Duh. However, the points I was making were in response to others who were citing legalistic reasons why a character was justified. For example, Arya's murder of Dareon. They were claiming that she was a lawful authority who was therefore justified in carrying out a lawful execution (though I concede some of them may not have realized that is what they were doing). I was using legal positions and explanations to dismiss their contention of lawful authority. It should be OBVIOUS, that in the absence of such legal justification, Arya has no leg to stand on. Similarly with the case of Cersei - they were confusing a legal excuse (insanity, or legal competence) with a moral justification. The only reason I was arguing in legal terms was to show how even by their own positions, they were wrong. Cersei and Arya are wrong morally, regardless of what the law says. The other posters were ineptly and wrongly contending that they had legal justifications, or were providing justification that, whether they understood that or not, were based on legal issues. I was exploding their idiocy on their own terms.

Jaime has no wife, his only sexual liaisons were with his sister. Thus, by THEIR customs, and THEIR beliefs about right and wrong, he is a pervert. That assertion was a moron (was that you? ) claiming, on no basis whatsoever, that I was judging the characters by my real-world contemporary morality. By that standard, the Targaryens are sick freaks as well. I was refuting that claim with an example (something my attacker could not be bothered to come up with). Regardless of what the standards are, Jaime is a pervert, and that is so by our rules and those under which he was raised.