been you’ - again, wishing suffering on someone else to save her own family. Ultimately, I decided that she was a Ravenclaw because of quotes like this: ‘Did you teach him wisdom as well as valor, Ned! She wondered. Did you teach him how to kneel! The graveyards of the Seven Kingdoms are full of brave men who had never learned that lesson.’. Cat is wise. When she speaks out against the northmen in the northern campaign, it’s like she’s speaking out against war and revenge in general, which is a pervading theme of the book series.

Sansa - Hufflepuff. Another hard one! She certainly starts as a Hufflepuff, and I think by the end of the series she will be a Gryffindor, or at least a wise Ravenclaw like her mother (That bird symbolism though). Baelish is grooming her to be a Slytherin, like him, but she will rebuke that, in time. Hufflepuff is the most fitting house for her generally. Like Ned, she has simple values of fairness and tolerance. The changes she has and will go through personality wise will be a reflection of deliberate effort on her part, as well as her changing circumstance, rather than her innate nature, which I think is simple and good and sweet.

Arya - Slytherin

She would have been a Gryffindor with the right nurturing, but she has set herself firmly onto the winding path of the snake. Deception, cunning, underhanded tactics, and all to avenge her family. So Slytherin

By Dan Arcane. Link:

Bran - Hufflepuff. SUPRISED!? Yeah me too. At first I had him as a Ravenclaw because, when someone asked me which character I’d like to be in asoiaf, I said Bran without hesitation. The person was shocked at that, and asked why I’d want to be some kid stuck in a cave forever? To know things. To peer into the weirwood merged consciousness godhead, to experience the thousand thousand lives of all the singers, people and creatures that comprise the godhead. For the chance to receive such insight into so many beings and so much history, I’d gladly let my body lie in a cave forever. I think that’s what makes me a Ravenclaw: I’d sacrifice it all for knowledge and wisdom. But I almost forgot that Bran didn’t do that. He didn’t willingly sacrifice his life for wisdom. He never wanted to be a tree! All he ever wanted to be is a knight. A strong brave knight who rides a horse. You’ll notice that Bran never really fantasized about being a hero, or doing good in the world, he just fantasized about fulfilling the masculine ideal. He was happy to fill the role he was born into, he did not show an intrinsic desire to change the world for morally good reasons, thus exempting him from Gryffindor. Hufflepuff reflects his connectedness with normality. Even now he wargs, I feel like his real desire is just to be a wolf. Just to be a pure expression of himself, and of his heritage. Hufflepuff.

By Artgerm. Link:

'No kill"policy

Hi!! This is about Oliver’s ‘no kill’ policy. I was always confused about show’s insistence in calling Oliver as a murderer in S1 and consider the adoption of this policy as a progression in his character. How can killing Sinners can be a Sin? What is wrong in killing people like Damien or Malcom or dollmaker or any other evil guys?These guys are mass murderers who kill people for their own twisted reasons and its my firm belief that none of these agendas can excuse killing innocent people, especially children. Slade destroyed a whole city to avenge his lover’s death but rather than facing a painful death he is hale and healthy in ARGUS jail. How is that fair?

I have seen theories about how Felicity will step into darkness because she said Oliver ‘to kill’ in the flash forwards. But if the 'him’ is left to live he might hurt their loved ones again. Won’t it be stupid to let 'him’ live? 

I can only speak from my own perspective, which is based on my morality. I don’t think killing can be justified just because a person is a sinner. I’m a sinner. We all are. There’s a reason why God commanded “Thou Shall Not Kill.” The only one who determines who lives or dies is Him. I believe in the sanctity of human life across the board. No one is exempt, no matter how great the sin.

I do not believe in the death penalty. That said, I don’t lose a lot of sleep when a man who’s raped and murdered a mother & her two daughters and then burned them alive (actual case that gave me nightmares for weeks) is put to death. I’m leaving that murderers soul up to the Good Lord. That’s for Him to deal with not me. One of my favorite movie lines is from Rudy, “Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I’m not Him.”  I am not God. A fact for which I am truly grateful. 

So, I don’t believe Oliver can justify killing villains simply because they are murderers. Prison? You bet. Hall their ass off to Lian Yu and let them rot. But killing? I don’t think Oliver, despite all his goodness, has the right to decide who lives or dies. He is not judge and jury. Which is why the writers have set up this “No Kill” vow as a barometer for Oliver’s morality. His morality is more complicated than kill or not kill. It includes things like honor and truth and hope. But the biggest challenge to Oliver is how does he hold to his moral code when the people he fights against do play by any of the same rules?

I talked a lot about this in my recent review 4x12. A moral code doesn’t amount to much if Oliver is setting it aside whenever the going gets tough. The other issue is, Oliver cannot allow himself to be used as a weapon or pawn in other people’s battles. Part of the way to protect him from that is to hold to his code. But holding to a code isn’t always easy is it?

I view Oliver in two distinct roles. He is a soldier. He has the right to protect himself and his city against attack. Could a prison hold Ra’s Al Ghul? Probably not. The legions of assassins would come for him. Nor was Ra’s willing to negotiate terms. Oliver had to defend himself and his city no different than a soldier at war. Do we judge the soldiers and police officers who are forced to kill in our defense? Of course not. 

However, the point of Arrow isn’t necessarily “real world” scenarios. Oliver is becoming a superhero and superhero’s hold to moral codes that most mortal men cannot. He’s suppose to be better than us. Oliver is suppose to toe the moral line and be an example. No different than Superman or Batman. 

Did I lose sleep when Oliver killed Ra’s Al Ghul? Not really, but that doesn’t mean Oliver was completely in the right when he did it. Killing Ra’s Al Ghul was a necessary evil, but it was absolutely the darker solution. We can say Oliver had no choice, but he did. It just wasn’t a good one. However, Season 3 wasn’t about Oliver being a beacon of hope. It was about examining who Oliver becomes when he’s only The Arrow and lets go of Oliver Queen. So in the season of darkness, the darker solution wasn’t all that surprising.

But that doesn’t mean this is where Oliver ends. This story is about a progression and the endgame is The Green Arrow- a fully realized superhero. A superhero holds to their code no matter what. The problem with justifications is that we can justify just about anything. It nullifies the need for a moral code. So Oliver has to hold to his moral code even when he’s completely justified in killing. That’s what Season 2 and not killing Slade was all about. 

In Season 4 the writers are asking Oliver to be more and to do better. Perhaps he’s justified in killing Malcolm or whoever killed their loved one. I’m sure he absolutely is. But is that enough? Is being justified enough of a reason? Not for a superhero. 

This is when I view Oliver like a diplomat. If there is a peaceful solution, one that doesn’t require killing, Oliver has to find it. That’s what the writers are pushing him to do this season. They are asking him to find another way. When he does find it, when he goes beyond what any normal human being is capable of, that’s when he’ll be a superhero. That’s the journey he’s on.

So yes, Oliver will be continually tested. His moral code will be continually challenged. Evil men will do evil things. But the point isn’t what they do. The point is what Oliver does. He must hold to his beliefs if he has any hope of being a light to Star City. Light and hope is not found in killing. It’s found in life.


So, in order to pay my bills for this month and keep my car/place I live, I am selling these cosplays.

I have one week until the bill is due, so if you are interested please send me a pm. I am going to be really fair and low with prices seeing as how I am in desperate need.

If you can’t but them please spread the post… You can also donate via PayPal to:

night-visions-imagine asked:

To be honest, I don't like how the writers are handling the time jump. I've watched shows that have done major time jumps and those shows showed us/explained in detail things that happened so we weren't entirely left in the dark and still had some connection to the characters but with PLL I feel like I barely know these characters anymore. Of course there's still time but as of now, I don't like how they're handling it.

Fair enough. And to be honest, I’m slowly starting to agree with you. With the premiere, a lot of people were hating on it saying it wasn’t done properly but I was here defending it saying “don’t worry, the in-between the years will come eventually and the premiere was just setting the scene and re-introducing us to these characters”. We are about to watch episode 5 and still no flashbacks. Maybe I had high hopes. I know Marlene has confirmed Spoby and Haleb break up scenes, but that’s one of a hundred things. 

miffythoughts asked:

I have this crush on a guy and he likes me back. We've been liking each other for the past five months, and the soiree is coming up. He "asked me out" with a note inside his lunch box, which people say was like, the sweetest thing ever (I know it isn't that sweet if you imagine it but I can tell you the chronicles if you like~). I admit, he may seem like a totally unromantic dork, but he can be really sweet if necessary. <3 (Why am I talking about this omg)

This is so cute and I think I have a toothache from how sweet it is.


Not fair.

So romantic.

So cute.

-hisses @ur happiness-

ok i lied, one more post apparently:

1. she apologized. it’s gravy. that’s all i was hoping for. IT’S FINE. water under the bridge.

2. i am not out to crucify her and i should certainly hope no one else is (and if you are, stop that). i sincerely hope nothing bad comes of it for her. i’m capable of saying it was unprofessional and disappointing (which i felt it was) without being like BURN THE WITCCHHHHH (which i wasn’t), and that’s what i did.

3. people seem to think i was really upset over this, but i wasn’t. it was like, max, a low level disbelieving headshake. i feel the need to clear that up.
i was more upset at being told i was super upset when i sincerely wasn’t. :I i guess i can’t expect everyone to know that “what a dicckkkk” is just how i talk, so fair enough on that front i guess.

4. i am sorry if i am misgendering, i’ve only ever seen osiem referred to as a she, if it is wrong i apologize and will get it right in the future.



Time is an equal opportunity employer. Each human being has exactly the same number of hours and minutes every day. Rich people can’t buy more hours. Scientists can’t invent new minutes. And you can’t save time to spend it on another day. Even so, time is amazingly fair and forgiving. No matter how much time you’ve wasted in the past, you still have an entire tomorrow.
—  Dennis Waitley