Jon Snow marries Daenerys Targareyen

[Kittyhat]

Oddly, Apple and I can actually agree on this topic ... sort of. For admittedly completely different reasons, to be sure, but still!

[Kenyatta]

Right. Except that we have multiple instances of Targaryens — including dragon-riders like Rhaenyra — dying because of fires and/or extreme heat. So this idea has nothing to it, sorry.

I'm going to say this so I can come back her later and say I told you so. It is my belief that the Targaryens that lived during the Age of Dragons could not be killed by fire, burned sure, but not killed. You can use Rhaenyra as an example all you want but to say she was burned to death is pure speculation, deduction if you will. I think it was said that when the dragons died so did the age of magic. This explained why the pyromancers were able to exponentially increase the production of wildfire.

The Targaryens have the blood of the dragon. One can assume that they would be stronger when dragons are alive than when they are not. This strength being their ability to not succomb to fire. If you can show me where a Targaryen died of fire during the Age of Dragons then I'll come in here and eat crow. I don't recall reading anything that would suggest that. I could have forgotten, lots of pages lots of details. And I'm not going back to read every one as good as it is.

Dragons are fire made flesh. Gotta assume it takes a fire retardant ass to sit on one.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm going to say this so I can come back her later and say I told you so. It is my belief that the Targaryens that lived during the Age of Dragons could not be killed by fire, burned sure, but not killed. You can use Rhaenyra as an example all you want but to say she was burned to death is pure speculation, deduction if you will. I think it was said that when the dragons died so did the age of magic. This explained why the pyromancers were able to exponentially increase the production of wildfire.

But it's not pure speculation. We know that she was eaten by a dragon, and that dragons will only eat cooked meat, and always cook — burn — their meat before they eat it and have an aversion to uncooked meat. Ergo, if Rhaenyra was eaten by a dragon, the dragon must have cooked her before it ate her, and wouldn't have eaten her if she hadn't been cooked.

The Targaryens have the blood of the dragon. One can assume that they would be stronger when dragons are alive than when they are not. This strength being their ability to not succomb to fire. If you can show me where a Targaryen died of fire during the Age of Dragons then I'll come in here and eat crow. I don't recall reading anything that would suggest that. I could have forgotten, lots of pages lots of details. And I'm not going back to read every one as good as it is.

Dragons are fire made flesh. Gotta assume it takes a fire retardant ass to sit on one.

There's no evidence that "blood of the dragon" means any damn thing whatsoever. Like Illyrio said to Tyrion, you can call yourselves lions, wolves, dragons, whatever and it doesn't make you anything special.

I've given you a specific Targaryen that died during the so-called "Age of Dragons," you're just choosing to ignore it. Targaryens fought on dragons during the Dance of the Dragons and many lesser branches of the house were wiped out — common sense suggests that at least some of the Targs who died did so because they were burned to death.

There's also a quote from Martin himself saying that Targaryens are not immune to fire. The person who asked the question asked if Targs become immune "when they get their dragons," and the answer was NO, TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE. And yes, GRRM wrote it in all caps. It was not, "Well they were before the dragons died, but not now," or "Well a Targ who rides dragons is immune." No, as a general rule, the family is not immune to fire.

There's no "told you so" here when the author himself says they're not immune to fire.

[tze]

I'm going to say this so I can come back her later and say I told you so. It is my belief that the Targaryens that lived during the Age of Dragons could not be killed by fire, burned sure, but not killed.

The thread is here: http://asoiaf.wester...munity-to-fire/

You can use Rhaenyra as an example all you want but to say she was burned to death is pure speculation, deduction if you will. I think it was said that when the dragons died so did the age of magic. This explained why the pyromancers were able to exponentially increase the production of wildfire.

Except magic has been alive and well in the 150 years since the last dragons died. Bloodraven was in his tree, and the Others were heading south, long before those dragons hatched.

The Targaryens have the blood of the dragon.

Unless the Targs were into beastiality, and unless dragons are capable of interbreeding with humans, there is literally no way the Targaryens can actually have blood of the dragon. And while I can definitely see one or more of Dany's crazy-ass ancestors trying to have sex with a dragon, I cannot see that human actually getting pregnant by a dragon. I can see various other things happening to that particular Targ as a result of trying to screw a giant animal, but pregnancy is not on that list.

One can assume that they would be stronger when dragons are alive than when they are not. This strength being their ability to not succomb to fire.

The Targaryens are always cremated. They always succumb to fire.

If you can show me where a Targaryen died of fire during the Age of Dragons then I'll come in here and eat crow.

Please show one Targaryen that could not be killed by fire when the dragons lived.

Dragons are fire made flesh. Gotta assume it takes a fire retardant ass to sit on one.

No, because their flesh explicitly does not set anything on fire. If it did, those dragons would have left scorch marks on the ground every time they landed.

[Kenyatta]

But it's not pure speculation. We know that she was eaten by a dragon, and that dragons will only eat cooked meat, and always cook — burn — their meat before they eat it and have an aversion to uncooked meat. Ergo, if Rhaenyra was eaten by a dragon, the dragon must have cooked her before it ate her, and wouldn't have eaten her if she hadn't been cooked.

There's no evidence that "blood of the dragon" means any damn thing whatsoever. Like Illyrio said to Tyrion, you can call yourselves lions, wolves, dragons, whatever and it doesn't make you anything special.

I've given you a specific Targaryen that died during the so-called "Age of Dragons," you're just choosing to ignore it. Targaryens fought on dragons during the Dance of the Dragons and many lesser branches of the house were wiped out — common sense suggests that at least some of the Targs who died did so because they were burned to death.

There's also a quote from Martin himself saying that Targaryens are not immune to fire. The person who asked the question asked if Targs become immune "when they get their dragons," and the answer was NO, TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE. And yes, GRRM wrote it in all caps. It was not, "Well they were before the dragons died, but not now," or "Well a Targ who rides dragons is immune." No, as a general rule, the family is not immune to fire.

There's no "told you so" here when the author himself says they're not immune to fire.

"We know that she was eaten by a dragon, and that dragons will only eat cooked meat, and always cook — burn — their meat before they eat it and have an aversion to uncooked meat. Ergo, if Rhaenyra was eaten by a dragon, the dragon must have cooked her before it ate her, and wouldn't have eaten her if she hadn't been cooked."

That is decuction at it finest. Good work.

"There's also a quote from Martin himself saying that Targaryens are not immune to fire. The person who asked the question asked if Targs become immune "when they get their dragons," and the answer was NO, TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE. And yes, GRRM wrote it in all caps. It was not, "Well they were before the dragons died, but not now," or "Well a Targ who rides dragons is immune." No, as a general rule, the family is not immune to fire."

Then here I eat this big fat crow sandwich. :dunce:

But I still reserve the right to come back in here and say I told you so.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

"We know that she was eaten by a dragon, and that dragons will only eat cooked meat, and always cook — burn — their meat before they eat it and have an aversion to uncooked meat. Ergo, if Rhaenyra was eaten by a dragon, the dragon must have cooked her before it ate her, and wouldn't have eaten her if she hadn't been cooked."

That is decuction at it finest. Good work.

How else do you expect people to come up with conclusions? Not everything is spoonfed; GRRM makes you figure out a bunch of it for yourself. You seem to erroneously equate "deduction" with "pulling stuff out of your ass," and that's not what it is.

"There's also a quote from Martin himself saying that Targaryens are not immune to fire. The person who asked the question asked if Targs become immune "when they get their dragons," and the answer was NO, TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE. And yes, GRRM wrote it in all caps. It was not, "Well they were before the dragons died, but not now," or "Well a Targ who rides dragons is immune." No, as a general rule, the family is not immune to fire."

Then here I eat this big fat crow sandwich. :dunce:

At least you can admit it. A lot of people persist in the incorrect assertion even when faced with GRRM's own words.

But I still reserve the right to come back in here and say I told you so.

Sure, OK. They're not immune to fire. I'm sure you'll get over it. :P

[Dragons and Direwolves]

There is definitely a relationship between fire, being burned and Targareyens. The candles that would light themselves with Dragon presence. I also think there was something to do with Obsidian and how it glowed because dragons were around. It is Dragon Glass. So down the same road maybe you don't get burnt by Dragon flames if you're a dragon rider. Or maybe the Dragon like a good pet just doesn't burn you. Or only threatens much like a dog baring his teeth but doesn't actually set flames on to his rider. Dany's hair burned. Maybe because Drogon intended to only warn her and burn her hair.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

There is definitely a relationship between fire, being burned and Targareyens. The candles that would light themselves with Dragon presence. I also think there was something to do with Obsidian and how it glowed because dragons were around. It is Dragon Glass. So down the same road maybe you don't get burnt by Dragon flames if you're a dragon rider. Or maybe the Dragon like a good pet just doesn't burn you. Or only threatens much like a dog baring his teeth but doesn't actually set flames on to his rider. Dany's hair burned. Maybe because Drogon intended to only warn her and burn her hair.

Drogon only burned her hair because she ducked under the flame. If she hadn't ducked under it, it would have incinerated her. And again, I point you to the SSM where Martin is asked about Targaryen fire immunity specifically as it relates to Targs gaining possession of and/or riding a dragon, and the answer is still the same — no, they're not immune to fire. GRRM called it, and I quote, a "misconception."

People are attributing powers and abilities to the pyromaniac sibling-screwers that are not there.

[Kenyatta]

How else do you expect people to come up with conclusions? Not everything is spoonfed; GRRM makes you figure out a bunch of it for yourself. You seem to erroneously equate "deduction" with "pulling stuff out of your ass," and that's not what it is.

At least you can admit it. A lot of people persist in the incorrect assertion even when faced with GRRM's own words.

Sure, OK. They're not immune to fire. I'm sure you'll get over it. :P

"How else do you expect people to come up with conclusions? Not everything is spoonfed; GRRM makes you figure out a bunch of it for yourself. You seem to erroneously equate "deduction" with "pulling stuff out of your ass," and that's not what it is."

You wound me. I'm not saying that you pulled that out of your ass. You may very well be correct. You used facts based on what you already know to formulate a conclusion about what you didn't know. We do this every day.

"Sure, OK. They're not immune to fire. I'm sure you'll get over it."

There are different degrees of Immunity. Does immunity mean "burned" or does it mean "death". GRRM could have just slithered out of question.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

There are different degrees of Immunity. Does immunity mean "burned" or does it mean "death". GRRM could have just slithered out of question.

I think you're arguing semantics in a desperate attempt to convince yourself that the Targs, for whatever reason, have some Super Special Awesome powers. It means exactly what it says it does — Targs are not immune to fire and can be burned and killed by it. As evidenced by the parade of Darwin Award-winning Targs who've burned themselves to death and GRRM's assertion that Dany's immunity in the pyre had more to do with one-off magic than any inherent immunity within herself.

I promise you, there is nothing that special about the Targaryens. If you look up "legends in their own minds," you'll see their sigil. Seriously.

[Kenyatta]

I think you're arguing semantics in a desperate attempt to convince yourself that the Targs, for whatever reason, have some Super Special Awesome powers. It means exactly what it says it does — Targs are not immune to fire and can be burned and killed by it. As evidenced by the parade of Darwin Award-winning Targs who've burned themselves to death and GRRM's assertion that Dany's immunity in the pyre had more to do with one-off magic than any inherent immunity within herself.

I promise you, there is nothing that special about the Targaryens. If you look up "legends in their own minds," you'll see their sigil. Seriously.

The devil is in the semantics. I don't think Tyrion ever said that but I'm sure he would agree.

[The Drunkard]

Dany is Jon's aunt not half-sister, Dany's father is Aerys while Jon's is Rhaegar, Dany's brother.

There is speculation that Rhaegar married Lyanna taking precedent from Aegon the Conqueror who took two wives, so that would make Jon legitimate.

Ah, true, derp moment.

[Faint]

Maybe I've lost track but how does Jon's immunity or non-immunity to fire play a role in whether he will marry Daenerys or not? Why is everyone going on about this subject? Am I the only one that thinks all of this is completely irrelevant?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The devil is in the semantics. I don't think Tyrion ever said that but I'm sure he would agree.

Yes, the devil that lets you read into statements what you want. Such as, if you have it in your mind that the Targs simply MUST have Super Special Awesome powers, you look for any possible holes or weaknesses in the author's own words saying that they DON'T to support your idea that they DO. This fascination with the Jesus-on-a-unicorn that is Targ fire immunity still baffles me. I've argued this at least a few dozen times, and people are always in denial over it. I have no idea why.

Maybe I've lost track but how does Jon's immunity or non-immunity to fire play a role in whether he will marry Daenerys or not? Why is everyone going on about this subject? Am I the only one that thinks all of this is completely irrelevant?

It's the same bullshit about Jon burning his hand and will that affect how Dany sees him and if he burned his hand can he really be a Targ and would she marry him in that case and blah blah blah tits.

[Faint]

It's the same bullshit about Jon burning his hand and will that affect how Dany sees him and if he burned his hand can he really be a Targ and would she marry him in that case and blah blah blah tits.

I know some readers are already arguing that Daenerys is insane but, come now, this is ridiculous. What, will Daenerys set fire to any potential husband to see if he burns?

Look, if that's what it's going to take to get rid of Daario, I'm in, but hopefully it won't come to that.

[Kenyatta]

Yes, the devil that lets you read into statements what you want. Such as, if you have it in your mind that the Targs simply MUST have Super Special Awesome powers, you look for any possible holes or weaknesses in the author's own words saying that they DON'T to support your idea that they DO. This fascination with the Jesus-on-a-unicorn that is Targ fire immunity still baffles me. I've argued this at least a few dozen times, and people are always in denial over it. I have no idea why.

It's the same bullshit about Jon burning his hand and will that affect how Dany sees him and if he burned his hand can he really be a Targ and would she marry him in that case and blah blah blah tits.

I'm sorry, can you say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah tits."

I'm not arguing semantics to support my denial of the obvious. I'm just the kind of person that not only listens to what a person says but what they don't say. The question was are the Targaryens immune to fire even if they have dragons? George said no they are not. Which is true. Daenerys was burned by Drogon as proof positive. But she didn't die. That's all I"m saying....semantics. GRRM you sly dog!!

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I know some readers are already arguing that Daenerys is insane but, come now, this is ridiculous. What, will Daenerys set fire to any potential husband to see if he burns?

Oh my lord that would be awesome.

I'm not arguing semantics to support my denial of the obvious. I'm just the kind of person that not only listens to what a person says but what they don't say. The question was are the Targaryens immune to fire even if they have dragons? George said no they are not. Which is true. Daenerys was burned by Drogon as proof positive. But she didn't die. That's all I"m saying....semantics. GRRM you sly dog!!

Sorry, all I see is you shoehorning your own desperate desire for Targs to have Super Special Awesome powers into a statement where GRRM explicitly says no they do not. He did not say, "They can be burned but not killed" (I'm sorry but that makes no goddamn sense). If you are not immune to fire, you can be killed by fire, as numerous Targs have been, as I have said like four or five times now and how many more times do I have to say it before it sinks in?

Dany didn't die from Drogon's flames because she ducked under them and never took a direct hit. There's nothing more to it than that. You act like she took a direct hit and she did not.

[DragonAge93]

Though marriage may be a stretch, I'd like to see the two meet one another, maybe if there's the final battle with the forces beyond the Wall, and they collaborate on their battle strategies. And it'd also be awesome when they adapted it in the show and we see Kit and Emilia interact with one another.

[Kenyatta]

Oh my lord that would be awesome.

Sorry, all I see is you shoehorning your own desperate desire for Targs to have Super Special Awesome powers into a statement where GRRM explicitly says no they do not. He did not say, "They can be burned but not killed" (I'm sorry but that makes no goddamn sense). If you are not immune to fire, you can be killed by fire, as numerous Targs have been, as I have said like four or five times now and how many more times do I have to say it before it sinks in?

Dany didn't die from Drogon's flames because she ducked under them and never took a direct hit. There's nothing more to it than that. You act like she took a direct hit and she did not.

"Dany didn't die from Drogon's flames because she ducked under them and never took a direct hit. There's nothing more to it than that. You act like she took a direct hit and she did not."

Wow... :eek:

[Hear Us Roar]

God no. Thankfully i don't think GRRM will go that cheesy route.