#that one + the prior one happens 3-4 times JUST in Red Robin depending on what we count as a 'love interest'

[cluescorner]

Tim: Look murder has been outlawed ok, I’ve been over this with every-

Sac and Goliath, about to kill him: We’re criminals, so *pain noises*

Tam: …Can’t outlaw fists. 

Tim: Holy shit…I’m instantly in love with you.

[kiragecko]

DC Sidekick Age References

Here’s a dump of all the references I’ve found. Know I’m missing a lot, and quite a few were found on other sites that didn’t give me the most precise info.

If you know of anything else, can correct a mistake you see, or want to discuss comic book aging - please send me an ask, message, or reblog!

?? - means I don’t know where the info is from, “quotes” are direct copies of the wording in the comic

-

?? Parents died when Bruce was 8

Detective Comics #27 (May 1939) – Batman introduced

Detective Comics #38 (Apr 1940)  – Dick is (8 when parents killed/9 when Robin) 12 when he becomes Robin, it's Bruce's 3rd year as Batman

More Fun Comics 73 (Nov 1941) – Green Arrow Introduced

1962 - JLA formed

1964 – Dick teams up with Wally and Garth

Teen Titans 1 (Jan-Feb 1966) – Teen Titans form, Donna is introduced (all 5 are 14ish?)

Detective 359 (Jan 1967) – Babs introduced, has PhD, has graduated

Batman #217 (Dec 1969) – Dick graduates high school, enrolls in University (starts 3 months later)

1971 - Roy discovered using drugs by Ollie and Hal in a drug den (he was trading arrows for drugs), retcon has Wally and Dick discovering him at tower and making him promise to get help

Justice League 116 (Mar-Apr 1975) Charley Parker is 16

Batman Family 10 (Mar-Apr 1977) – Dick is teenager, Babs is 25

Teen Titans 53 (Feb 1978) – Dick, Wally, Donna, Vic all started college at same time

DC Special Series: The Flash Spectacular (May 1978) – Wally graduates high school

New Teen Titans 1 (Nov 1980) – Raven forms New Titans, Gar is 16 during run

New Teen Titans 2 (Dec 1980) – Slade meets team, Grant dies

1981 - Dick drops out of university after 1 semester, he never really was interested

New Teen Titans 20 (June 1982) – Vic turns 19, Donna already is

Tales of the New Teen Titans 2 (July 1982) – Raven turned 18 just before forming Titans

Batman #357 (Mar 1983) – Jason’s first appearance

Detective Comics #526 (May 1983) – Bruce adopts Jason, Dick is there and approving

New Teen Titans 34 (Aug 1983) – Terra turns 16

Batman #368 (Feb 1984) – Dick gives Jason the Robin costume, Jason becomes Robin

Blue Devil(84) – Eddie is 11/12

Tales of the Teen Titans (May 1984) – Joey introduced, Author describes him as 17?

New Teen Titans #39 (Feb 1984) – Dick stops being Robin, Wally quits being a superhero/the team

Tales of the Teen Titans 50 (Feb 1985) – Terry and Donna's wedding (she got married while 19)

New Teen Titans 10 (July 1985) – Kole says she's at least 18

Crisis on Infinite Earths 7 (Oct 1985) – Supergirl dies in Superman’s arms after mostly destroying the Anti-Monitor, who has to flee reality

New Teen Titans 18 (Mar 1986) – Dick turns 20 (“Dick Grayson celebrates his birthday away from home with a traditional Tamaranean feast.” (While sulking because Kory got space-married))

New Teen Titans 20 (May 1986) – Roy locates baby Lian, Terry Long is 29

?? Roy is 22(when he gets Lian)

Batman #404 - Batman Year One (Feb 1987) – Bruce is 25, spent 12 years training, became Batman at 26, Barbara Gordon is pregnant, her and Jim move to Gotham

Detective Comics #571 (Feb 1987) – we see Bruce’s fear gas induced vision of Jason’s tombstone (birth: 1974 – death: 1986, so he’d be 12)

Secret Origins 13 (April 87) – 15 years ago, it was Dick’s 5th birthday. Soon after tenth birthday, parents are killed. [Set during New TT 18])

Batman #409 (July 1987) – Jason becomes Robin (In Detective Comics, Jason has been Robin the whole time, but is still being wwritten with Pre-Crisis personality)

Flash 1 (June 1987) – Wally turns 20

New Teen Titans Ann 3 (Nov 1987) – Danny Chase is 13 and introduced

Batman #416 (Feb 1988) – Dick in Gotham, meets the new Robin on patrol. Confronts Bruce later, says he was ‘fired’ less than a year ago (since then he was briefly in college), makes Bruce admit he missed him. Dick finds Jason again, expose the drug dealers, and Dick gives Jason his old costume (symbolically, since Jason already has one) and a phone number, Dick was Robin for 6 years

Batman #427 (Winter 1988) – Jason dies

Batman #436, Batman: Year Three (Aug 1989) – 2 years since Dick stopped being Bruce’s sidekick (When he became Nightwing? Or when he quit?), parents died 10 years earlier

Batman #441, A Lonely Place of Dying (Nov 1989) – Tim 13, was 7 when Dick’s parents died

Robin #1 (Jan 1991) – Tim debuts as Robin

New Titans 84 (March 1992) – Joey dies

Deathstroke, the Terminator #15 (Oct 1992) – Rose introduced

Team Titans 3 (Nov 1992) – Robert Long is born

Adventures of Superman 500 (June 1993) – Kon appears and escapes from Cadmus with Newboy Legion, John Henry Irons first appearance, Eradicator and Cyborg Superman also appear for first time

Batman: BTAS: Robin’s Reckoning (1993) - 'Richard 'Dick' Grayson: Age 10'

Detective Comics 668 (Nov 1993) – Tim gets license (because dad is disabled) even though he hasn’t turned 16 yet, gets beat up by Jean-Paul

Flash 92 (July 1994) – Bart aged to 14

?? Shortly after Knight’s End – Tim is 15 and in the 10th grade

Flash 0 (Oct 1994) – Wally is 23

Damage 1(94) – Grant is 16

Deathstroke, The Terminator Annual 4 (Aug 1995) – Rose is 14, “What would that do to a kid? A fourteen-year-old girl whose father is an assassin she’s never met?”

Wonder Woman 105(95) – Cassie is 14

Tempest 1(96) – Garth spends many months in other dimension

Aquaman 20 (May 1996) – Garth aged 3-4 years in other dimension, now older than other Titans

Teen Titans 1 (Oct 1996) – Argent, Risk, Joto, Prysm all turn 16(they were conceived by seed things on same day)

Superboy Annual 2 – to Kon: “Happy birthday, Kid - - number one in a long successful series, we hope.” “He will effectively remain sixteen years old - - forever!”

Green Lantern 82(97) – Robert Long is 3

Wonder Woman 121(97) – Terry and Robert die

Secret Origins Giant 1(98) – Bart is “Three. Fifteen. Depends.”, “you’re almost 15, Tim.”

Titans 5(99) – Donna is 23

Titans(99) – Lian is 4

Sins of Youth(99) – Kon 16, aging normally again

Aquaman 63 (Jan 2000) – Future Garth tells granddaughter Donna about Cerdian being born (think this is his weird birth issue)

Wonder Woman Secret Files (2002) – „Wonder Girl is a precocious outgoing 15-year-old named Cassandra „Cassie“ Sandsmark.“

Bruce Wayne: Murderer (2002) – Oracle says Tim is 15

Batgirl #37 (April 2003) – “Cain said ... today was ... my birthday.”

Batgirl #39 (June 2003) – “I see an eighteen-year-old girl, who’s out of her depth.” (Babs about Cass)

Robin #116 (Sept 2003) – Dana: “Oh, I’m so glad we’ll all be together on Thursday ... !” Tim: “Why? What’s Thursday?” Jack: “Yeah. What’s Thursday?” Dana: “Wait a minute – seriously? Tim: “Yeah. Tell. Us.” Dana: “It’s nothing – never mind. Just leave your schedules open for a nice family dinner.”| Jack: “Dana, what’s – “ Dana: “Shh! Thursday ...  the 19th of July ... ?” Jack: “Um ... oh! Right!” | Steph: “So – Thursday!! Are you excited? Got any ideas for it, yet? ... Tim ... ?” [Tim is asleep.] | [Ives and Steph come over, with pizza that says “Happy B-Day Tim.”] Ives: “Sixteen spankings – get that boy up!!” | Dana says: “I remember when I was in 11th grade.” | he also gets the first ‘clue’ for Bruce’s ‘birthday present.’

Teen Titans 1 (Nov 2003) – Gar is 19, Is this Joey’s return?? (He’s puppeting Slade)

Teen Titans ½ (2004) – Rose’s early years, with a ‘6 years ago’ flashback, she was raised in a brothel her mom ran, tutored, never allowed the outside world, but had relationships with kids her age

Detective Comics #790 (Mar 2004) – Jason’s 18th birthday “he would have been 18 today”

Teen Titans 8 (April 2004) – Raven looks 'barely older' than Cassie

TEEN TITANS #1/2 [2004]: The flashback panels totally sync up with my age theories; Flash to 10 years ago: Dick Grayson’s parents die. Flash to 6 years ago: Rose Wilson is schooled at home by her mother, Lili. Flash to 5 years ago: Ravager I is killed. Flash to 3 years ago: Slade is forced to kill Jericho. Flash to 2 years ago: Cadmus attempts to clone Superman. Flash to 18 months ago: Rose deals with the death of her mother. Flash to one week ago: Bart Allen is shot by Slade.

Identity Crisis 4 (Dec 2004) –(Tim still 16)

Green Arrow 47(05) – Mia is 17

Return of Donna Troy 3(05) – Cassie barely 16

Nightwing: Year One(05) – Dick is 26

Batgirl #65 (Aug 2005) – Cass decides to figure out if Shiva is her mom, Jason and Cass roughly the same age

Flash(05/06) – Wally is 26

?? Robin #136 – Tim still 16 ???

Detective Comics #868 (Oct 2010)– Kate is 32 years old??

One Year Later(Mar 06)

Flash 1(06) – Bart 4 years older(20?)

Blue Beetle 2 (June 2006) – Find out Jaime was in space/a pocket dimension for One Year Later

?? Just prior to 52 (July 2006-July 2007)– told Tim is 17 (long before he’s also  17 in Red Robin, 52 is 1 year long)

Teen Titans 42 (Feb 2007) – Eddie is 17

Final Crisis: Legion of 3 Worlds 3-4 (Apr-June 2009) – Bart and Kon back, same as when died

Batman 677 (July 2008) – Batman over 30

Batman: Battle for the Cowl (May-July 2009) – Damian is 10, Ends with Dick and Damian becoming Batman and Robin

Brave & The Bold 2 (May 2007) – Kara is 17, “You have food in the refrigerator older than her, Hal. Who are you, Ollie? No bad thoughts. She’s seventeen.”

Batgirl #1 (Oct 2009) – Steph starting college

Batgirl #7 (Apr 2010) - Damian is "what happens when you work with a 10-year-old."

Red Robin #12 (July 2010) – Tim spent “a few months” looking for evidence before returning to Gotham, becomes emancipated minor

Detective Comics #871 (Jan 2011)– Mention that Dick and Babs went to prom together

Red Robin #25 (Sept 2011) – Tim “and you are only 17”

The Batman Files (Oct 2014) – Jason was 15 at death (seen on death certificate)

?? Rebirth Young Justice series – Cassie: “didn’t mean to end up back in high school feeling - - like I did back when I went to high school.” Later, she says she’s in Metropolis “Working. Going to school in the fall.” So she’s probably starting college.

?? Bart in some Rebirth comic: “Am I six? Am I nineteen? That’s a really freaky thing, right?”

?? At some point: Donna says shes a little older than Kyle

[shoutatthadevil]

Watch "devils knot" on Netflix, I believe the WM3 are innocent

Thanks but I don’t need to. I’ve seen all three paradise lost documentaries and once believed they were innocent too. However like most documentaries, it was biased, and left out incredible amounts of evidence that did not go along with what they were trying to prove (their innocence). Let’s look at that evidence. This first section is taken from Reddit user luckyballandchain. Everything he posts is sourced straight from court documents and evidence:

No substantial evidence? Excuse me

Damien has never come up with an Alibi for where he was during the murders. Well, actually he has, per Damien: > “At the time the police say the murders took place I was actually on the phone with three different people. The problem was, my attorneys never called them to the stand.” - Damien Echols (source)

Really? Lets examine these three (actually four) other peoples testimony, shall we? Do they exonerate him like he suggests? In a word, no. They weren’t called because they exposed Damien’s alibi for the total lie it was.

Holly George - Damien claimed he talked to Holly George on May 5th, 1993. Holly told police she didn’t talk to Damien that evening. She said she spoke with him much earlier in the afternoon, around 3:00pm or 4:00pm. (source)

Heather Cliett - Damien claimed he spoke with Heather Cliett on the evening of May 5th, 1993. Cliett said she’d been unable to reach Echols until 10:30pm. She also mentioned that Holly George told her that Echols had been “out walking around” on May 5th, 1993. (source)

Domini Teer - Damien’s girlfriend, Domini Teer, said she last saw Damien around 5:00-5:30pm on May 5th, 1993. She said she did not speak with him again until Damien called her around 10:00pm that night. (source)

Jennifer Bearden - The one Damien misses out because it’s most damaging. Bearden told police in a 9/10/93 statement that she called Jason’s house between 4:15pm and 5:30pm on May 5th, 1993. She says Jason answered the phone and she talked to Jason and Damien for about 20 minutes. Damien told her he and Jason were “going somewhere” and to call him back at 8:00pm. When Bearden called Damien’s house at 8:00pm his grandmother answered. Damien’s grandmother told Bearden that Damien “wasn’t there.” In her police statement, Bearden says she finally reached Damien around 9:20pm. (source)

So where were Damien and co for four to five hours that happen to coincide with the time of the murders? Well we don’t know. Damien told Jennifer that Jason’s mom had driven them somewhere… which was a lie because she was at work til 11pm (source). It’s strange that he can’t come up with an alibi that holds up isn’t it? Surely if he’s innocent, he just needs to tell us where he was? So why doesn’t he?

Jessie Misskelley has no alibi either. I know, you’re about to say he was in a karate tournament, but he wasn’t. The so-called photos depict a different event a month prior, and the “witnesses” all gave conflicting testimony. This alibi only emerged after a previous alibi (he was at a party with 12 other people) fell apart (source)

And nor does Jason Baldwin, after an attempt to get his brother and a friend (Ken Watkins) to lie for him, he stopped trying to construct one; to the point that in 2008 his lawyer stood up in court and said he couldn’t find a reliable alibi witness for Jason. (source). It’s really weird that three totally innocent men all tried to fabricate alibis for the same period of time that just happens to correspond with a murder they’re suspected of. Really weird that.

Blue wax found on the bodies matched wax found in Damien’s room and a candle belonging to his girlfriend (Photo of candle taken during search)

The Knife - multiple people testified it was Damien’s knife, including his ex-girlfriend Deanna Holcomb (source). She said Damien’s knife stood out because it had a compass, and the knife manufacturer testified that the knife found was missing a compass (source)

But it doesn’t end there. The so called “bitemark” on Stevie Branch (photo) perfectly matches the diameter of the compass slot, complete with central wound for the pin (picture of knife with compass to compare). It’s shocking that an innocent man’s knife would match not just the knife wounds, but other contusions on the body too.

A necklace was found (too late to be included in trial evidence) in Damien’s possession that was covered with blood. Tests proved that the DNA on it was consistent with Damien, Jason and… Stevie Branch. (source)

The three boys were tied with three, distinct, unique knots. This usually points to three distinct killers and is almost unheard of in cases involving just one suspect (source)

Paradise Lost claims “there was no blood at the crime scene” which is… wrong. Completely. Here are the Luminol test results. “It lit up like a Christmas tree […] there was a lot of blood there”

Damien was seen, by a family that knew him very well near the crime scene on the night of the murders. The Hollingsworth Family, who correctly described Damien’s clothes, thought they saw him with his girlfriend. They have never retracted this statement and gained nothing by coming forward, except to have their credibility attacked again and again by WM3 researchers looking to discount their sighting. Despite this, one of the key reasons Narlene Hollingsworth was called to testify was her reputation for brutal honesty, even when it came to her own children. (more info on The Hollingsworth Sighting)

Green Fibres found at the crime scene matched a shirt in Damien’s home (source). Red fibres that the police suspected were from a bathrobe in Misskelley’s home but stressed that they couldn’t match them, were retested by the defense in 2008 and found not to match. It’s odd that they would retest the fibres known to not be a match, but not the ones that were a match, isn’t it? What’s even odder is that they neglected to mention that owing to evidence decay, most crime labs refused to retest for the defense, saying that after all this time they would have decayed too much and that “any findings, would be deeply suspect - no matter which side they favored”. Odd that they forgot to mention this.

Damien is a liar. Straight up. He lies to his supporters to make his innocence seem more compelling and lies to make himself seem more of a martyr. A few examples:

“I lived 15 miles away from West Memphis and the crime scene” (2010 interview, Larry King interview). He lived in a trailer park in West Memphis, less than two miles away from the crime scene.“I never went to West Memphis… Hardly at all” (2010 interview). He was known for walking around West Memphis constantly, and testified in 1994: “I walk around frequently… there’s not much to do”“I wasn’t familiar with Robin Hood Hills before the murders… it was a residential area, and I only went to West Memphis to go to Walmart and stuff” (2010). In 1994, in response to the question “how often do you go to Robin Hood Hills?” Damien responded “two, three times a week? Probably more”.He literally agreed with the prosecutor on the stand that he was moving events around depending on what time he needed to cover. You see him cover for this in Paradise Lost by saying he was “Daydreaming”In his book “Almost Home” Damien claims he “barely” knew Jessie Misskelley. The testimony of Domini Teer, Jim McNease, Jason Crosby, Deanna Holcomb, and about 15 others testifies to a friendship between the two, with everyone mentioning them walking around town together, attending events, turning up at people’s houses together and so on. It’s a total lie, and a poor one.Claimed Marc Gardner “raped” him in prison. He later retracted the whole thing after investigation proved he hadn’t. The prison at the time said he retracted the claims after he was told a report would be published that called him “a manipulative pathological liar”. He was concerned about the effect this would have on his supporters.Claims his mom and sister never visited him in prison (“maybe one or two times… but not often.. my sister only came twice and stopped coming after”). Prison records prove he’s lying and that his mother visited weekly, while his sister came fortnightly or once a month when she was busy.He told Piers Morgan that the prison forced him to “eat with his hands”. “I had to learn to use a fork again”, a claim that is demonstrably bullshit.Odd that an innocent man lies enough to be called a “manipulative pathological liar”.

Misskelley and Echols failed their polygraph tests (Echols’ results | Misskelley’s results). Not conclusive, but interesting.

It’s frequently claimed that Jodee Medford and the Softball Girls (the girls who heard Damien brag about the murders) have recanted their stories. They haven’t. It’s based on a misunderstanding of a declaration by Medford’s mother and ascribing her words to Jodee: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_medford_declaration.html

The Confessions - Jessie didn’t confess “once” after hours of questioning. That’s another lie.May 6th 1993 - The day after the murders, Jessie told his friend Buddy Lucas that he’d “hurt some boys” the day before. He then cried and gave Buddy a pair of sneakers (source)May - June 1993 - Jessie is heard crying, praying and apologizing in his room. He would later be diagnosed with PTSD, after witnessing a “traumatic event” that people still think he completely made up.June 3, 1993 - Jessie arrived with his father for questioning and confesses. This is where people imply he was questioned for 12 hours. He wasn’t. He arrived at 10am and confessed at 2:20pm. Only two hours of that time was interrogation (source)June 11, 1993 - Jessie confesses to his attorneys (source)August 19, 1993 - Jessie Misskelley met with his attorney, Dan Stidham, at the Clay County Detention Center and confessed again (source)February 4, 1994 - On the day he was sentenced, Jessie confessed to the officers driving him to the prison (source)February 8, 1994- Jessie put his hand on a Bible and swore to his attorney (Dan Stidham) that he, Damien, and Jason committed the murders. As proof, he told Stidham that he was drunk on Evan Williams whiskey during the murders and the broken bottle could be found where he threw it on the ground under a bridge in West Memphis. Stidham told prosecutors he would be force to believe his client’s confession if he could find that bottle. So Stidham, WMPD, and the prosecutors drove to West Memphis to look for it. They found a broken Evan Williams bottle in the exact area that Jessie said it would be. (source)February 17, 1994 - Jessie confesses again, this time to the prosecutors. His attorneys begged him not to give this confession, but he gave it anyway (source)October 24, 1994 - Jessie’s cell mate wrote to the prosecutors begging him to keep the WM3 in prison, saying Jessie had repeatedly confessed to the crime in detail and describing it as “awful” and “cold”. He had no reason to do this, it was no benefit to him.. he was simply disturbed by the campaign to release the WM3 after what Jessie had said (source)1994 - Present Day - Jessie continued to confess, possibly to prison counselors (heavily rumored and hinted at by his own attorney and said to be the reason Damien Echols fell out with him) but definitely to fans, most notably one known as TrueRomance, who as a result of what Jessie told her switched from one of their most vocal supporters to the total opposite and her story can be read here

Oh let’s finish on my absolute favorite one: Satanic Panic.

Worried that the case would be branded an example of “Satanic Panic” the trial was moved over an hour away to Jonesboro (Echols and Baldwin) and Corning (Misskelley) in order to give the defendants a better shot at seating fair, unbiased juries. All those “damning” stories in the West Memphis papers? The jury never saw them. All those damning rumors? The jury never heard them. The jury was mostly under 30, with very little religious influence (Jonesboro is a college town, and it was thought the younger Jury pool would favor the WM3, to the point that the state was accused of bias against the prosecution…)

During his initial police interview, Echols stated that the killer probably urinated in one or more of the boys’ mouths, apropos of nothing.

Urine was later found in the stomachs of 2 of the victims, but that information was given by phone only to Gitchell, and not before May 16th, 1993. There is no possible way Damien Echols could have had case- specific information unless he was there or knew someone that was that told him what occurred, as the detective interviewing him at the time was clueless to that fact during the interview. At the time Damien mentioned this detail, no one would have known about this, except those directly involved with the crime. Damien attempted to explain this away by saying he was “thinking about what I would have done if I was the killer”.

Source: https://amp.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/4mw5nl/what_case_has_kept_you_up_at_nightdoesnt_sit_well/d41kjxq

The above link contains every source link that’s missing above, I’m just too lazy to source it myself.

Also there is this website, the owner has literally combed through every piece of evidence, read Damiens books, transcribed his interviews, etc

https://thewm3revelations.wordpress.com/author/wm3revelations/

I totally suggest looking through that website. Most people I know who think they are guilty were at one point convinced that they were innocent due to the movies and documentaries. It doesn’t have to change your opinion but you’re doing yourself an injustice by only knowing one side.

[i-just-like-commenting]

Yes, the books were adaptable, part 2: Season 4 rewrite

Ideally, season 3 would have been 15 episodes long, to let them cover the remainder of A Storm of Swords, and season 4 another 15 episodes – but budgets and contracts being what they are, I can see using the Red Wedding as a finale.

What then becomes a problem is the scarcity of plot left in the book. My solution? Work as much of book 4 into this seasons as possible, from full plotlines to introducing characters ahead of time. This season will still, though, be more focused on character interactions because there is less plot, but that will be a breather before the plot-heavy next season (wherein we will cover most of books 4 and 5). I’m going to try to integrate this with the tone/prior changes of the show as much as possible, as well as reducing characters when it works. Spoilers for books 4 and 5 (and also lots of words) are under the jump:

Our first addition is incorporating the early stages of the Iron Islands arc. In the first episode, Yara makes her way down the coast; she passes a mysterious ship headed in the other direction. Back on the Iron Islands, Balon is fuming that his “rightful heir” is off on a fool’s errand (you might need some setup references to his two lousy brothers added to season 3). He gets killed by a reappearing Jaqen, and that mysterious ship roles into Pyke. It turns out it is Euron, who declares himself king. Younger brother Victarion protests on the basis of his “godlessness” (merging bits of Aeron into him to consolidate characters) and it looks as though the islands are heading to civil war. Yara gets the news and, frustrated, abandons her quest for Theon and returns to the islands. She calls for a kingsmoot to settle the dispute, and Victarion agrees. The arc ends the season with the kingsmoot, where Euron is declared king, Victarion joins him, and Yara flees to the North to find her brother.

Speaking of the Theon, Ramsay is playing hunting games with Reek until Roose shows up and puts a stop to all of this nonsense. Clearly Ramsay is not pleased about having his power taken away, but there isn’t anything he can do about it. Roose sends for “Arya” from King’s Landing to legitimate their power. We introduce a Jeyne character, who isn’t Jeyne from the book but can keep her name, as Tywin picks out a prostitute (excuse for a brothel scene!) to train to pretend to be her. As we see scenes of Roose and Ramsay trying to placate upset lords in the North, with some scenes of Theon’s abuse, we grow increasingly terrified for her, as she has no idea what she is getting into and thinks this is her chance to leave sex work and be “a real lady.”

Elsewhere in King’s Landing, Oberyn and Ellaria arrive…with Arianne, introducing her ahead of time to get our “in.” We add a romance with her and Bronn to give us more sexy times (and yes, he will be replacing Arys since the show already seems to not care about his actual story, and it was kinda problematic anyway). The Purple Wedding happens. Sansa escapes in the aftermath, and she and Tyrion are accused of conspiracy to murder.

Jaime and Brienne show up, at the right point in the story this time. Brienne is immediately arrested. Her arc will be extended by having Loras be on her side (since he didn’t believe she did it) and they can bond over memories of Renly, to give back story and character development. Jaime and Loras can also start their friendship over helping Brienne. Yes, this renders her somewhat passive for a season, but she’ll get more to do in season 5 than sitting around watching for a candle as a result.

Jaime and Cersei’s sept scene should be…disturbing and ambiguous enough in terms of consent to make audiences uncomfortable, but not violent rape. Jaime and Cersei’s relationship is strained both by his desire to reveal their relationship and by him helping Brienne. Jaime later rejecting leaving the kingsguard to get her out of being sent back to Casterly Rock, and siding and visiting with Tyrion doesn’t help Cersei’s mistrust either.

Oh, and we can include the scenes mentioned in the book of her offering a threesome and a marriage to Oberyn to get him to throw the trial. Instead Tyrion, helped by Bronn and Arianne, convinces him to be his champion. Shae is shown being threatened by Cersei and Tywin; once she sees the trial and realizes Tyrion is doomed no matter what she does, she asks for the protections he promised in exchange for betraying him.

As for Oberyn and Ellaria’s sexualities...sure, have a scene where someone is poking fun at Loras and Oberyn is all “I dunno, I’d tap that” to shut them up, or show them visiting a brothel to find their threesome but emphasize that (1) they’re a happy couple looking to spice up their sex life and (2) are also doing this as part of information hunting, hinting at Oberyn’s role as a spy. A cool sexy spy - but not screwing everything that moves.

Mountain vs the Viper should take place in episode 8. In the next episode, Shae refuses to sell out Sansa to Cersei, and her protections are revoked. She goes over Cersei’s head to Tywin. Jaime gets Brienne released, then visits Tyrion and lets him out; we keep the Tysha reveal and Tyrion’s response of telling Jaime about Cersei’s affair with Lancel. Tyrion kills Shae and Tywin, and this time the viewer knows Shae always loved him, only did this under duress, and we are so angry at Tyrion for killing her unjustly.

In the final episode, the twins find Tywin’s body. Jaime feels guilty, and he runs into Lancel, setting up hints of his jealousy. Cersei puts out price on Tyrion’s head, and foreshadows her prophecy, saying something like “I always knew he would betray me…I won’t let you take Tommen.” The full flashback can be next season.

Oh, it would also be good to hint heavily that Varys is Up To Something this season, getting and sending mysterious letters, to set up the reveal of Griff in the next season.

Sansa, after fleeing, is off to the Eyrie, where Littlefinger tries to turn her on Tyrion, and she recalls out loud the people who were good to her in King’s Landing: Tyrion, the Hound, and the Tyrells – not Littlefinger. “But who is helping you now?” he replies. Can she trust him or not? Tension!

He marries Lysa and they go the Eyrie. There, Sansa ably poses as Littlefinger’s daughter. She meets Robin and sees him have an epileptic fit, as well as his mother’s poor parenting. The snow castle scene and the kiss happen, and Lysa turning on her before being murdered. This arc ends with Sansa testifying that Lysa committed suicide and Robin saying she’s his mother now. (The show was actually pretty close on all of this, tbh.)

On Dragonstone, Stannis gets word of Balon and Joffrey’s deaths. Melisandre blames Davos for sending off Edric too early and tries to have him executed as a traitor. Stannis waffles, until Davos gets word from the Wall…

Up at the Wall, Sam is uncomfortable with Gilly telling stories of his defeat of the White Walker, but Jon is using the knowledge about dragonglass. Ygritte’s party attacks the Wall, she dies and it is sad. Jon has a wolf dream (see below) and it freaks him out. Gilly gets to exposit wildling knowledge on skinchangers, including the Second Life. Meanwhile there’s also rumblings in the Watch against the incestuous origin of her baby (”It’s cursed; maybe we should just let it die?”) The siege begins; Janos Slynt finally arrives from King’s Landing and Jon is betrayed and sent to the wildlings. Stannis shows up in episode 8 or 9 (depending on how full these episodes are). This arc ends with Jon being appointed Lord Commander by Sam’s political maneuvering.

Beyond the Wall, we’ll take the show’s idea of Bran running into the deserters at Craster’s Keep, but it will be Coldhands (who can be Benjen to save an actor, fine, whatever) and supernatural forces that slay them, not Jon. Bran will have a wolf dream where he reaches out to Jon and awakens his powers. Ends with Bran and the group battling the wights and making it into the caverns where they meet the Three-Eyed Raven.

Over in Slaver’s Bay, Dany will start moving towards Meereen. Backstory about Aerys and Rhaegar get provided by Barristan (which will reinforce Oberyn’s revenge motive). She eventually reaches Meereen. We can include the champion combat from the book as her initial idea, with Grey Worm filling in for Strong Belwas, only the Meereenese back down after he wins. Yeah, it’s padding, but we need it, there’s not much plot left. Dany gets a message from inside that the slaves are ready to revolt if she attacks in such-and-such a way, and she does, and Meereen falls.

In all of this, Jorah is being super jealous of Daario and it is grating; his pure good guy status slowly erodes as his love becomes obsession. Inside Meereen, a red priestess gives Dany the biggest points of her prophecies from Quaithe and the House of the Undying (betrayed three times, mummer’s dragon, must go back to go forward). When she pieces together from Barristan’s story about an informant that Jorah betrayed her, she concludes he’s betrayal #2 and sends him away. Dany decides to stay and rule Meereen.

In the Riverlands, we have two plotlines. The first is Arya and the Hound. In the book, they head towards the Eyrie and stop at a village on the way. Here we will condense that into the Quiet Isle, to introduce them early and give some foreshadowing. They will be hosting refugees, letting us see more of the devastation from the war. The sparrows will make an early appearance visiting the Isle and declaring that they intend to take the complaints of the commoners to the capital. One of them recognizes the Hound, so he and Arya skedaddle.

Meanwhile Gendry is still hanging out with the Brotherhood, with more scenes of war devastation. In the very first episode, Beric and Thoros find an unidentified body by the river, and Beric gives up his life, freaking out Thoros. Said resurrected figure, the mysterious Lady Stoneheart, remains hidden in a cloak most of the season. Walder Frey sends out men, including some sellswords based on the Bloody Mummers, and Locke, to take out the Brotherhood, and sends Edmure as a hostage to try to retake Riverrun. Sandor gets injured when they get caught up in a fight with said Freys (featuring an audience-teasing almost-meet between Arya and Gendry), then Arya leaves the Hound for dead and heads off to Braavos. The final scene will be Locke apprehended by the Brotherhood and sentenced to die…and the final shot of the season reveals the identity of Lady Stoneheart - Catelyn Stark.

This may get talky in some places, but I think with enough good dialog you could get ten episodes’ worth of material. Keeping the Brotherhood can give you extra battle sequences as they fight Frey mooks; Craster’s Keep gives us supernatural action; and of course we get big twists and shockers for our final episodes the way the show likes.

[theinstantblog]

Does God Exist? Part III (An Extended Design Argument)

In Part II of this brief series, we walked through two issues relevant for our consideration of the question of God’s existence: (1) The role of agnosticism with respect to the question, and (2) a presentation of the cosmological argument (our first “proof”). Regarding (2), we saw that the cosmological argument suggests that the universe being finite in the past was created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) by a metaphysically necessary cause.

In this post, I want to focus on another argument known as the Argument from Design. Now, before writing this post, I was rather hesitant on writing about this argument in the form of a presentation because I’ve never written about it before, let alone defended it in respect to a dialogue format. However, the argument from design is one of the most well-known arguments for God’s existence, although it has been manipulated in a number of ways so as to be either widely misunderstood and wildly misrepresented.  As Robin Collins [1] writes in his essay on the argument from design:

Historically, the argument from design probably has been the most widely cited argument for the existence of God, both in the West and the East. [ … ] Modern scientific discoveries, particularly the discovery beginning around the 1950s that the fundamental structure of the universe is “balanced on a razor’s edge” for the existence of life, have given this argument significant force in the last 30 years. . . [2]

Thus, contemporary formulations of the argument from design have focused on three major areas which has been known widely as “the fine-tuning of the universe”:

(1) The laws of nature,

(2) the constant of physics, and

(3) the initial conditions of the universe.

I want to begin by setting straight some basic terminology so that our thinking is clear throughout the remainder of the presentation of the argument. The first being, of course, is that the argument has also been more technically known as the “Teleological Argument” (from the Greek telos meaning “end” or “goal”). Thus, “[t]he teleological argument. . . attempts to establish that natural entities act in such a way as to achieve ends or goals, and that these ends cannot be the result of blind chance” [3]. Consider the following scheme:

Nature everywhere exhibits orderly structures and processes.

Orderly structures and processes are always the work of an intelligent personality.

Therefore, nature is the work of an intelligent personality

In a spirit of being unimpressed with the force of the above argument, Wallace Matson (1965) expresses the argument in the following way: “Naturally the argument has been stated in numerous forms, which differ among themselves according to what orderly structure and processes are regarded as especially significant, and with respect to the means adopted for proving the second premise, that order presupposes intelligence” [4].

In the following sections, I hope to present the argument with emphasis on its various strengths and perhaps in later sections deal with certain objects raised against the argument – ones that I am sure we are all familiar with.

The Argument Stated – Paley’s Stone

We see one of the most famous presentations (though not the first) of the Argument from Design in William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802). William Paley (1743-1805) was an English philosopher of religion and ethics and had written several essays regarding Christian apologetics, such as his Truth of the Scripture History of St Paul he wrote in 1790. However, his most notable work for which he become widely known is his Natural Theology which he wrote just three years before his death. He presents the famous watchmaker analogy as such (I quote at length):

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to be contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.

Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive – what we could not discover in the stone – that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce out motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that which they are placed, either no motion at all would have answered the use that is now served by it. [5]

Paley’s argument thus functions as an Argument from Analogy, which can be schemed as such:

a, b, c, and d all have properties P and Q.

a, b, and c all have properties R as well.

Therefore, d has property R too (probably).

Notice the conclusion to the argument – Therefore, d has property R too (probably). Paley’s argument [6] is what’s known as an inductive argument. This simply means that the argument doesn’t say “that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, but only that its premises establish  a probability that the conclusion is true” [7]. This simply plays the role of the function of a sort of scientific investigation, where it is “designed to explain the facts of experience, and must be accepted or rejected according to whether it meets the criteria of adequacy by which hypotheses are appraised in science and in everyday life” [8].

Thence, suppose we were to fill in the variables of the above argument:

Boats, houses, watches, and the whole experienced world have such properties as “mutual adjustment of parts to whole” and “curious adapting of means to ends.”

Boats, houses, and watches have the further property of being produced by design.

Therefore, it is probable that the universe also has this further property, that it too was produced by design.

However, in what way can we consider the universe being produced by design as probable?

Introducing Probability – The Likelihood Approach

I believe philosopher Robin Collins (2012) has interesting insight in respect to this issue of probability and likelihood of the universe being produced by design. Consider the following hypotheses:

(1) The Existence of a Life-Permitting Universe (LPU).

(2) The Theistic Hypothesis (T).

(3) The Naturalistic Single-Universe Hypothesis (NSU).

Although I think (1) is rather self-explanatory [9], (2) and (3) are rather important. By (2), we simply to say the hypothesis that “there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting or eternal, perfectly free creator of the universe whose existence does not depend on anything outside of itself” [10]. 

By NSU, we can simply mean that “there is only one universe, the existence of which is an unexplained, brute given, and that within the universe the laws and constants of physics do not significantly vary from one space-time region to another. . . it excludes any transcendental explanation of the universe, be that explanation theistic or nontheistic” [11].

Consider finally other notable terms relevant to our consideration for the argument:

(1′) P(A|B) and conditional epistemic probability.

(2′) Background information k and k’.

(3′) Other symbols. (“<<” – or, “much, much less than”)

(1′) may require some careful explanation. Consider A and B to represent two propositions – propositions, which, are simply statements that assert something(“Apples are red,” “Dogs can’t meow,” etc.). Thus, P represents the probability of Proposition A in respect to (or given) Proposition B. In respect to (2′), k refers to our background information in a more general sense, while k’ represents our background knowledge on some given particular thing (we will have to designate something k’ in order for it to have a proper function in our argument).

Thus, let us further consider what is known as the Likelihood Principle. This principle states (or can be stated) that where we have two competing hypotheses (say h(1) and h(2)), an observation (E) counts as evidence in favor of h(1) over h(2) if the observation is more probable under h(1) than (2). In a symbolic form, we can state the principle as follows:

E counts in favor of h(1) over h(2) if P(e|h(1)) > P(e|h(2)).

However, the form of probability that we are concerned with is what is known as Conditional Epistemic Probability, or, “the degree to which Proposition B, in and of itself, supports or leads us to expect A to be true” [12]. Thus, under this light we can probably deter our language from the Likelihood Principle into what is known as the Expectation Principle. Collins explains:

[I]f an event or state of affairs e is more to be expected under one hypothesis, h(1), than another, h(2), it counts as evidence in favor of h(1) over h(2) – that is, in favor of the hypothesis under which it has the highest expectation. The strength of the evidence is proportional to the relative degree to which it is more to be expected under h(1) than h(2). [13]

Thus, we can structure the argument as follows:

Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPU is very, very epistemically unlikely under NSU: that is, P(LPU|NSU & k’) << 1, where k’ represents some appropriately chosen background information, and << represents much, much less than (thus making P(LPU|NSU & k’) close to zero).

Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPU is not unlikely under T: that is, ~P(LPU|T &k’) << 1.

T was advocated prior to the fine-tuning evidence (and has independent motivation).

Therefore, by the restricted version of the Likelihood Principle, LPU strongly supports T over NSU.

_____________________________

Notes:

[1] Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning Universe” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (Wiley-Blackwell: 2012)

[2] Ibid., p. 202

[3] George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Promotheus Books: 1979) p. 258

[4] Quoted from Critiques of God, ed. Peter Angeles (Promotheus Books: 1997) p. 60

[5] Quoted from Reason and Responsibility, ed. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau (Thomson and Wadsworth: 2005) p. 32

[6] David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) contains a fictional character named Cleanthes who structures the argument similarly.

[7] Feinberg and Shafer-Landau (2005), p. 3 – emphasis added

[8] Ibid.

[9] Yet, if you do prefer an explanation: “This. . . mean[s] the existence of a material spatiotemporal reality that can support embodied moral agents, not merely life of some sort” (Collins 2012, 203)

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid. – emphasis added

[12] Ibid., pp. 205-206

[13] Ibid., p. 206 – Collins provides further clarification in terms of what version of the Likelihood Principle he is using, which is what he calls the restricted versiondue to “certain potential counterexamples” (206). I wont be addressing this matter due its technicality relative to our attention here, but should you as the reader have any concerns or comments about this, please feel free to ask.