Hate for Tyrion & Danaerys?

[MoIaF]

Im sorry too, because in this instance you don't have evidence, you're just equating past actions to an omniscient ability to just know that the daughters in question are adults. She does not check.. She does not ask. She just orders torture. You cannot just say "oh but she likes kids". That doesn't make her unable to hurt them. It'll only ever mean she doesn't want to hurt them.

Actually, it seems quite clear to me that the daughter where in fact adults. The events too place in a bar type setting at night. I don't know of too many children who would work at a bar at night.

[dread pirate davos]

Actually, it seems quite clear to me that the daughter where in fact adults. The events too place in a bar type setting at night. I don't know of too many children who would work at a bar at night.

Though that's fair, I'm going to play devils advocate and point out that we see examples of children in pubs/bars/inns. Hot pie I'm pretty sure works at one and there's the boy with the crossbow in jaimes pov. It's not like there's schools to be going to so where else would a bar owner have his child? I mean I don't know if they're children or not. In fact I see it as beside the point. Dany probably doesn't no either and that's the point. She sentenced two people she knows literally nothing about to torture on a whim.

[MoIaF]

Though that's fair, I'm going to play devils advocate and point out that we see examples of children in pubs/bars/inns. Hot pie I'm pretty sure works at one and there's the boy with the crossbow in Haines pov. It's not like there's schools to be going to so where else would a bar owner have his child? I mean I don't know if they're children or not. In fact I see it as beside the point. Dany probably doesn't no either and that's the point. She sentenced two people she knows literally nothing about to torture on a whim.

I don't assume she doesn't know, we aren't privy to all the conversations she has with her council. It seems to me more likely than not that she would know of there were children or not.

As for the children you mentioned I believed they worked in pubs (serving food and whatnot) while these events happened in a wine bar. I think the settings are different.

[OldGimletEye]

Uh, why wouldn't children work in wine bars? Uh somebody explain that to me.

[Dr. Pepper]

Yup, we definitely see children working in taverns, inns and brothels at all hours of the day. I would expect the daughters to be working in some capacity so long as they are old enough to walk and carry things. Family business and all that, cheap labor. That being said, we don't actually know if they were working or if they were just there because that's where they live. All we know is that the daughters were arrested with the wineseller.

[Tyrion Hand of the King]

he was obviously guilty, but in fairness, one's guilt isn't license for torture. I'm trying to figure out why this is being categorized as torture. But on the topic of guilt I distinctly recall that Jon offered him explicit chance to not be put back into prison, despite being obviously guilty, in the event Karstark agreed to stop being an asshole, and upon refusing to stop being an asshole, was left to continue pondering his crime.

We're not told that simply being in ice cells will kill you. Being in any sort of prison long term is miserable. There aren't all that many people actively trying to get into our prisons these days either, despite the free cable. Imprisoning someone, within reasonable bounds, is generally considered a humane form of punishment.

I'm going to have to agree with you here. Despite the harsher conditions of the ice cells, being put in a prison =/= torture in my book. It's really not comparable to what Dany has Shavepate do.

[Ivashanko]

I don't remember Tyrion raping a bed slave (though I don't doubt it), but when does Dany torture a father in front of his children?

I guess it has been a while since I read that book...

[Mal Malenkirk]

I have the evidence of past and future actions though with her interactions with children. Whereas you have the thin platform of "no-one said the age". People of any age can be a daughter, hell my mum is 65 and she is a daughter, because her mother is still alive.

Would a person torture children and then refuse to harm or kill her enemies children when they keep on attacking and murdering people?

We cannot know 100%, but I think the evidence is safely pointing to my direction. Sorry.

The age of the daughters isn't stated but we know they were arrested at with their father at his workplace.

This allows two educated guesses:

They were working with their father.

They were not married, otherwise they would be helping their husbands, not their father.

From this we can suspect they were not toddlers or they would have been worse than useless at their father's workplace. We can also suspect they were not adult women or they'd likely be married and would be with their husbands, not their father.

So I'd guess they were between 10 and 16 with some room allowed for outliers. And since they're sisters we know one has to be younger (duh!) than the other so it's likely at least one was toward the low end of that interval.

Just an educated guess, as I said, but more likely to be right than just wishful thinking. Dany never asked the age of the daughters and never think about them again. You say she proved she wouldn't hurt children when she did not harm the hostages, But in the winseseller's daughters instance, she basically just gave carte blanche to the Shavepate to do whatever he felt necessary to to extract informations. And as it happens, the Shavepate DID advocate killing the children of their enemy, so... Yeah, he would have tortured girls. And Dany never asked for the details.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't remember Tyrion raping a bed slave (though I don't doubt it), but when does Dany torture a father in front of his children?

I guess it has been a while since I read that book...

You have it backward. She tortures the man's daughters in front of him.

[Hodor's Dragon]

You have it backward. She tortures the man's daughters in front of him.

OK, whatever.

[butterbumps!]

Well, sorry for coming on strong, but I was a bit miffed that you reduced my involved explanation of why Dany was acting on an emergency basis to "she was mad." I don't think that's fair to her, and I don't think it's fair to me to have most of what I said ignored.

I come down firmly on the anti-torture end of the spectrum, but I disagree at saying all torture is equal. Your suggestion of using "understandable" instead of "justifiable" has a lot of merit when you don't want to get into that prickly area, but I don't mind tackling thorny subjects such as the various rankings of various horrible things along the spectrum of undesirability. And I think there are times when that is worth talking about.

I was trying to elide over the misrepresentation of Dany's logic, and just put it out there that in light of what was actually going on there (i.e. Dany's recognition that torture, and particularly, this torture as futile, but commanding it anyway out of anger) I don't have an issue with anyone's sympathizing with her rationale. She was mad. That's why she did it. She did it knowing that it would not get any valuable intel. She took out her anger over the harpist on someone she knew wasn't guilty. I think this is pretty simple. And I'm also pretty firm in stating that I don't care that it happened this way, as in, I'm not carrying on about how this makes her a shitty person or anything, because I don't think it makes her a shitty person.

This isn't about my not wanting to tackle thorny subjects. Torture is simply not a defensible action. That doesn't mean all torture is equal. Intention, guilt, rationale, context, and so forth all impact the way we react to a case of torture. There's degrees of understandability and so forth to them based on the context. But that doesn't somehow exonerate certain acts of torture. That's the precise issue I'm having with this-- the idea of trying to say that some acts of torture are somehow not immoral and thereby open to exoneration or justification (and for the record, Dany's wineseller thing really is an issue of her being angry, so there's no argument or appeal to any sort of higher principle with that one). I'm not using "sympathetic" or "understandable" to dodge thorny subjects. I'm saying that there's really nothing that makes an act of torture "justifiable," but that even though it can't be morally excused, that doesn't mean the person ordering it is a piece of shit, nor does it mean that one can't look more positively on some instances of it than others.

OT, but Ice cells would not be different from an igloo. And in the context of keeping warm, the smaller the better.

Yea, ice is actually an insulator. I guarantee that these cells are a lot warmer than being outside of said cells. For keeping warm, smaller is good, but the smallest of the ice cells are problematic in that they don't allow extension of the body.

But I'd like to point out that ice has an R value higher than brick and wood. Given the weather up at the Wall, ice is basically the most humane material to stick someone in given a world without rigid foam insulation panels.

[larastone]

Ok so here's a question for you guys:

Dany and Jon are both clearly meant to be the main protagonists of the story (along with Tyrion of course)....so why do you guys think GRRM decided to make Dany a greyer character than Jon? I mean its definitely not something that I mind because Dany for me is a more relatable and realistic character than Jon and I love her at least 200x more than Jon. But I still question why he made that decision, I guess part of it has to with the fact that Dany is the Mother of Dragons and he wanted to establish that with dragons also comes destruction. And it is his story and everything so he can do whatever he wants, but I think its something that should be discussed.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I was trying to elide over the misrepresentation of Dany's logic, and just put it out there that in light of what was actually going on there (i.e. Dany's recognition that torture, and particularly, this torture as futile, but commanding it anyway out of anger) I don't have an issue with anyone's sympathizing with her rationale. She was mad. That's why she did it. She did it knowing that it would not get any valuable intel. She took out her anger over the harpist on someone she knew wasn't guilty. I think this is pretty simple. And I'm also pretty firm in stating that I don't care that it happened this way, as in, I'm not carrying on about how this makes her a shitty person or anything, because I don't think it makes her a shitty person.

-> snip

If you think I've spent 3 paragraphs misrepresenting Dany's logic, I'd appreciate if you'd at least pay lip service to the extent of not making me wonder whether you were even replying to the correct post.

For the record, your statement is too flat. Yes, Dany was angry when she ordered the sharp questioning and that is a powerful argument for your position, but it is not the only argument. I'd just spent three paragraphs explaining other reasons for her to do that, which you ignored, and it doesn't assuage me when you say you were just nicely "eliding" my "misrepresentation" by ignoring it. I don't particularly appreciate my posts being referred to as "misrepresenation." If you think I'm lying, call me on it straight-out, and let's get it on the table. If I made a mistake, I'd like to find out what it was and own up; if I didn't, I'd like to reach a point where I can vindicate myself.

I don't happen to think you're correct, or at least not entirely correct, despite your powerful argument. I believe that there is a repeated pattern where Dany's anger causes her to choose the harsher of justifiable positions - and by justifiable, I mean justifiable in her milieu; after all I am evaluating her thinking and responses, not mine or yours. She thought Mirri Maaz Duur had murdered her husband and son; because she was angry, she chose a harsh response but it was justifiable in her milieu for her to visit severe punishment on MMD because, as a monarch, she was the source of justice. She needed to do something dramatic in response to the 163 crucified children, and discovering the actual perpetrators was a daunting task; because she was angry she chose a harsh response, but it was justifiable in her milieu because collective punishment was a thing in ye olden days to prevent inter-clan inter-family inter-house wars/vendettas, and was in fact virtually expected after taking a resisting fortress. She had to do something in response to the 9 murders and the serious threat to her regime; because she was angry, she chose a harsh response, but the response was entirely justifiable in her milieu, as has been shown in this thread.

I think it's a striking point in Dany's character. I think she wouldn't have done any of those things in a calm, placid mood, and I won't excuse her of any of them, but even though she was motivated by anger she never just lashed out mindlessly or chose any action that would be considered beyond the pale. Unhappily, I expect to see this pattern repeated again; if Dany ever really screws anything up, this is how she's going to do it.

[Ivashanko]

You have it backward. She tortures the man's daughters in front of him.

Don't remember that either.

[Dr. Pepper]

Don't remember that either.

Dany II, ADWD

[sifth]

I still love both characters, I just hate that they had very boring story arcs in A Dance with Dragons.

Tyrion was just depressed for most of ADWD and Dany was failing at trying to teach morals to a culture obsessed with harming people and selling them as slaves.

I like how their arcs ended, but getting there was a major pain in the ass at times, lol

[Hodor's Dragon]

Dr. Pepper, on 10 Oct 2014 - 9:06 PM, said:

Dany II, ADWD

You see, the thing is, Dany doesn't actually torture anybody. It's one thing to say Dany tortures the wineseller's daughters as a shorthand when you're in the middle of the conversation and the grounds of the discussion are established, but this was in response to somebody who didn't remember what happened and was asking for the facts. It was not an accurate response, and given how contentious discussing Dany tends to be, I would be very pleased if people who take a strong position hew to the facts, especially in response to a question like this.

See below:

Apple Martini, on 10 Oct 2014 - 7:47 PM, said:
You have it backward. She tortures the man's daughters in front of him.

[Dr. Pepper]

Dr. Pepper, on 10 Oct 2014 - 9:06 PM, said:

You see, the thing is, Dany doesn't actually torture anybody. It's one thing to say Dany tortures the wineseller's daughters as a shorthand when you're in the middle of the conversation and the grounds of the discussion are established, but this was in response to somebody who didn't remember what happened and was asking for the facts. It was not an accurate response, and given how contentious discussing Dany tends to be, I would be very pleased if people who take a strong position hew to the facts, especially in response to a question like this.

See below:

Oh ffs, next time someone repeatedly claims to not remember something despite reading 5+ pages of discussion on the very topic, I'll just go ahead and tell them to stfu instead of supplying the relevant chapter or quote so they can see for themselves. Would that work better for you? Seriously, wtf?

[butterbumps!]

If you think I've spent 3 paragraphs misrepresenting Dany's logic, I'd appreciate if you'd at least pay lip service to the extent of not making me wonder whether you were even replying to the correct post.

For the record, your statement is too flat. Yes, Dany was angry when she ordered the sharp questioning and that is a powerful argument for your position, but it is not the only argument. I'd just spent three paragraphs explaining other reasons for her to do that, which you ignored, and it doesn't assuage me when you say you were just nicely "eliding" my "misrepresentation" by ignoring it. I don't particularly appreciate my posts being referred to as "misrepresenation." If you think I'm lying, call me on it straight-out, and let's get it on the table. If I made a mistake, I'd like to find out what it was and own up; if I didn't, I'd like to reach a point where I can vindicate myself.

I don't happen to think you're correct, or at least not entirely correct, despite your powerful argument. I believe that there is a repeated pattern where Dany's anger causes her to choose the harsher of justifiable positions - and by justifiable, I mean justifiable in her milieu; after all I am evaluating her thinking and responses, not mine or yours. She thought Mirri Maaz Duur had murdered her husband and son; because she was angry, she chose a harsh response but it was justifiable in her milieu for her to visit severe punishment on MMD because, as a monarch, she was the source of justice. She needed to do something dramatic in response to the 163 crucified children, and discovering the actual perpetrators was a daunting task; because she was angry she chose a harsh response, but it was justifiable in her milieu because collective punishment was a thing in ye olden days to prevent inter-clan inter-family inter-house wars/vendettas, and was in fact virtually expected after taking a resisting fortress. She had to do something in response to the 9 murders and the serious threat to her regime; because she was angry, she chose a harsh response, but the response was entirely justifiable in her milieu, as has been shown in this thread.

I think it's a striking point in Dany's character. I think she wouldn't have done any of those things in a calm, placid mood, and I won't excuse her of any of them, but even though she was motivated by anger she never just lashed out mindlessly or chose any action that would be considered beyond the pale. Unhappily, I expect to see this pattern repeated again; if Dany ever really screws anything up, this is how she's going to do it.

I was "eliding" it, because by that point, enough people had pointed out that your representation of it was wrong, so I didn't think there was a need to beat a dead horse, especially in light of how contentious the thread has been, and that a lot of people were disagreeing with you at that point in time. Not to mention, I had no investment in that particular line of discussion, so I wasn't looking to have yet another Dany's torture or lack thereof debate.

Instead, I tried directing my response to point out that:

A. Dany did it out of anger, but trying to do so in a way that did it less contentiously than your simultaneous disagreements with others were going

B. That whether Dany tortured out of anger isn't something I care about either way, and while I don't happen to sympathize, I don't see a problem with anyone who does

C. That there's a difference between exonerating/ justifying something versus finding it very understandable, and that there's no need to exonerate grey acts.

So it actually did address your post, just not all the details of it, because, again, a lot of people told you that you had the wrong representation of the incident, so it felt repetitive to do so as well.

I'm not sure why you're taking such issue with me in here. I get that a lot of posters were fighting with you, and that it's probably frustrating. But I wasn't, I'm not bashing Dany (seriously, I only came in because of the ice cell thing), and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't losing patience with the way your posts are coming across.

If you prefer I do this bluntly-- and since you've kindly critiqued my posting style, then let it be noted that this-- basically saying the fact that the way I didn't address all of your post and "mischaracterized" it was disappointing like I was being a jerk or something-- does not amuse me:

I'm surprised and disappointed to see you so completely mischaracterize my argument. That's not even close to what I said. I have had a high opinion of you as a poster, but wow, this is as if I shouldn't even have bothered. I hope this conversation gets better.

ASOIAF is all about comparative morality. Every incident is unique. Perhaps torture can never, or rarely, be completely justified, but it's absolutely not all equal. Not even close.

I didn't call out Jon, I was just responding to you saying "ice cells" aren't torture. I think they are. I can see how you might see that as calling out Jon, but my point was more about getting the definition of torture straight. Whether Jon is or is not a torturer is not at all germane to any points I am trying to make in this thread.

Especially when you go on to disagree with me over an argument I never made in the second paragraph (i.e. I never implied that all torture was equal), and then finish it off by not paying enough attention to my post to realize that the final paragraph was said to a completely different poster-- as in, you responded to something defensively that wasn't even addressed to you (the red), in the very same post you accuse me of not being attentive of your argument.

Well, sorry for coming on strong, but I was a bit miffed that you reduced my involved explanation of why Dany was acting on an emergency basis to "she was mad." I don't think that's fair to her, and I don't think it's fair to me to have most of what I said ignored.

I come down firmly on the anti-torture end of the spectrum, but I disagree at saying all torture is equal. Your suggestion of using "understandable" instead of "justifiable" has a lot of merit when you don't want to get into that prickly area, but I don't mind tackling thorny subjects such as the various rankings of various horrible things along the spectrum of undesirability. And I think there are times when that is worth talking about.

I am further not amused by the backhanded "compliment" here intimating that I'm trying to avoid thorny subjects that you are brave enough to tackle or some such.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I was "eliding" it, because by that point, enough people had pointed out that your representation of it was wrong, so I didn't think there was a need to beat a dead horse, especially in light of how contentious the thread has been, and that a lot of people were disagreeing with you at that point in time.

You were the 2nd person to reply to the post where I described the things that Dany could and should have been thinking as reasons for taking that action. The first did not refer to me representing anything incorrectly (post #318). S/he did disagree with me, but didn't really respond to the rationales I stated, so I was interested in discussing them with somebody. I don't think beating a dead horse comes in.

Not to mention, I had no investment in that particular line of discussion, so I wasn't looking to have yet another Dany's torture or lack thereof debate.

Instead, I tried directing my response to point out that:

A. Dany did it out of anger, but trying to do so in a way that did it less contentiously than your simultaneous disagreements with others were going

B. That whether Dany tortured out of anger isn't something I care about either way, and while I don't happen to sympathize, I don't see a problem with anyone who does

C. That there's a difference between exonerating/ justifying something versus finding it very understandable, and that there's no need to exonerate grey acts.

I apologize if I misunderstood, but it didn't actually seem to me as if you were addressing the subject of my post at all, but were making a general statement on the subject. I sincerely didn't understand why you were addressing me. For the second time, I apologize if I came on too strong. I try not to, but I do try to express myself freely. I'm sure I fail to walk the line at times.

So it actually did address your post, just not all the details of it, because, again, a lot of people told you that you had the wrong representation of the incident, so it felt repetitive to do so as well.

You're mistaken about the repetitive part. No one had addressed the rationales I stated for Daenerys' additional reasons for acting besides anger. Still, no one has addressed them. That's fine, nobody has to, but I was hoping to discuss them with someone.

I'm not sure why you're taking such issue with me in here.

Well, you just called my post a misrepresentation, so I wanted to straighten that out. I take that seriously. And initially, as I said, I didn't understand why you were choosing to address your point to me. But I'd really hope to bury the hatchet now. I hope we've aired this out sufficiently - not that I'm asking you not to reply, I'm fine with continuing the conversation if you wish.

I get that a lot of posters were fighting with you, and that it's probably frustrating. But I wasn't, I'm not bashing Dany (seriously, I only came in because of the ice cell thing), and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't losing patience with the way your posts are coming across.

I wish you'd be a little more specific about what you mean about the way my posts are coming across; I try to respond positively to sincere feedback, and don't want to be combative except with posters who I think beg for it. But I wasn't frustrated, or at least not particularly, and I didn't think you were bashing Dany. That's why I was baffled. I complimented your posting style in my first reply to you, and I was not being sarcastic. I enjoy your posts.

If you prefer I do this bluntly-- and since you've kindly critiqued my posting style, then let it be noted that this-- basically saying the fact that the way I didn't address all of your post and mischaracterized it was disappointing like I was being a jerk or something-- does not amuse me:

I apologized for coming on too strong earlier. I did it again above. But I sincerely thought that my post had been mischaracterized, and I read your reply carefully before saying so.

snip ->

I am further not amused by the backhanded "compliment" here intimating that I'm trying to avoid thorny subjects that you are brave enough to tackle or some such.

You're right about that. I was absolutely sincere about saying your suggestion was meritorious. A better way of saying the next part would be that, even though meritorious, I didn't want to apply it to this particular conversation right now, and I apologize for wording that in a superior fashion.

I think we could have had a very productive conversation about our differences of opinion. I'm sorry it went off the rails.