OldGimletEye

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. Then what in the fuck was your point? If the Chinese don't have admiration for Genghis, then why did you bring it up? And Hoster Tully deserves criticism and condemnation for his actions. The point though is it is known to be wrong. So your point here is that rape isn't viewed to be bad in Westeros? Seriously? 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? 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. You have? Mabye because his lords were assholes too. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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. 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. 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? 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.

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.

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.

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?

And the point of all this what?

That matters because why? Question is why did Connington make the "mistake" in the first place. Elaborate on that. 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? 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. So you wouldn't have a problem with anything. I mean do have a problem with Lt. Calley? 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.

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

"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. 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. Here is the original quote I responded to: 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. No. I have been confused about what your point actually is.

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? He is not very clear about what he thinks is appropriate. Does he think Tywin's actions in the Riverlands is okay? What's your point again? Are you going to just make some general assertion that innocents die in war. We already know that. 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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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