OldGimletEye

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Moving the goal post. I never said the majority of Chinese people revere him. I specifically said many do.  

Not really. You were never clear about how many Chinese People revere him. So now your saying its only probably a minority. That undercuts your original assertion by quite a bit.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If I claimed that you would’ve had a point

Then what in the fuck was your point? If the Chinese don't have admiration for Genghis, then why did you bring it up?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not exactly. The pro-Stark  that resides there preyed upon the peasantantry just as badly as the pro-Lannister forced. 

And Hoster Tully deserves criticism and condemnation for his actions.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Kinda yeah. “Boys will be boys” is a often used, and gross expression but it’s sentiment and it would be the line of thinking for most medieval military commanders. Their  men have desires, for money, honor, and of flesh. They’re not turning a blind eye to it(or encouraging it), and secretly brimming with disdain at the abhorrent conduct. 

The point though is it is known to be wrong.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

“Attempted” rape. Because he wants to play hero, and Pan professed to having idolized him for years.  And notice he didn’t execute all the mountain’s men who raped Pan. Only the one who tried to raped her while he was around.

So your point here is that rape isn't viewed to be bad in Westeros? Seriously?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She doesn’t actually stop her in plans to invade Westeroes over it. Honestly I took her “saving” of these women more done out of soothing her own ego and reaffirming she’s a good person than pure altruism.

But if rape isn't considered to be that "bad" why would she need to reaffirm to herself she was a good person? Can you please explain that?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah not my argument. My argument was that in general  military commanders in a medieval  don’t fret over their men taking liberties with the enemies peasantry. This is like your strawman with killing. No, a peasant man raping his neighbor generally won’t be accepted by his lord. But a soldier raping the subject of his enemy would be.

Well no shit. We already knew that military commanders in Westeros don't fret over rape often. But, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Anyway, just because military commanders don't fret about it does not mean rape is not considered to be wrong.And as for my alleged strawmanning That comes from mainly me having no idea what the fuck your point is or points are. You just keep asserting basically, "well things are different in Westeros", like that's really helpful. About as helpful as somebody saying, "well, innocents die in war. That is just the way it is!", like that's a fucking helpful observation in trying to parse through these issues.

And is should be rather obvious that just because people often ignore moral norms or violate them, that doesn't mean they are not present. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well, I’ve already given you reasons for why’d it’d be reviled and why it would be stupid. 

You have? 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You find Aegon’s war in Dorne. Please explain why isn’t it seen as a the actions of a monster in Westeroes? Why did see lords encouraging him to continue burning Dorne?

Mabye because his lords were assholes too.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Probably not tragic for many. They’re viewed as subhuman after all. And recent enemies. Making actual empathy for them in short supply. 

So you could see Ned Stark just killing Theon and not being bothered by it? Or how about Jon killing hostages? Or even Dany killing those kids in Mereen.

Just because a lot of people could rationalize and make themselves not feel bad about it, doesn't mean it's not considered bad. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh my god, yes! Seriously, I never argued they had no limits in anything. You keep doing this. No, not all killing is allowed. Not all rape is allowed. I never argued the opposite. I’ve argued they don’t have your limits.

Well no shit they don't have my limits. Thanks for that. What a profound insight by you! Is that the reason you started this whole argument, to just point that out. Dear fuckin' lord.

But seriously, I can't seem to get you to say in plain English what you'd consider to be too much or over the top.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The circumstances for Ned would be merely to keep others from thinking they could rebel with no great consequences. Basically to maintain the notion Robert should be feared/respected.? If Balon rebels, Theon dies. That’s it.  In Stannis case it’s not if. He’s serving up enough women for his torturers to find entertainment. In hopes there’d be information that could aid in his war-effort.

I have my doubts that Ned would go through with such an action if his reasoning process were similar to his objection to killing Dany.  But, if he were to kill Theon in the circumstances described, I would find that to be a bad act, but probably would not condemn him. And I've though Stannis' use of torture was bad. I can condemn certain actions without quite condemning the characters. Fact is there is lots of stuff Dany has done that I would say was bad, but wouldn't entirely condemn here character for it. But, when we get into the massacre of thousands of innocents, then yes a character deserves to be condemned for that.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The Stormland had their rightful king murdered, and had a probably up jumped bastard take his place. Thousands of Lannister forces died fighting Aegon, and Highgarden lost the house that had been its kings completely. The Ironborn’s empire, was basically destroyed with them not really coming close to what they lost. Yet still, we don’t see much disfavor in regards to Aegon to any of the people he’s conquered.

And how long did those conflicts last as compared to Dorne? I'm pretty sure the Dornish conflict lasted longer and the carnage much more widespread.

29 minutes ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

There are two reasons why Connington didn't burn the city.

One, he didn't want to be a killer (" I did not want the name of butcher.")

Second, he wanted to capture Robert himself, not get him as a casualties (" I wanted the glory of slaying Robert in single combat ").

None of these options are completely altruistic. He doesn't say "I didn't want to be a bad person". He says "I did not want to be known as a bad person". Of course most characters of ASOIAF have a sense of morality, but such morality is still not similar to ours. Cutting resources is normal for them during war times; that's considered a war crime now.

I'm not justifying Dany's actions in the recent episode because the episode itself is a (npi) hot mess from every angle. Some people believe she had a good development that took her to this, others said she just turned mad all of a sudden. The fact that we can tell both are correct and incorrect isn't product of expectations and tropes being subverted, but rather, mediocre writing. Had Dany being given a good storyline, then I could say "well, ok, she had her reasons, I don't like it, but I understand it". For what I've seen of the episode, it seems like her actions are due to a need to shock the audience. We really cannot debate much about the characters when there is not an intention of having a good development but simply try to surprised the watcher as much as possible while also attempt to give the characters the same ending as Martin planned for them.

But, as I said above, the setting of these characters has a context. They have a very tribalistic mindset. Dany loves her people, but her people have to be that: her people, people who follow her, who support her, who she feels she should protect. The rest, are her enemies. This applies for most of the characters who are in a position of power. We've seen examples of many Lords and Ladies protecting their people, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind much for the people of other lands. This doesn't make them necessarily bad because they're are very unfamiliar with the concept of universal human rights. Dany's reaction to the crucified children happened because she felt personally responsible of what happened: it personally affected her as she affected their decisions.

Dany's actions in the episode, rather than amoral are absurd. Like a very cynical review said: "Dany, isn't this your land, now? Aren't you meant to pay for the reconstruction of all of this??". Reviewer has a point.

A few things.

1. I know you're the board Connington expert and correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember part of Connington's reason is that he felt Rhaegar would not approve of such an action. The broader point here is the idea that there is no moral norms in Westeros that views killing innocents negatively is not entirely correct as some people argue. Even Connington saying "I don't want to be known as a bad person." points to the fact that these norms do in fact exist, even if Westeros doesn't have our exact moral norms.

2. I've never been Dany's biggest book fan as I'm sure you know. That said, even I'm shocked at her actions in the show. I'd always thought she be more accepting of the innocent loss of life to pursue the IT, but I did not expect her to just outright kill innocents in the manner that she did in the show. And I'm not even quite sure that is how it will go down in the books. But, if it does go down in the books, like it did in the show, I'd be utterly appalled by that action and believe she should be condemned for the willful and wanton slaughter of innocents. We're not just talking about innocents dying during the prosecution of combat operations. Nor are we just talking about her failing to exercise command responsibility and stopping her troops from going on a rampage after the city fell. We are talking about the deliberate targeting of innocents after the enemy had clearly surrendered. Something she directly and intentionally participated in. I think even Westeros with its somewhat different norms would find that too much. But, even if it didn't, I just can't be a complete moral relativist. I can make some allowance for the norms that exist within Westeros. But if somebody is asking me to excuse the most horrific acts of willful and wanton acts of destruction, that have little reasonable purpose, I just can't get there.

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That was sufficient justification, in Daenerys' eyes, to impose horrific punishment on the city, although obviously it's not justification in our eyes.  

While I can make some allowance for the norms in the universe of ASOIAF, at the end of the day, I can't be a complete moral relativist. There is some stuff that just goes beyond the pale.

And I think, even though the norms in the universe of ASOIAF are different from our own, they aren't something that is completely foreign to us. Or our norms wouldn't be completely foreign to the people that inhabit the ASOIAF universe. The people in the universe of ASOIAF generally understand that killing, rape, etc. is bad.

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

163 Slavers were crucified, but they weren't the only ones that suffered. In fact, their class weren't even the ones that suffered worst, as they were relatively safe in their pyramids.  Meereen was "savagely sacked" according to the author.  Much of this was due to slaves rising up against their masters, but much was down to Dany's sellswords and freedmen murdering, raping, and looting, after they broke into the city.  Dany gave them 24 hours of licence, before restoring order. 

Just to be clear. While I don't condemn Dany for the sack that happened after her taking Mereen, as I'm willing to make some allowance for the nature of medieval warfare, it doesn't follow that I shouldn't condemn her for committing wanton and willful destruction after a city clearly capitulated.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I did read your response. I found it lacking an actual objection other than the obvious note that these tributes maybe  aren’t purely out of altruism. Not to the idea there are Chinese people today who revere Genghis. And there clearly are given they would  have had this lesson propagated into them. You cannot seriously contend that decades, of Genghis being taught as a hero in China would leave no significant impact on how many perceive him. 

Sure there maybe Chinese people that revere him. How about a majority? You provided no evidence of that. And I don't recall there being years of state sponsored propaganda about Aegon in Dorne.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No I didn’t. No where do I say the Dorn likes Aegon particularly more than any of other provinces. Again my position is their feelings are probably in alignment with the rest of the country in regards to Aegon.  I have for some reason have to reiterate myself. And me not mentioning the places Genghis warred with and disliked wasn’t a failing on my part. YMy point wasn’t all the peoples Genghis warred with show him any reverence. I offered up China as a rebuttal  to your seeming insistence that a conqueror must be hated/disliked/not thought of favorably by the populace he warred with in all cases long after he’s dead. 

Except your rebuttal wasn't very compelling. And the one piece of evidence that was offered up to support your assertion, really didn't help your case. In fact, in undermined it. There was no evidence that the people of China just woke up one day and said. "Genghis what a swell guy!"

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well destroying the place you seek to rule from generally is a bad idea. Gregor is attacking Ned’s father-in law in attempt to draw him out. And, he doesn’t like  to see innocents suffer.  Not really unusual for there being an expression of disgust at noble children being butchered. Stannis is shown to be exceptional in punishing the troops that rape. I hope I do not have to explain to you generally, rape in war in this setting would be excused by most military commanders.

I understand exactly what Tywin was trying to do when he sent Gregor into the RL. The point was that seems a bit too much even for Westeros. And saying that rape would be excused by most commanders isn't the same thing as saying they view as not being bad. Why did Jaime execute somebody for committing rape? Does Dany just not care when the Dothraki commit rapes during their attack on the Lhazareen? People in the world of ASOIAF clearly understand rape is a bad act, even if some choose to look the other way.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why is Aegon never characterized as acting inappropriately  for the Burning of Harrenthal, or his campaign in Dorne even when the Targyens have been displaced? Why do we see the lords of the region, push Aegon to continue to burn the Dornish when it’s proven they won’t break? 

So what was that Connington thing about again. Why didn't he just burn down the whole city? Seems like it was a no-brainer, if burning down entire cities isn't viewed as being that bad in Westeros.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

. What do you think would happen if Jon cut the throats of all the children hostages he’s taken in response to the sins of their kin? Do you think he’d be seen as a monster? Tell my why do you think Robert was  troubled by the fact Joffrey got his friend’s daughter ‘ wild pet killed yet offered no sorrow that Joffrey’s lie cost a boy his life?

Within Westeros. Probably not. That still doesn't mean it wouldn't be viewed as a good thing. People would still understand it was a tragic action even if "necessary". 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If by in the same manner you mean burning KL down, I’d probably say no, people would object. Less for the loss of civilian life, and more for it’s cultural, religious, and economic value.  

So even in Westeros people have their limits? Right? It's not enough to say, "Oh well people die war, no worries".

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Tell me if Jon cuts the wildling children’s throat in response to their parent acting up do you think readers should condemn him? Tell me if Ned took a 13 year old Theon’s head in response to  Balon rebelling would you denounce him as a monster? Should we condemn Stannis(as most lords do), having tortures on hand to mangale their perceived enemies? 

Well, first, I'd view each of these acts as being fundamentally terrible. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd condemn the characters. That would turn upon the circumstances of each case and what options each character had. Certainly if they committed such an act and it served no remotely reasonable purpose, I'd likely condemn them. A point I'm trying to make here is that is not enough to say, "Oh well innocents die war, so we should just accept that." It will turn upon the particular facts of each case. For instance, Dany just bombing the shit out of KL means she deserves to be condemned by us the readers. Change the facts sightly. If innocents had simply died while the fighting was still going on, without being directly targeted, I'd would be a lot more hesitant to condemn Dany. I might be critical of her decision to make a direct assault upon KL, when she had other options and even say she made a bad decision, but not necessarily condemn her completely for it.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We see repeatedly see being compared to him being compared to him as a compliment from people from the various kingdoms he conquered. 

You can’t actually show anti-Aegon sentiment in Dorne and failed to provide a reason why’d they’d show more  animosity towards in comparison to most of the kingdoms Aegon conquered. You argue Dorne breaks the pattern for being in a bitter war with Aegon-quite literally 4 of the provinces, he conquered could say that but we don’t see it there. 

Well sure I can't provide take a poll in Dorne about how the people their feel about Aegon. And neither can you for that matter.

This whole argument got started because somebody asserted that Aegon I is particularly beloved in Westeos. And I pointed out maybe not. And Dorne was a different because it fought a particularly protracted and bitter conflict with Aegon. There are good reasons to think he wouldn't be fondly remembered there.

But I guess you'll try to convince me that the Young Dragon is loved there too.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

WRT atrocities, I think absolutely, we should apply our views to them in the books, but give some leeway to people operating in a different environment.  

I don't fundamentally disagree with this. But a couple of points:

1. Certain sorts of people often want to use some modern examples to justify what happens, without understanding that some of those modern examples were controversial. For instance, several prominent US military leaders, holding 5 star rank, had their doubts about the use of atomic weapons being dropped on Japan. Or they want to use modern examples to justify what happens without seriously trying to grapple with what is required by those in command under our modern notions. It is not enough to say, even modern war, innocents die, so ergo everything is good to go. We know that. And that isn't very helpful in thinking about these issues.

2. If Dany were to just continue burning a city after it clearly capitulated that would be viewed badly in Westeros as opposed to the city being burned while there was still fighting. Even in Westeros there are limits.

39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A conqueror may be hated, but eventually become admired by the people he conquered.  William became a very popular name among the English in the Twelth century.

And in some cases that doesn't seem true. By the 1980s, it was what: Like 600 years since Genghis Khan had invaded Russia and Vietnam?

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think @Zorral fulfilled that request.

And read my response. That article doesn't really strengthen your case. It would seem the official government policy for years towards Ghengis had been negative and that didn't change because the people in China suddenly fell in love with him. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn’t actually say they’d “particularly” like him. I’ve lamented their feelings in regards to him are probably in alignment with the rest of the country. Which has shown a general respect. Not surprising the greatest conqueror in their in history. 

Yeah you offered up China as an example of this. Then offered up no evidence about how the Chinese feels about Genghis. Then I think largely misinterpreted why the Chinese government had a change of heart according to that article.  And then were seemingly unaware that Genghis wasn't particularly loved in other regions he had invaded.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You apparently don’t since you’re still holding him to relatively modern understanding on on how war-fare ought be waged. 

Why doesn't Connington burn down an entire city again? Why is Ned seemingly angered by Gregor's actions in the Riverlands? Why is Ned angered by the murder of the Targaryen children. Why does Stannis punish his troops for rape. Why does Davos object to the killing of smallfolk?

Should I just excuse people like Tywin, Aerys and Roose Bolton? Was Robert B. right to want to have Dany killed? Was Tywin right to have the Targaryen children killed. Was Aerys right to order the murder of two innocent boys?

If Dany simply kills innocents in the books in the exact same manner and for the same reasons as she does in the show, do you think nobody in Westeros will find that objectionable? Should we as book readers just excuse that?

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, yes, not every people conquered will grow to love/respect their conqueror. My position was simply that the exact opposite that sentiment  is also false; that just because a person  waged war and/or conquered a people doesn’t mean the conquered will hate that person for all time or even dislike him.

So in other words you're not really sure about how the people of Dorne would feel about Aegon. It seems to me there is a bit of daylight between that and @Lord Varys suggestion that Aegon I is well regarded throughout Westeros.

19 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Even as far back as the 1980s, China financed and helped rebuilt the monument tomb to Ghenghis.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-13-mn-6896-story.html

The Mongolians, of course, really revere him.  In the entertainment forum, coincidentally, just last week was it? I put up two Youtubes of young Mongolian music videos about the return of Genghis and how his ideals for living should return.

Interestingly enough, the article suggest Ghenghis isn't particularly well liked in the Soviet Union or Vietnam. I wonder why.

And I don't get the impression from this article that the Chinese Communist Party changed its views about him because they said, "Gosh darn it. He just wasn't that bad of guy after all!" It seems something else might have been going on.

17 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 Your reasons for why they must could be applied to most of the provinces Aegon Conquered. We don’t really see that around Westeroes.  I don’t see a particularly good reason why Dorne should be the exception.  And, I would point to my earlier statement of Genghis being revered by many Chinese today. The people a conqueror warred with, and/or conquered altogether don’t always have to resent the conqueror forever.  

And I find it wrong to estimate a man if you remove him from his context. Like Ned is by definition a sexist, but it’s far less outrageous for him(a medieval lord) to be undesirable thing than say a man in Canada 2019. 

1. Provide evidence about Chinese attitudes about Genghis Khan.

2. You didn't answer my question why Dorne would particularly like Aegon. Probably the most likely explanation is they just don't think about him much since he invaded their country so long ago.

3. I don't disagree that context matter. However, it shouldn't be a free pass either. It's not a license for anything goes. Aegon's invasion of Dorne was atrocious.

4. And you didn't do a very good job of answering my question why we should as book readers like Aegon, even if he is allegedly revered in Westeros.

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 You seemed to treat it as a given that Dorne must have a large amount Anti-Aegon sentiment( which we’ve see no evidence of). I simply wanted to showcase your assumption may be wrong. Simple as that.

And why would Dorne remember him fondly? After their country fought a bitter war against him? 

But beyond that, why is general Westerosi opinion about Aegon even relevant to what we as book readers think about him?

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Probably no more or less than the other Kingdoms Aegon conquered. You know many Chinese citizens today revere Genghis though he’s committed loads of atrocities to build his empire. Oh and I would guess there’s not too a lot of resentment for Napoleon amongst the British even though he did his damndest to break them in pursuit of his empire.

And the point of all this what?

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They eventually sucked up to his descendants. But keep in mind that nobody who was conquered by this guy actually vilified him.

That matters because why?

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Connington learned his lesson. He is not going to repeat that mistakes. There are people in this world who take ideals and stories far too seriously...

Question is why did Connington make the "mistake" in the first place. Elaborate on that.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Brienne had to fight, didn't she? Was it even technically possible that she could just stand there and ignore what was happening?

So the assertion here is that Brienne fought because she had no other choice? Or supposing she had a choice. Are you saying she just let those orphans be killed?

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that's another example. And actually, there are interviews with the heroic pilots bringing literally fire and blood to Japan who actually defend that action in old age precisely because it shortened the war. Those two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians but this is seen as the lesser of two evils in a really disgusting manner.

Supposing the bomb had been just dropped simply to teach the Japanese civilian population a lesson they wouldn't forget. Would you find that objectionable, even if you were otherwise okay with strategic bombing campaigns.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 In childish movies the good guys do no wrong, but in the real world nations commit horrible crimes in wars and actually presume to differentiate between worthy and unworthy lives/victims.

So you wouldn't have a problem with anything. I mean do have a problem with Lt. Calley?

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is like Eisenhower always fretting about 'We cannot bomb the German civilians. What about the German civilians?!' or General Spaatz refusing to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of concern for the Japanese civilians.

Interesting enough I don't think Eisenhower approved of the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. He was joined in his sentiment by Admiral Halsey, Nimitz, and Leahy.

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros doesn't agree with you.

Yeah, I'm sure they love him down in Dorne. 

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros doesn't agree with you.

But that's not an assertion I did make, did I? I said the scenario as presented by the show is ludicrous - but it is equally ludicrous that a lot of people would make a fuzz about Dany killing a bunch of enemies because nobody in this world gives a rat's ass whether the smallfolk 'yields'. Nor has anybody at this point in this series actually ever expressed regret or doubt about the smallfolk on the other side of a conflict. There is literally zero consideration for this kind of thing.

People do care for their own smallfolk up to a point, and there are people, like Stannis, who refuse to punish the smallfolk for a betrayal of their lord. But this never extends to the point that wars or battles are not fought because the result could be the deaths of innocent bystanders on the enemy side. Nobody cares about that in this world.

And this should even be more true after the War for the Dawn is over. If Dany were to burn all five great cities of Westeros at that point people would likely just shrug. The winter they lived though should be much more horrible than anything we can imagine. As early as autumn Catelyn and her band of thugs are hanging people left and right. 

Care for commoners is a modern concept that has no place in George R. R. Martin's Westeros. There are small traces of this in Doran Martell's political approach and the softness of Edmure Tully - but that extends only to your own smallfolk, not to the smallfolk of your enemies. And curiously enough the only person who gave a rat's ass about the lives of innocents she basically had nothing to do with actually is Daenerys.

Tyranny in Westeros never was burning peasants. It was mistreating the nobility and limiting the powers of the Faith. If Dany does that she might become problems. But if she just burns down a city - with or without good reason - then nobody in this world is going to fault her for that.

I mean, just think of the Dance. The Two Betrayers burned down Tumbleton but they were not later betrayed and killed by their allies because they killed thousands of innocent commoners - they were killed because they were seen as lowborn scum who overreached themselves.

Okay.

1. Let me start with your basic premise that nobody cares about how about many small folk are killed. Should we care as readers? I'm not a huge, fan of pure moral relativism. Accordingly, while I'm willing to make some allowance for characters because of the norms they grew up in, I'm not quite willing to just dismiss the mass killing of innocents when thinking about these characters. You seem to believe that we should just throw all our ethical notions into the trash bin, and engage in pure moral relativism. Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. And by the way, just regurgitating the ethical norms in Westeros, as you believe them to be, isn't a convincing case we should do so.

2. You seriously think people like Ned Stark or Jon would just kill small folk indiscriminately and not care about it? And remind me again what was Connington's reason for not burning an entire city down? I'm not saying these characters wouldn't tolerate some deaths of innocents in certain circumstances. But, I think just saying nobody cares is a stretch. And what about Brienne when she got her face bitten off? I don't recall her trying to defend the children of the nobility.

3. So if Dany just ups and burns an entire city for no good reason and thousands of innocent people die, nobody in Westeros will care? Jon Snow wouldn't care? Ned Stark wouldn't care if he were alive? And even if nobody within ASOIAF cared, should we care as readers? If Dany just burned an entire city for no good reason, you really think we shouldn't be revolted by that as readers?

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah it is. You’re being obtuse. To your question in certain instances-clearly.

"Certain instances" is one big qualification by you. "Certain instances" implies that there are other instances where it's not considered okay even within Westeros.

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah it is. You’re being obtuse. To your question in certain instances-clearly. Why do you expect this medieval fantasy country to have modern views about how to treat non-combatants  during a war-campaign?  What did you think would happen to Theon if Balon rebelled while the boy was say 14 and still a hostage of the Starks? I gather he would most likely  be executed by his captors. Do you seriously think Book Jon would be condemned as a monster  in the north if he executed(as he said he would)  the wildling hostages in response to their kin’s misdeeds? 

And I don't exactly expect them to have exactly modern views. But to say, that killing innocents under all circumstances is considered okay in Westeros is just not true.

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. He is. He explains that Show Daenerys’ action was dumb because there was no real reason given for her to do so. Ask LV himself what he feels about his campaign in the RV if you want. It won’t shed light on his feelings on Show Daenerys’ action. He’s been rather explicit about it-for the reasons she did it on it was dumb. Not that hard to grasp. Not in any way complicated.

Here is the original quote I responded to:

Quote

If that happened in the books it would be harsh, but it would be essentially just emulating the Conqueror's grand deeds. KL would just be another Harrenhal. Surely there was many a servant or child in Harrenhal which wasn't there because he or she was a die-hard loyalist of Black Harren. Yet in war innocents die.

If there is ever a scenario where thousands of people stand with a person like Cersei - or actually Cersei - in a compatible scenario then by the standards of George's shitty world - and also by the Hitler and Churchill's rationale on bombing civilian population centers - this wouldn't even be a war crime.

It's not clear to me what the point of that was. What was meant exactly by "If that happened in the books it would be harsh....". And then of course there is the part where he implies that burning KL would be okay because it would be like the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2. Except. those bombings haven't been without controversy. And my point was we shouldn't accept such analogies so easily.

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Here I was pointing out you were strawmaning me. I’ve repeatedly made clear I found Show Daenerys’ action to be wrong given the circumstance. I literally said it was pointless. Yet you still acted as if I held the opposite view. 

No. I have been confused about what your point actually is.

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah didn’t say that. I gave you a reason that’s generally accepted by Westeroes as good enough reason for kings, and lords, etc to kill innocents. To punish the innocent person’s kin or loved one who is doing something they see as wrong and to deter others from acting out as well. Innocents taken hostage like Theon or the wildling children book Jon took, far from simply being collateral damage, are killed, through really no fault of their own. 

And it's not clear what you are trying to say. Let's be clear about this. Are you saying that targeting deliberately targeting innocents is viewed as okay in Westeros?

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. He did repeatedly through saying he thought it was dumb for the writers to have Daenerys do this for no real reason.He literally said GRRM wouldn’t write a character doing something for such stupid reasons in book in the post you quoted and accused him of trying to defend show Daenerys’ idiotic massacre. 

He is not very clear about what he thinks is appropriate. Does he think Tywin's actions in the Riverlands is okay?

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh my god yes! Like is me saying it was pointless not enough of a hint that I thought the move wasn’t good? Where are you getting I’m saying she did the right thing here? Stop strawmannirg me.

What's your point again? Are you going to just make some general assertion that innocents die in war. We already know that.

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

More condemnation if there is no real reason behind the action.

Supposing the deaths happened not as a result of trying to defeat the enemy's field forces but was done simply to terrorize the local population in order to make them amenable to being ruled to undermine their support for the current ruler. How would you feel about that?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Dany burning KL would be basically her Harrenhal. Did Harrenhal damage Aegon the Conqueror's reputation? I don't think so, actually.

Personally I think Aegon was an asshole.

But if Dany were to burn KL, after her forces had clearly defeated the enemy forces, that would make her an asshole too. I'm not going to let you get away with making assertions that all destruction, no matter the particular circumstances in play, is basically okay. Even if it's something Aegon shithead allegedly did 300 years ago.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This is just a straw man. His literal argument is that show Dany’s action is ridiculous because there’s no real reason given to it. Far from attempting to “justify” it, he’s clearly condemning it as stupid. If Book Daenerys did the same thing for the same reasons it’d also be absurd. If she did it for a military objectives she’d be acting in alignment with a typical conqueror. Worthy of as much moral outrage you’d grant to Napelon, or Alexzander. 

It is? Because it wasn't remotely clear what his argument was before he said Dany wouldn't do the same thing in the books. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 Depending upon her reasons she could deserve more than those typically waging war to become monarch. If her reasons where like the ones here which seem utterly pointless and important for the shock value. But  she did it for more “practical” reasons it could mean she simply deserves as much condemnation as most of others clawing there way to rule in her setting. To where shes choosing to burnout the lives of thousands in KL because it would aid her in her pursuit for her ambitions and/or her quest for vegence. Honestly, typical and seen as valid reasons for conducting war in her setting. “Minimizing death” isn’t found to be a very high priority in this type of medieval setting. If it was, in real life, we wouldn’t frequently hear of armies flinging the diseased dead in the holding of their enemies. A plague is indiscriminate, and it could/will result in the deaths of primarily civilians. Plenty of innocents did die, were mutilated, and brutalized in Robb’s rebellion. Hell he sees a boy basically lose his leg in one of his battles and his response and only commentary on it is “they killed my father” when pushed on it by Talisa. And never comments

You do realize of course she had no good reason to go on the rampage she did in the show. And if she acts similarly in the books, she very well deserves to be condemned for it. Her actions in the show wasn't just one of negligence or callousness toward the death of innocents. Nor was it merely a failure to exercise reasonable command responsibility according to our RW norms. She intentionally carried it out herself, when she didn't have any good reason too. She went out of her way to inflict death and loss of life.  Even in the word of Westeros,  that goes beyond the pale. And she doesn't deserved to be excused for that.

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And to this point-causing innocents to die in response to another crimes is not controversial in Westeros. Think of Theon or the hostages Book Jon takes. Neither Ned or Book Jon is really evil but they would cut a child they’ve taken hostage’s throat if the child’s parents decided to rebel or assist in a rebellion. The main problem here with Daenerys’ is unlike those potential  killings, her’s was entirely pointless.

Bullshit.

I'm pretty sure that murdering innocents for no reason is viewed badly in Westeros. Think of Ned's reaction to hearing about Gregor and his crew in the Riverlands. Or Ned's refusal to murder Dany.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And this is not something she would do in the books. Burning people for no reason simply makes no sense.

To be honest, I thought she might be more willing to accept the deaths of innocents to get the IT, but not go out of her way to cause them.

So, it's not clear to me that is how things go down. It could very well be D&D nonsense.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't talk about the show nonsense, I talk about the potential of George having his Dany - or any other character - do something even remotely similar. Even George's Dany became a raving lunatic she would still get an internal reason why she was doing that. We would read her POV. We would understand why she thinks she has to do this.

Look I think the show is nonsense. I'm not sure how this will all go down. But, if Dany were to a commit a similar act in the books she would rightly deserve condemnation for it. I don't give a damn what her reasons might be. The deaths of innocents in KL went way, way beyond those that would likely have resulted from trying to engage an enemy force in a densely populated area. Her forces won and the enemy forces had surrendered. And what does she do? She goes on a completely rampage and pummels KL even though enemy forces had surrendered or wiped out.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I honestly don't think any of George's character ever tried to minimize deaths in their military campaigns.

Dany didn't just fail to minimize deaths by exercising appropriate command responsibility. She intentionally caused them.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, there is lip service - various UN treaties, international law, etc. stipulating that basically all direct targeting of civilians in war constitutes war crimes - and then there is the actual practice of war - in the past and present - which routinely includes such practices. I mean, even drone assassinations today don't go without 'collateral damage'.

Nobody should realistically expect zero civilian deaths in a war. That said, it doesn't mean anything goes or is okay. Nor does it mean military commanders have no responsibility to refrain from intentional murder or being utterly reckless in that regard.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In a medieval framework the destruction of a complete city doesn't strike me as particularly gruesome. And the very idea that anybody on the other side would give a damn about the lives of 'innocent civilians' on the enemy side is ludicrous. This is not something that would ever happen in the books, especially not in a scenario where the burning of a great city became an option. Just look what kind of person Lem Lemoncloak is right now. The fighting men would all ravel at the prospect of plunder and the chances to rape a couple of women. This is, more or less, why they follow some general to war.

I think your attempt to justify Dany's reckless murder of thousands of innocents, that had nothing to do with the military objective of capturing KL, is disgusting and horrific. Makes me want to puke.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If that happened in the books it would be harsh, but it would be essentially just emulating the Conqueror's grand deeds. KL would just be another Harrenhal. Surely there was many a servant or child in Harrenhal which wasn't there because he or she was a die-hard loyalist of Black Harren. Yet in war innocents die.

If there is ever a scenario where thousands of people stand with a person like Cersei - or actually Cersei - in a compatible scenario then by the standards of George's shitty world - and also by the Hitler and Churchill's rationale on bombing civilian population centers - this wouldn't even be a war crime.

Let's be clear about this. Yes, innocents and civilians die in war. But, it's not enough to just say that, and then hand wave a commanders responsibility to minimize those deaths.

What Dany did in the show was engage in the deliberate or reckless killing of innocents that had nothing to do with military necessity. She went way, way, beyond what was necessary to take KL.

If she does the same in the books it would be more than just "harsh". And she would rightly be deserving of criticism for that.

And as far comparing situation to the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2.  Those bombing campaigns have often been the subject of controversy for causing more damage than what was necessary. In the worst case, you have stuff like Dresden, which was completely monstrous and had little military justification.

4 minutes ago, Hodor&Bran said:

All through human history after almost every war the conquerors burn and sack the cities.  This does NOT mean Dany is mad!!!!  It's called revenge.  Rome literally ground Carthage into the ground when they conquered them.  They poured salt into the soil and plowed it under where Carthage stood.  

I asked my Husband who fought in Vietnam and killed people what he thought after watching this.  His answer was "You have know idea what it's like in war and yes that's what happens".  He also said "war is madness and it makes you mad".  My Husband is 75 years old and he still has nightmares from Vietnam.

Just as there was no excuse for Lt. Calley, there is no excuse for Dany.

5 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

Over the course of the series the North has been exposed as a community of lowlifes. Between their constant betrayal of each other, sub-humanizing of the freefolk, treatment of bastards, and now open racist bigotry based on a person's skin color.

Read what Drogo The Bozo has to say about the Lhazareen again, forgetting the fact of what he did to them.