khal drogon Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 44 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said: Look, you choose to answer an invalid present hypothetical by selecting another imaginary hypothetical where developement is frozen for Sansa so that you can answer it positively for your character. No, the relative advantage of experience is neither a straight deduction nor does it apply in perpetuity. The only sincere answer if we are to chose one is "my favourite", by the reasoning "because I like her more". That's all. Again I presented an alternate possible scenario because that's how this comparison could be made. If you cry 'unfair' for that you should do it for other scenarios too where it says she would somehow become better than Dany. So you are allowed to imply that experience does not mean an advantage and thus argue for your 'favourite' but I am not allowed to state the reverse though it is a valid point? So how my hypothetical is invalid if in my scenario Sansa turns out to be much worse in ruling? Is that not a possibility? And where I said anything about Sansa's development being frozen? Even if we ignore 'favouritism' an argument could be validated only with facts not with hypotheticals. So even though I could see a possibility of Sansa becoming a much better ruler or worse I can't believe it as fact. In the end I agree it is favouritism behind most of the points because if we go by facts Dany will have an edge over Sansa which Sansa fans try to discredit saying things like experience doesn't matter or the favourite hypothetical 'Dany will become mad'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilish Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 We don't know how Sansa will act in power because she never had power in the first place. She was always someone's plaything whether Ned's, Joffrey's, Tyrion's or Littlefinger's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dya of Oldstones Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 If we're talking favorites here, I would prefer to be ruled by someone like Sansa. Problem is, she's nowhere near the line of succession, so the legit answer would be Dany. Shireen is the only other one who comes close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spauldo17 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Also people seem to forget that while Dany did destroy cities in that time it was kinda the norm. You are all looking at her like this evil witch who kills and murders and how dare she! Back in the times of knights raping, pillaging, razing cities was all normal. It wasn't looked at as horrific. So yes through your 2016 lens Dany looks awful, but put yourself in their shoes and she just looks strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teepee12 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 That's a tough one, but I gotta give it to Dany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 On 28/8/2016 at 1:34 AM, Marcus corvinus said: Apparently human nature is not whatever we let it be. A great deal of our daily life preferences, even trivial things like coffee or tea is determined by genetics. And competition and survival are the very core tenets of evolution. The tall man beats out the short, the pretty blonde woman beat out her uglier sister and ....you get the point. Yeah ... Utter crap. Before you extrapolate evolution into human society and politics, you should have some basic understanding of the concept. One of the driving forces of evolution is survival. As survival requires resources this leads many times to competition and conflict among species or individuals among the same species. It is just one of many possible strategies to achieve survival. Another common one is to require fewer resources and generally the more successful one. Yet another common one is for species to form packs, prides, hives, herds, flocks, schools, societies, etc.... Another aspect is that the fittest is largely determined by the environment and circumstances. The biggest individual would starve much faster than the smallest one in times of scarcity or would have much greater difficulty in traversing more rugged terrain. Goats can live where horses do. The reverse isn't true. You should also be aware that chance is a more dominant force driving evolution. Look up random genetic drift, shifting rivers, drifting continents, errant meteorites and super-volcanoes. By far the most resilient species are not the ones comprised of large lone individuals but of efficient organised multitudes. Most large mammals are either severely reduced or the verge of extinction, while the ant roughly equals humanity in biomass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Dany....duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus corvinus Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 9 hours ago, The Sleeper said: Yeah ... Utter crap. Before you extrapolate evolution into human society and politics, you should have some basic understanding of the concept. One of the driving forces of evolution is survival. As survival requires resources this leads many times to competition and conflict among species or individuals among the same species. It is just one of many possible strategies to achieve survival. Another common one is to require fewer resources and generally the more successful one. Yet another common one is for species to form packs, prides, hives, herds, flocks, schools, societies, etc.... Another aspect is that the fittest is largely determined by the environment and circumstances. The biggest individual would starve much faster than the smallest one in times of scarcity or would have much greater difficulty in traversing more rugged terrain. Goats can live where horses do. The reverse isn't true. You should also be aware that chance is a more dominant force driving evolution. Look up random genetic drift, shifting rivers, drifting continents, errant meteorites and super-volcanoes. By far the most resilient species are not the ones comprised of large lone individuals but of efficient organised multitudes. Most large mammals are either severely reduced or the verge of extinction, while the ant roughly equals humanity in biomass. but they are still ants. Far from ascendance. As for the larger one starving, then why are european and african men taller? Cause they can also force food, resources and women from the weaker ones. And then there's also the matter of being smarter. A low iq cavemen would've starved because he didn't have the wits to save his food or plan ahead. The smart guy would plan ahead. Why are ashkenazi jews so smart and successful despite being he most targeted sect in history? Its because their harsh and darwinistic conditions in medieval Germany allowed only the smartest to live. The ones the lords couldn't afford to kill or drive away. The bankers, the financial advisers, doctors, teachers, artists, artisans, painters and engineers. The rest were left defenseless in front of the fanatical mobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 On 27/9/2016 at 4:04 PM, spauldo17 said: Also people seem to forget that while Dany did destroy cities in that time it was kinda the norm. You are all looking at her like this evil witch who kills and murders and how dare she! Back in the times of knights raping, pillaging, razing cities was all normal. It wasn't looked at as horrific. So yes through your 2016 lens Dany looks awful, but put yourself in their shoes and she just looks strong Because genocide was the norm in Westeros? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus corvinus Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Because genocide was the norm in Westeros? True. If that was correct then maegor would've been called '' maegor the stern '' or '' maegor the strong '' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 I place my hopes in Sansa. Sure, Dany so far has achieved a lot more, but her mistakes have been greater as well, and Sansa seems to learn more than Dany does at the moment. While Dany appears to have made very little progress in Mereen despite of her intention to learn how to rule there, and even become more and more rash in the books, Sansa is learning politics from Littlefinger, one of the best players around at the moment. If she picked up enough of Ned's morals as a child she could become a great ruler, both cunning and just. A rare enough combination in the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 20 hours ago, Marcus corvinus said: True. If that was correct then maegor would've been called '' maegor the stern '' or '' maegor the strong '' Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal drogon Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 On 11/9/2016 at 1:40 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said: Because genocide was the norm in Westeros? Yeah it is and much worse. From Theon Stark to Tywin Lannister Westerosi nobles has engaged in mass murders and wars for more silly reasons. Before that there were the genocide of the CoTF. By comparison with what has Dany done Westerosi nobles has done things million times worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 15 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Exactly. Maegor was overthrown by rebels. Had he ruled for fifty years he would have gained the same reputation as Jaehaerys I. As to the question: Sansa has no experience in actual ruling whatsoever. She is also not expecting to ever rule a kingdom in her own name. She might be on her way to be a pretty good queen consort, finally learning how to manipulate things behind the scenes. But she is in no position to actually openly command the men around her to do what she wants in the capacity of their ruler. And she is not going to learn how to behave in such a capacity while disguising herself as Littlefinger's bastard daughter. Not to mention that she will never ever think she will be in the position of a Queen Regnant (and neither are the people and lords of Westeros). She is a Stark by birth, not a Targaryen or Baratheon. Dany will have to learn how things in Westeros are done but she already has experience ruling men and leading armies. Whether she is going to be a good Queen Regnant in peaceful times we most likely will never know because the series is not going to cover much time after the defeat of the Others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy Hill Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Sansa has never ruled, but she might be a good queen if she ever has the chance. So far, Dany has been a poor ruler, but she is young and might improve. It's pretty difficult to determine anything. I'd give an edge to Sansa over Dany, but at this point, I'd choose neither one of them. Dany has a troubling sense of justice, an affinity for torture and thinks of herself as a god. Sansa has a tendency to do mental gymnastics whenever she's uncomfortable with something and is too trusting for her own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal drogon Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, Joy Hill said: Sansa has never ruled, but she might be a good queen if she ever has the chance. So far, Dany has been a poor ruler, but she is young and might improve. It's pretty difficult to determine anything. I'd give an edge to Sansa over Dany, but at this point, I'd choose neither one of them. Dany has a troubling sense of justice, an affinity for torture and thinks of herself as a god. Sansa has a tendency to do mental gymnastics whenever she's uncomfortable with something and is too trusting for her own good. I would place Dany's sense of justice somewhere between Sansa and Arya. Can you explain affinity for torture? Because her decision to torture was at one instance that was taken while under big pressure and that too was taken reluctantly. I don't get this affinity for torture and I have read her arc multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy Hill Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 She crucified 163 random people, because she was angry. She decides to have the wine shop's owner's daughters tortured after she's angered by the news of murders that took place somewhere else in the city. By "affinity for torture", I don't mean that she's Gregor Clegane, but her tendency to torture people selected randomly for no better reason than being angry makes me uncomfortable with the idea of her ruling Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 There is a reason why they refer to kings having causes. They are not just an individual, they are an institution. They need a power base, a court and a shtick. By the latter I mean a reason for people to rally behind them, whether it is a claim, personal magnetism, the prospect of change or inversely the promise of stability, or anything really to make them stand out. As Dany not only has all those things, but is actually currently ruling, while in Sansa's case a cause is hypothetical at best and these things are essential parts of ruling beyond each individual's traits. It is a little bit like trying to compare which is the better race car driver, when Dany is an actual driver while Sansa works in a garage. If we imagine them landing somehow in the position of regnant and regardless of circumstances, I think that Sansa would be good at keeping things stable and preventing conflicts by managing people, while I see Dany a bit like Aegon the Unlikely, smart and capable, but ultimately creating his own problems by trying to do everything. The ultimate problem with this comparison is that Sansa has had zero interaction and knowledge outside of a court. How would she deal with a plague? I'm drawing a blank. It could be argued that it all comes down to people management which Sansa has shown some potential in. But it can't be all that she has to fall back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 10 hours ago, khal drogon said: Yeah it is and much worse. From Theon Stark to Tywin Lannister Westerosi nobles has engaged in mass murders and wars for more silly reasons. Before that there were the genocide of the CoTF. By comparison with what has Dany done Westerosi nobles has done things million times worse. Sure if that is what you want to believe... I don't know why I expected something that would make sense. 5 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Maegor was overthrown by rebels. Had he ruled for fifty years he would have gained the same reputation as Jaehaerys I. The fact that he didn't doesn't mean that what he did was normal for Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal drogon Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 27 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Sure if that is what you want to believe... I don't know why I expected something that would make sense. Sure if that is what you want to believe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.