Is Daenerys making Drogon murderous or, is Drogon making Daenerys murderous?

[BitsOfBrains]

This gets said a lot. I think I'm going to start regularly pointing out that it is not true. Dany said to kill every man holding a whip or wearing a tokar. Then she said to harm no children under 12. Those are two separate sentences. There is absolutely nothing about killing children, no matter what age "child" is defined to mean.

So what did this actually mean? This: she did not forbid the Unsullied from harming 13-year-olds, but she only ordered men to be killed.

No, its a qualifier to the previous order/objective.

Please educate yourself on military commands.

[Game Of Thrones]

No, its a qualifier to the previous order/objective.

Please educate yourself on military commands.

I agree that it reads like a qualifier, but statements like 'Please educate yourself on military commands.' aren't the best way to prove that you're not a troll.

[Hodor's Dragon]

But some Unsullied could have defined 'men' as 12 and up. It all depends on the personality of the Unsullied in question.

That's certainly possible, but it still doesn't make it true that Daenerys ordered children to be killed. She quite unambiguously ordered "men" to be killed. Accuse her of negligence for not giving sufficiently definitive orders, but don't say she ordered children killed. She didn't.

[Hodor's Dragon]

No, its a qualifier to the previous order/objective.

Please educate yourself on military commands.

Oh please. I did that just fine when I was in the Army.

And the qualifier thing doesn't make sense to me. If your second sentence is only meant to define the first sentence, instead of to hold its own meaning, you need to say so if you're giving an order. Otherwise, your words are going to be interpreted with their ordinary meaning, and there is absolutely nothing in the 2nd sentence to indicate it is intended as being the definition of the 1st sentence.

If you're giving an order, you have to expect people to interpret your words to mean exactly what they say.

[BitsOfBrains]

Oh please. I did that just fine when I was in the Army.

And the qualifier thing doesn't make sense to me. If your second sentence is only meant to define the first sentence, instead of to hold its own meaning, you need to say so if you're giving an order. Otherwise, your words are going to be interpreted with their ordinary meaning, and there is absolutely nothing in the 2nd sentence to indicate it is intended as being the definition of the 1st sentence.

If you're giving an order, you have to expect people to interpret your words to mean exactly what they say.

She was laying out objectives and the first or primary objective is always paramount. She was saying kill all the men, then defined men as anyone over 12.

The other way to interpret them was as two separate objectives. First kill men, second its ok to maim anyone, man woman or child as long as they are over 12.

Obviously that doesn't make any sense on its own.

Think of it this way, if she had skipped the first sentence and just said, "don't hurt anyone under 12" that would not on its own have been any sort of order, command, or objective.

If your argument is that they were two separate directives, then they have to be able to stand on their own independant of one another.

Like if you were receiving orders and the only order was, "don't hurt anyone under 12" how would that have been any sort of order?

If you got your orders and it said, "Sweep and clear sector whatever, minimize civilian casualties on children under 13" that would have made sense.

[Hodor's Dragon]

She was laying out objectives and the first or primary objective is always paramount. She was saying kill all the men, then defined men as anyone over 12. No. She didn't "define[] men."

The other way to interpret them was as two separate objectives. First kill men, second its ok to maim anyone, man woman or child as long as they are over 12. That's not what she said, either, although at least it has the virtue of being a little bit closer to what she said than "Dany ordered children of 12 or older to be killed."

Obviously that doesn't make any sense on its own. Not if you're bound and determined not to see the sense in it. But if you open your eyes, it makes plenty of sense. See below

-> snip

The kill every man with a tokar or whip order was going to create some serious action, all over town. Children would almost undoubtedly get into the firing line (spearing line?) one way or another, and the first order, to kill men, did not suffice to make it clear that Dany wished to limit collateral damage. An order not to harm children was very far from a pointless 2nd order once you open your mind to the possibility that Dany, in fact, did not wish children to be harmed or killed.

Break it down here. It's quite obvious that the first order about killing men was not an order to kill children. Your entire argument, then, is that an order to harm no child under 12 must be interpreted as an order to kill all children 12 or older. That's . . . mind-blowing. :smoking: :smoking: :smoking: :drunk:

Bottom line: you can make all kinds of arguments. Feel free. Make your arguments. Just don't come around saying Dany ordered children to be killed, because she absolutely did not do that.

[BitsOfBrains]

The kill every man with a tokar or whip order was going to create some serious action, all over town. Children would almost undoubtedly get into the firing line (spearing line?) one way or another, and the first order, to kill men, did not suffice to make it clear that Dany wished to limit collateral damage. An order not to harm children was very far from a pointless 2nd order once you open your mind to the possibility that Dany, in fact, did not wish children to be harmed or killed.

Break it down here. It's quite obvious that the first order about killing men was not an order to kill children. Your entire argument, then, is that an order to harm no child under 12 must be interpreted as an order to kill all children 12 or older. That's . . . mind-blowing. :smoking: :smoking: :smoking: :drunk:

Bottom line: you can make all kinds of arguments. Feel free. Make your arguments. Just don't come around saying Dany ordered children to be killed, because she absolutely did not do that.

Stop adding your own commentary inside the quotes. It makes it difficult to reply to them.

Either A. the second sentence was a qualifier to the first OR B. it was its own directive.

Tne ONLY way to interpret the second statement, if you are bound and determined to interpret it as its own directive as you seem to be, is that it is ok to maim and kill anyone man woman or child over 12. That is why I chose to believe it was a qualifier to the first statement defining what a man is INSTEAD of its own stand alone directive greenlighting the maiming/killing of ANYONE over 12.

I am actually giving her the benefit of the doubt on that one.

If you want to be a stickler for words, as you seem to be, you either have to accept it as a definition of what a man is (anyone over 12) OR permission to harm anyone man woman or child over twelve.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Stop adding your own commentary inside the quotes. You forgot the magic word. Seriously, you gave me an order. That's not going to work. It makes it difficult to reply to them. Give me an alternative way to reply to your specific statements that doesn't require a bunch of cutting and pasting and you won't even have to say "please." In the meanwhile, I'll give you an alternative. If you want to reply to my specific statements, reply red. If it keeps going, I'll reply to in green, etc.

Either A. the second sentence was a qualifier to the first OR B. it was its own directive.

Tne ONLY way to interpret the second statement, if you are bound and determined to interpret it as its own directive as you seem to be, is that it is ok to maim and kill anyone man woman or child over 12. Ummm, no. That's not what it says. At all. That is why I chose to believe it was a qualifier to the first statement defining what a man is INSTEAD of its own stand alone directive greenlighting the maiming/killing of ANYONE over 12.

I am actually giving her the benefit of the doubt on that one.

If you want to be a stickler for words, as you seem to be, you either have to accept it as a definition of what a man is (anyone over 12) OR permission to harm anyone man woman or child over twelve. It does not say EITHER of those things. Come on, now. The words are very simple.

Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.

Slay the Good Masters

OK, it's conceivable some good master is a child of ages 12 to whatever age you think childhood ends, but it doesn't seem likely. The Good Masters are the rulers, and I would expect those to be adults.

slay the soldiers

See above. (Now I think Dany should've said "who resist you" here, and if you want to pin that on her, I'll nod and agree.)

slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip

Clearly not an order to slay children.

but harm no child under 12

I don't care how you gyrate, this is not an order to kill anyone. If she meant "child under 12" to be a definition of man, it would've been the simplest thing in the world to say "slay every male of 12 and over who wears . . . " or slay every man who wears . . . and by "man I mean age 12 and over." She didn't say those things. She said harm no child under 12. Again, argue your bits of brains out, that is not a command to kill anyone. These are orders, so they should be taken literally, not cobbled together in some arbitrary way to derive some meaning that they don't actually say.

and strike the chains off every slave you see.

Not an order to kill.

And really, by far the most obvious interpretation of "harm no child under 12" is Dany making sure that kids don't get hurt. If you think she got the numbers wrong or whatever, and this exposed 12- and 13-year-olds to harm, fine, maybe Dany made a mistake, wasn't specific enough, didn't give perfect orders. Fine. Say all that if you think it's feasible and plausible. Just don't say she ordered children to be killed. She did not. This is straight reading comprehension.

[LordStoneheart]

Does anyone know what this thread is about anymore? I forgot.

"Questioning Sweetly" might well have produced better results. That is, spending hours interrogating the Wineseller and his daughters about who came in and out of the Shop, and what they were doing.

Apple Martini strongly dislikes Daenerys. But, she works in this field, and has valuable insights. Skilled interrogators can uncover a lot of information, without resort to torture.

... It's four am and I swear, for a second I thought you meant that Apple is a torturer/interrogator... And yes, we have often clashed on Dany but Apple is amazing. :D

This gets said a lot. I think I'm going to start regularly pointing out that it is not true. Dany said to kill every man holding a whip or wearing a tokar. Then she said to harm no children under 12. Those are two separate sentences. There is absolutely nothing about killing children, no matter what age "child" is defined to mean.

So what did this actually mean? This: she did not forbid the Unsullied from harming 13-year-olds, but she only ordered men to be killed.

OH. MY. FLAMING. RHLLOR. YES. This is needs to be said more often. I have before but thank you for doing so, and for elaborating later.

[LordStoneheart]

And really, by far the most obvious interpretation of "harm no child under 12" is Dany making sure that kids don't get hurt. If you think she got the numbers wrong or whatever, and this exposed 12- and 13-year-olds to harm, fine, maybe Dany made a mistake, wasn't specific enough, didn't give perfect orders. Fine. Say all that if you think it's feasible and plausible. Just don't say she ordered children to be killed. She did not. This is straight reading comprehension.

I'm quoting this and making it larger because I thin it's amazing and right on the make. Wonderful job, Hodor's Dragon. :cheers:

[Mithras]

For me, Dany's commands in Astapor look like object oriented programming, and not a good one. Are the Unsullied computer enough to carry out those commands without any exception? Did she cover all the cases? If there happens a case which contradicts with the commands (an 11-year old, tokar wearing, whip holding slaver boy), what will the Unsullied do instead of going in an infinite loop or crashing completely?

[SeanF]

Lord Stoneheart, IIRC Apple has said she has worked in the security field. I think she's done a lot of research into the efficiency of torture, as a means of obtaining accurate information. Her conclusion (which I think is shared by most experts) is that it is not very effective.

[Primalsplit]

Where does it say they were innocent? they were arrested at the scene of the crime where murders had happened. We never hear about it again. To assume they were children or innocent is just as likely as assuming they were guilty adults. There is no actual answer in the text.

And if it were nearly as important as people on here make it out to be, then wouldnt it have at least been mentioned in the text one more time?

That's right, the text doesn't state anything about it. Dany doesn't know anything about them and doesn't bother to investigate a bit. She says "get me names".

The thing is, skahaz does look like someone who will torture innocents to get information. He mentions he only caught one criminal. He doesn't say the children were guilty too. He explicitly says "only one".

[Primalsplit]

For me, Dany's commands in Astapor look like object oriented programming, and not a good one. Are the Unsullied computer enough to carry out those commands without any exception? Did she cover all the cases? If there happens a case which contradicts with the commands (an 11-year old, tokar wearing, whip holding slaver boy), what will the Unsullied do instead of going in an infinite loop or crashing completely?

That's what I thought too. I think Dany was in the Targaryen Rampage mode of Rightousness, so she didn't care at all.

[SeanF]

*If* one considers torture to be absolutely necessary, one ought at least to witness the person being tortured, to judge the truth of what they're saying, and to prevent the torturers from getting carried away with themselves.

Simply saying "get me names" is likely to result in the most appalling abuse.

[Game Of Thrones]

Does anyone know what this thread is about anymore? I forgot.

All Dany threads except for the reread end up being the same topic.

[Kyoshi]

The most shocking thing is that this thread is still up.

[Kyoshi]

I thought it might be useful to have an inventory of her Tragryen-induced, righteous crimes:

• Incredibly entitled to the point of delusion.
  
• Is pro-torture where children are concerned [wine seller and his daughters being only one of many].
  
• Neglected to be present while Skahaz was torturing people
  
• Ordered the massacre of children when sacking a city
  
• Occasionally orders her dragons to roast children because guess what, if she didn't train them to be so wild maybe they might actually not be so wild. [Or any other reason anyone wishes to claim].
  
• I don't even know if she is aware of it, but she is poisoning her dragons to grow ever more murderous. I mean, they're dragons, they're as cuddly as lions and sharks and every other predator you can think of. How can we even fathom that they would not be so murderous?
  
• Very prone to violence [i can't find a quote. Someone please be kind enough to provide one].
  
• I'm sure I'm forgetting many more crimes against humanity. If someone, anyone, could please be kind enough to remind me.
  

I shall update the inventory as the thread continues. Every page, just to keep everyone clued up and such.

[Mithras]

*If* one considers torture to be absolutely necessary, one ought at least to witness the person being tortured, to judge the truth of what they're saying, and to prevent the torturers from getting carried away with themselves.

Simply saying "get me names" is likely to result in the most appalling abuse.

Agreed. Dany especially should have considered that given the nature of Shakaz. She knows that he is merciless and she also knows that he is the most radical against the Harpy. How are we supposed to get surprised that Shakaz came up with the names of the prominent slaving houses from torturing them?

[Mithras]

I thought it might be useful to have an inventory of her Tragryen-induced, righteous crimes:

• Incredibly entitled to the point of delusion.
• Is pro-torture where children are concerned [wine seller and his daughters being only one of many].
• Ordered the massacre of children when sacking a city
• Occasionally orders her dragons to roast children because guess what, if she didn't train them to be so wild maybe they might actually not be so wild. [Or any other reason anyone wishes to claim].
• I don't even know if she is aware of it, but she is poisoning her dragons to grow ever more murderous. I mean, they're dragons, they're as cuddly as lions and sharks and every other predator you can think of. How can we even fathom that they would not be so murderous?
• Very prone to violence [i can't find a quote. Someone please be kind enough to provide one].
• I'm sure I'm forgetting many more crimes against humanity. If someone, anyone, could please be kind enough to remind me.

I shall update the inventory as the thread continues. Every page, just to keep everyone clued up and such.

I don't think such posts help you defend Dany or raise the level of the debate.