The Targaryen Madness Factor/Targaryen Double Standard

[Ingelheim]

YEs the Martells do.

Em...what? That quote doesn't even say Doran practices it, even less the Martells as a whole.

[Ingelheim]

How do you know the Tyrells don't? We don't have a POV from them, and we haven't "been" to Highgarden.

As for the Martells, the point was made up thread that Arianne was familiar with different forms of torture.

Again, I know many tortures. Many. I don't torture as a hobby.

Knowing something =/= doing it.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

The notion of torture depends on the reader.

What Doran did to Arianne was kinda cruel, despite she deserved it. How long she stayed there? She was close to kill herself at some point.

And Arianne is HER DAUGHTER. How do we know he doesn't keep prisoners in isolation for months until they decided to kill themselves to end all of it?

[Nictarion]

Again, I know many tortures. Many. I don't torture as a hobby.

Knowing something =/= doing it.

I suppose she could have read about it in a book, but I doubt it.

[Mladen]

As for the Martells, the point was made up thread that Arianne was familiar with different forms of torture.

The point wasn't made about practicing the torture. Certainly they knew about it, but the said quote actually provides nothing about practicing it. There is a huge gap between those two. Plus, the said quote can be easily interpreted as figure of speech.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The notion of torture depends on the reader.

What Doran did to Arianne was kinda cruel, despite she deserved it. How long she stayed there? She was close to kill herself at some point.

And Arianne is HER DAUGHTER. How do we know he doesn't keep prisoners in isolation for months until they decided to kill themselves to end all of it?

Every castle at least has a 'Rack table' in their dungeons, this is standard medievil blue prints for a castle.

[Mladen]

.What Doran did to Arianne was kinda cruel, despite she deserved it. How long she stayed there? She was close to kill herself at some point.

What? Locking her in a tower with all provisions provided and no discomfort whatsoever is cruel? What a monster... Gives you perspective on Ramsay and Gregor...

Jesus people, give at least a thought...

[WSmith84]

Jon was an arsehole in the first book (imo), but by the end of ADWD he was on of my favourite characters. I sympathised with Dany in AGOT, but by the end of ADWD I had lost most of my interest in her and much of my sympathy for her, and I didn't want to see her anywhere near the damn IT. That's character development I suppose.

Jon is completely unjustified in attacking Thorne. Is it understandable? Yes. Is it in any way a justified response to some taunting? No. I always assumed that Mormont was intending to punish Jon in some way, but fate or plot armour (how I loathe that term) got in the way. Maybe Mormont was trying to find a way to spare Jon's life/not cause long-term physical damage but still make it look like justice, or maybe he was worried about the reactions of Benjen Stark and Robb Stark, or maybe he was just a poor LC in some ways.

Dany killing the 163 slavers: was it justified? In my opinion, no. I dislike the concept of collective guilt, as well as the seemingly random nature of selection, the lack of trials and the method of execution. If Dany had tried the GMs and found 500 of them guilty and hanged them, I would be saying 'good job Dany.' Instead, she did something that I think is a very poor decision from a Queen. I understand her reaction, but that doesn't make it justified.

If I was judging these two Targaryen candidates as suitable for the Throne based purely on these events, I would judge both of them unfit. But I would judge Dany harsher because her action is a political one. She is supposed to be a moral, decent and just Queen, but to me her actions here say anything but.

Now then, torture... Well, I think torture is a morally despicable act, even if it does (very rarely) yield fruit. So if you're going to torture someone, I, being the hand-wringing lefty liberal that I am, insist on a couple of caveats.

One: the information you're asking for is completely necessary.

Two: you've tried every other method of getting the information from the prisoner.

Three: the information that you expect to receive can be verified. Case in point: the wineseller. He definitely confessed or gave names, because his daughters were being tortured and the Shavepate clearly gives not a shit about whether the information is true or not, so the wineseller would eventually say anything to make the torture stop.

Four: the person who orders said torture remains in the room and watches. And listens. Because then at least they can use their own judgement to decide when someone clearly knows nothing (hey Jon), or when they're in danger of dying or when someone may be lying. I consider it morally cowardly to not do so. Also, the torturer may not be truthful with you about what the prisoners have said.

And, five: for God's sake, don't give the people you want tortured to someone (like the Shavepate) who clearly loves torture. And definitely be listen in on these sessions since the torturer clearly can't be trusted to be fair .

As for torturing someone simply to get a response out of another; that is clearly morally horrendous. The wineseller's daughters weren't the suspects, they weren't the ones being questioned (at this point). They were merely tools for the Shavepate to use to extract an answer from the wineseller.

[Ingelheim]

I suppose she could have read about it in a book, but I doubt it.

That's what we are talking about. Saying everyone would torture under certain circumstances is quite risky.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The notion of torture depends on the reader.

What Doran did to Arianne was kinda cruel, despite she deserved it. How long she stayed there? She was close to kill herself at some point.

And Arianne is HER DAUGHTER. How do we know he doesn't keep prisoners in isolation for months until they decided to kill themselves to end all of it?

LOL, I'm sure any poster here would be totally fine if they were in the same situation as Arianne, duh!!

It would be like a walk in the park, not cruel or hard to deal with at all.

[sj4iy]

But it has worked, it has yielded results on many occasions, so in some cases it IS in fact the right thing to do. Take the High Septon getting answers out of Kettlebeck, it is a very gruesome terrible amount of torture and it's gross, but he got every answer he was trying to get, all the truth came spilling out.

I think you are over-generalizing Dany's whole story. Just because she is freeing slaves does not mean she is some ethereal goddess who is above all human frailty and faults. She still has to follow the way of life of the planet she is on, and on her planet, people torture. If you think that all her good deeds, and freeing of slaves is completely taken away because of this one act, then IMO you are giving waaaay too much credence to this one act. i Dont think her freeing slaves and questioning these people about a murder have anything to do with each other.

Torture is never right, nor are the results reliable when someone is watching their child being tortured in front of them. An innocent person will confess to anything if they watch their daughter being tortured, and a guilty person could have been given a trial in order to determine whether he was guilty or not.

You are simply trying to justify Dany's mistake by making excuses for her.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

That's what we are talking about. Saying everyone would torture under certain circumstances is quite risky.

OK you got me, strawman. Dead Ned would probably not torture anyone. Cutting someones head off is NBD, but he would def not torture or do anything to lower himself......How did that work out for him by the way?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Torture is never right, nor are the results reliable when someone is watching their child being tortured in front of them. An innocent person will confess to anything if they watch their daughter being tortured, and a guilty person could have been given a trial in order to determine whether he was guilty or not.

You are simply trying to justify Dany's mistake by making excuses for her.

I have made zero excuses for her. I have not even taken a side, i said over and over that the wineseller and his daughters could have been innocent or guilty and that dany acted normally, that is all I have said.

Is it never right? In the Black Walder situation they found the murderer, the High Septon got true answers about the previous high septons murder, so how were those situations wrong? If you recall, Cersei would have gotten off scott free without the use of torture, so how is it not 'right' in that situation? (in the context of the books, not by 2014 standards)

[Ingelheim]

OK you got me, strawman. Dead Ned would probably not torture anyone. Cutting someones head off is NBD, but he would def not torture or do anything to lower himself......How did that work out for him by the way?

Not only Ned. I've already mentioned Jon, Jon Arryn, Catelyn, Edmure, etc. There many examples of Lords who chose not to torture someone when they could have done it.

Now, the only examples we do have of Lords who torture...they are all despicable human beings.

[sj4iy]

I have made zero excuses for her.

"We don't know if the daughters were guilty of anything" - except they were never accused of anything in the first place.

"Other characters have tortured people" - it's the 'if everyone jumped off a bridge' argument.

Those are excuses.

Is it never right? In the Black Walder situation they found the murderer, the High Septon got true answers about the previous high septons murder, so how were those situations wrong? If you recall, Cersei would have gotten off scott free without the use of torture, so how is it not 'right' in that situation? (in the context of the books, not by 2014 standards)

It is never right under any circumstances. Black Walder's situation is no different.

And Cersei wasn't even convicted of any of the crimes she actually committed, but instead was convicted of being 'amoral' because she had sex with other men. I don't think that counts as justice.

[El Guapo]

They kid themselves when they think Westeros has any kind of notion of our standards of human rights. Or rights at all. :dunno:

yeah that too.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Not only Ned. I've already mentioned Jon, Jon Arryn, Catelyn, Edmure, etc. There many examples of Lords who chose not to torture someone when they could have done it.

Now, the only examples we do have of Lords who torture...they are all despicable human beings.

Ok!! :) NOw we are getting somewhere........ and the new statement is that 'the only people who use torture are despicable people'.

Ok I will accept that. Dany is just as despicable as all those we have already named, thank you.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

"We don't know if the daughters were guilty of anything" - except they were never accused of anything in the first place.

"Other characters have tortured people" - it's the 'if everyone jumped off a bridge' argument.

No, those are both facts.

So what are you saying, that Dany should be held to a higher standard? Because I dont think she should.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

What? Locking her in a tower with all provisions provided and no discomfort whatsoever is cruel? What a monster... Gives you perspective on Ramsay and Gregor...

Jesus people, give at least a thought...

Are you saying torture is only torture when there is a physical punishment? Cersei was also fed during her time imprisoned. Prisons can be made of silk. Arianne was thinking she would go mad due to isolation.

My point is that, if Doran is able to punish his own daughter, a Princess, in such a way, still providing for her to have some comfort according to her status, but still isolated and let alone with her own as only company, how do we know he does not do the same to other kind of prisoners? Two of Arianne's friends were sent to Ghaston Grey, which doesn't seem to different from the Sky Cells.

So, yes. Doran and the Martells before him are not strangers to torture.

[Mal Malenkirk]

OK you got me, strawman. Dead Ned would probably not torture anyone. Cutting someones head off is NBD, but he would def not torture or do anything to lower himself......How did that work out for him by the way?

Are you implying that it's Ned's lack of willingness to use torture got him killed in the end? ;)