[Book Spoiler] Justice and Vengeance

[coatzin]

The first bolded part is a answered by the second.

As for Dany, she believed what she did was justice, was it tinged with revenges, yes but it doesn't take away from her wanting to seek justice for those children.

Then Dany is in the level of Cersei... so long as we don't forget she wants Justice for the murder of Joffrey... only tinged by her hate of Tyrion.

In that balance of Justice and Revenge, Jon is far from Dany and Cersei

[MoIaF]

Then Dany is in the level of Cersei... so long as we don't forget she wants Justice for the murder of Joffrey... only tinged by her hate of Tyrion.

In that balance of Justice and Revenge, Jon is far from Dany and Cersei

Seriously? Your analogy is wrong. A large element of vengeance is emotional connection both Ceraei and Jon have a personal emotional connection to the people they want to get justice revenge for. In Dany's case it is her empathy. She has no personal relationship to those children yet she empathize with the horror of wha happened to them. Of course that empathy leads her to want to seek justice in an equal manner as the children were punished.

I'm not comparing Jon and Cersei just showing you how your analogy has no basis.

[coatzin]

Seriously? Your analogy is wrong. A large element of vengeance is emotional connection both Ceraei and Jon have a personal emotional connection to the people they want to get justice revenge for. In Dany's case it is her empathy. She has no personal relationship to those children yet she empathize with the horror of wha happened to them. Of course that empathy leads her to want to seek justice in an equal manner as the children were punished.

I'm not comparing Jon and Cersei just showing you how your analogy has no basis.

She is in a personal revenge against slavers... as indiscriminate as her ruling of randomly crucify 163 GM... maybe not personal but as emotional as the other two.

Difference Jon is using Law against proven guilty people... Cersei is distorting law against who she thinks is guilty... Dany just don't need law or know who did what

[Ankou]

Is there any evidence all the slavemasters agreed to crucify the kids? For all we know this is as if the USA lost a war, the invaders showed up, and executed all of us for electing people who have killed children with bombs. Dany is employing guilt by association and giving the death penalty without a trial.

[MoIaF]

She is in a personal revenge against slavers... as indiscriminate as her ruling of randomly crucify 163 GM... maybe not personal but as emotional as the other two.

Difference Jon is using Law against proven guilty people... Cersei is distorting law against who she thinks is guilty... Dany just don't need law or know who did what

Back to the point of the thread. These three people are seeking justice, however, they are also seeking revenge. Meaning the the lines between justice and revenge are blurred.

You want to categorize them by level go for it, it doesn't take away from the all blurring the lines.

[MoIaF]

Is there any evidence all the slavemasters agreed to crucify the kids? For all we know this is as if the USA lost a war, the invaders showed up, and executed all of us for electing people who have killed children with bombs. Dany is employing guilt by association and giving the death penalty without a trial.

Once again, bad analogy. It would be like the opposing army executing selective members of the government. The Great Master of Meereen all rule as a council, they were at least complacent in the decision to crucify the children.

[Queen of Whores]

Once again, bad analogy. It would be like the opposing army executing selective members of the government. The Great Master of Meereen all rule as a council, they were at least complacent in the decision to crucify the children.

Like Ned and Barristan were to assassinate Daenerys? ;)

[MoIaF]

Like Ned and Barristan were to assassinate Daenerys? ;)

Ned quick over it so no he wouldn't be a member of the government. ;) As much as I love Barristan he stood idle and said nothing while many bad things happened (I understand that was his oath) but I believe he would understand if he were to be punished.

[Ankou]

Once again, bad analogy. It would be like the opposing army executing selective members of the government. The Great Master of Meereen all rule as a council, they were at least complacent in the decision to crucify the children.

I don't see how. In a democracy we all choose the government. At worst we're all complacent. If complacency leads to a death sentence we have problems.

[MoIaF]

I don't see how. In a democracy we all choose the government. At worst we're all complacent. If complacency leads to a death sentence we have problems.

Still doesn't work but nice try.

ETS: This is the equivalent of Dany crucifying the GM's mothers for giving birth to them.

[Ankou]

Still doesn't work but nice try.

ETS: This is the equivalent of Dany crucifying the GM's mothers for giving birth to them.

How exactly doesn't it work? Do you really think ten dissenters would sway the vote? They're a smaller group who vote on policy sure, but it's only a question of size.

[MoIaF]

How exactly doesn't it work? Do you really think ten dissenters would sway the vote? They're a smaller group who vote on policy sure, but it's only a question of size.

It doesn't your analogy is silly, and I gave you an example of more apt analogy.

The problem is that your assertion that there MIGHT have been GM who oppose the crucifixion of children has not more proof than my belief that all GM were compliment in making the decision. Thus, were are having a circular argument based of suppositions. Like always....

[Ankou]

Not really. My point is because we don't know, we can't execute people via legislative act. You need a trial. I'm not presupposing a likelihood, I'm saying we don't know so we can't execute people for it.

[coatzin]

Once again, bad analogy. It would be like the opposing army executing selective members of the government. The Great Master of Meereen all rule as a council, they were at least complacent in the decision to crucify the children.

Then what about those GM that in fact crucify the children and get lucky enoguh to not get any of the 163 lucky tickets to death...

Then the blurry line its almost gone in Dany's case... and not in favor of justice

But then again thin but still there... :dunno:

[MoIaF]

Not really. My point is because we don't know, we can't execute people via legislative act. You need a trial. I'm not presupposing a likelihood, I'm saying we don't know so we can't execute people for it.

But we know they were all part of the ruling council, that's a fact. They participated in the ruling and the slaving, if they didn't they wouldn't be GM., fact. Now, you are presupposing that some went against the cx of the children, but you have no proof of this. Now, I say because because of the fact that they ALL ruled they were ALL complacent in the act, but I can proved that. However, my belief has some basis in fact but yours does not. If a GM didn't want to be a slaver he could have gone to Braavos. Meereen does not excise in a vacuum.

[Ankou]

Now you're looking at a different issue. Being a slaver is punishable by death now? In that case obviously they all get put down. She executed them in a manner that showed guilt for the death of the children however, and that crucifixion is a separate action.

[ground_control]

I agree that the show makes it seem like Dany doesn't care which 163 people get crucified, but in the books she tells the the slavers to select 163 of their leaders, so it's not as arbitrary. It's not exactly a modern (World War II and beyond) war crimes trial, but that *would* take time, and many people believe that "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Also, in the books, she declares that (other than the 163), no others are to be punished for actions taken before she took control of the city. Not too helpful if you are one of the 163 AND you were actually innocent (although there is no indication that anybody crucified was actually innocent), but as far as quickly establishing order and the Rule of Law, I don't think it's too bad (at least by Westerosi standards).

Also, as seen in ADWD, and hopefully in the show, her actions do cause some people to take react violently, and she gets to show some growth/compassion by how she handles that violence.

[MoIaF]

Now you're looking at a different issue. Being a slaver is punishable by death now? In that case obviously they all get put down. She executed them in a manner that showed guilt for the death of the children however, and that crucifixion is a separate action.

Let me put it this way:

If there were indeed Great Master who opposed the action of the other Great Master and they had even the slightest bit of foresight to consider that maybe, just maybe Dany would be able to conquer Meereen do you think it would not have been wise for them to free their slaves in a show of good faith towards the abolitionist queen when she was at their doorstep.

Also to consider, do you think that there were other occasions in which a collective decision had to be made and there might have been disagreement in between the Great Masters? If there had been Great Master that did not feel comfortable with this way of decision making, why did they continue to be Great Masters? If they didn't accept this manner of ruling they would have stopped being Great Master, because they would have understood that they would pay for bad decision. They chose to live with those consequences, you can't now turn around and say they didn't understand the consequences of being Great Masters.

[salmonsnake]

You're sort of gifting the Great Masters the gift of omniscience, infallible decisionmaking skills and consistent action. As if the people in power weren't people at all, but lines of code that rationalize and act as programmed. Empty agents thoroughly marked by a vague description of what happens under their rule. No doubt they're mostly, if not all, assholes, by Essos standards, and probably full of ideology that deems them rightfully superior and slaves rightfully slaves. As if politicians are exhausted by an image of their politics, and not thrown into a historical contingency where they are as dumb and helpless as everyone else. Does this free them of responsibility? No, but that responsibility is shattered across relations of power, impersonal structures and conditions of their existence. It is indeed in this way that Meereen is not a vacuum but, in your version, the Meereenese are. No doubt a set of possibilities fluctuates around each slaver's actions, and they could go here, they could go there. But this agency is the agency of a subject in a videogame, not a living character.

[MoIaF]

You're sort of gifting the Great Masters the gift of omniscience, infallible decisionmaking skills and consistent action. As if the people in power weren't people at all, but lines of code that rationalize and act as programmed. Empty agents thoroughly marked by a vague description of what happens under their rule. No doubt they're mostly, if not all, assholes, by Essos standards, and probably full of ideology that deems them rightfully superior and slaves rightfully slaves. As if politicians are exhausted by an image of their politics, and not thrown into a historical contingency where they are as dumb and helpless as everyone else. Does this free them of responsibility? No, but that responsibility is shattered across relations of power, impersonal structures and conditions of their existence. It is indeed in this way that Meereen is not a vacuum but, in your version, the Meereenese are. No doubt a set of possibilities fluctuates around each slaver's actions, and they could go here, they could go there. But this agency is the agency of a subject in a videogame, not a living character.

Please don't twist what I said to fit your argument.

All the Great Master knew what would happen if the were indeed defeated by Daenerys, I can't believe that a rationally thinking person would not imagine that there wouldn't be consequences to their actions.

Some of these Masters were some of the richest people in the whole of Essos, if they did not agree with the way their government was run, they could have simply left at any time. They were not slaves. If they chose to participate in their government as it stood then they chose to be responsible for the consequences of said government. In fact, lets make this easier if they wanted to stay in their homeland of Meereen and they didn't like the way the council of the Great Masters worked they could have formed an opposing council.

Once again, Meereen does not exist in a vacuum there were other sisters of government they could have emulated.