Ramsays 63 and Daenerys 163... Is Martin trying to hint something?

[E-Ro]

fuck. the lemoncake kind of put us all in our places on this.

This thread can now be locked.

See this is why I advocate butterball annihilation. I know i know, this makes me a huge hypocrite after arguing over dany killing people. But honestly slavers are better then butterballs imo.

[Sansa_Stark]

And Dany executed them by crucifying them. The end result is the same, they are dead.

Though I suspect if Dany ordered 163 mass beheading people would complain about that too.

Not as much.

But the way Dany executed them was arguably torture.

A beheading is quicker and painless and comparatively humane.

What Dany did is cruel and unusual.

Do you consider Ramsay's flayings which could be considered a form of executions to be okay or something?

[Sansa_Stark]

fuck. the lemoncake kind of put us all in our places on this.

This thread can now be locked.

See this is why I advocate butterball annihilation. I know i know, this makes me a huge hypocrite after arguing over dany killing people. But honestly slavers are better then butterballs imo.

pls

You're just going to make a part 2 of this.

[E-Ro]

pls

You're just going to make a part 2 of this.

brah i only make part 2s of Stannis threads!

[El Guapo]

Not as much.

But the way Dany executed them was arguably torture.

A beheading is quicker and painless and comparatively humane.

What Dany did is cruel and unusual.

Do you consider Ramsay's flayings which could be considered a form of executions to be okay or something?

Of course it was a much crueler form of execution. Nobody argues that it isn't.

But the person is dead either way.

Flaying is pretty cruel too.

[Dany Girl]

I totally get your viewpoint, and I'm sorry that I've been responding to your posts in disagreement, since the 163 isn't something I believe deserves the absurdly disproportionate attention it gets.

I can't say I care much about their deaths either. My issue has more to do with the fact that posters portray this as morally excusable. I firmly do not believe that this act can, or should, be defended on moral grounds, because in order to do so, it requires some very problematic assertions to occur.

The fact that the crucifixions are morally indefensible to me isn't an issue. I'm a Bolton fan, ffs.

I have less of a problem with what Dany actually did in the books than I do with the way it's discussed here-- from both sides. I wasn't trying to persuade you to have a problem with Dany doing this; rather, I think the arguments that portray it as "just" and moral are what need to end, adjacently to the nonsensical Hitler comparisons and other assorted verbal diarrhea. So enjoy it as a statement of vindication and a sign that Dany is equalizing the value of all human lives, but I really think the moral question needs to be dropped.

I hope that clarifies.

It's ok, and on a lot I agree. Crucifixition is not acceptable, neither is burning, flying, or any forms of torturous death.

In no way am I trying to defend her actions as moral, they are not. Crucifixition is never moral. It was vengeance, it was also a show of dominance in her roll as conquering Queen. This is in no way the morally right thing. Vengeance is almost never on the right side of vengeance. I just, as a reader, don't care about the moral standing of it. Just as I assume as a Bolton fan you don't like them for their morals. This act was a bad ass act. It made a HUGE impact story wise. That's why I like it, not because it's good.

The GMs are people, so perhaps I should care, I just don't.

[OldGimletEye]

OOooooo people get REALLY fidgety when you start talking about our deified (I just realized thats a palindrome) founding fathers and slavery.

George Washington actually didn't free his slaves because it wouldn't have been socially acceptable so in his will he declared that all of his slaves would be free after his wife died. This was clever because he knew his wife didn't want to be outnumbered 50:1 by people with a vested interest in her death, so she freed them after he died.

That way he wasn't "soft on slavery" and his slaves got to be free.

Also there is good evidence that Washingtons only child was from a slave.

Don't accuse me of being a Palinite. Cause ain't one. Secondly, I am by no means trying to white wash America's troubled history with slavery.

At any rate, I don't know what you are trying to say here. I don't think it rebuts the fact that Washington began to see slavery as problematic or the fact that he did arrange in his will to free his slaves. Which did apparantely happen, after his wife died.

This not a defense of his prior slaving ways. I justed wanted a little more balance in the discussion thats all.

[OldGimletEye]

But every GM is a lord, is a slaver, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, depending on age. Meereen trains pit fighters, fights to the death. These masters own the fighters and fight them for their own amusement.

There are many reasons Dany kills them, some more noble, some more problematic. Some of these reasons are as follows:

-killed 163 kids, this is fresh to Dany, clouding her judgment

-they are slavers

-they are rulers of Meereen

I thought we agreed that Dany executed them specifically for the children. Which is it? You keep wanting to change the justifications here. Did she execute them because what they did to those children or because they were slavers? If it was just because they were slavers, then why aren't her blood riders up in front of a firing squad, along with other Dothraki?

None are civilians, they are all active members of the government, they are all active slavers. They may or may not be the true leaders of the city or those responsible for the kids, there's not enough evidence either way to determine. So while problematic, I do agree she should have waited a bit to get the guilty people, that problem is not enough to make me feel bad for them.

No there is no evidence at all who was responsible. Because Dany never bothered to ask. For all we know, the GM's that were the most ardent about crucifying the children might have gotten off.

They're also not enemy combatants that surrendered, Yunkai were, Meereen were not. She conquered them, her forces forced their way into the city. Killing them was not the same as what Ramsey did. These were not just POWs. She's their conquer, she needed to make a point. Not just to them, but any other army she eventually goes up against. "Don't fight me, just surrender. There's safety in surrender, there's nothing but pain if you fight me."

What? Were they still resisting her when she entered Mereen? No they were not. They were prisoners and she decided on a very arbitrary method of execution. And many of them were old men and women. Not exactly the Green Berets. Nice try though.

And by the way the Yunkai did resist her. Why didn't she execute all of them? You seem to approve the wholesale slaughter of enemy forces once they have stopped resisting, well, at least if Dany does it. I would shudder to ask about your opinion of Malmedy.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Topic closed for length.

As it has gone round and round with not really anywhere to go, it doesn't need a sequel.

Thanks.

[/MOD]