Jump to content

What will be Dany’s justification for invading Westeros?


Mithras

Recommended Posts

Couldn't agree more. The Dany defenders are totally incoherent, completely biased, and extremely emotional and reactionary. They've essentially ruined this thread completely.

No, everyone doesn't agree with you. No, the OP didn't set up logical fallacies - it asked a simple question, what are her possible motivations for INVADING, which is exactly what she has been planning to do the entire time? The OP then examines all the reasons we have been given, and shoots them down. You can disagree about whether the reasons are valid or not, or that there may be other reasons, but there is nothing close to a logical fallacy present. To claim there is just shows that some people can't think rationally about Dany. I have mixed feelings on her myself, I don't love her or hate her... But some of you guys are just incoherent and your arguments are laughably inconsistent.

I shall now avoid these types in the future, as well as the "Ice and Fire Cynics," who think all the prophecy is just Bs and doesn't mean anything, and that all the old legends are meaningless as well, as they tend to engage in trolling behavior, like sabotaging threads they don't like. Why do people even comment on threads they totally hate? I don't get that. Just find one you like.

It was ruined the moment it was started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people even comment on threads they totally hate? I don't get that. Just find one you like.

Why do people even make threads about characters they totally hate? What was the goal of the OP? Actual unbiased discussion of the character, or a a veiled hate thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, since this debate is still going. But when I look at the OP the title asks a question, now in truth it is a question only the author can answer, don't really care if it's called an invasion or anything else by the way. But the OP after asking the question proceeds to answer said question by creating a fallacy of false choices. He then gives you answers to all said choices and all of them essentially end the same. In order to answer his own question the author applied supposition, as in I suppose it will be this or that. Then speculates on the effect in the same black and white thinking and the entire time the OP is really only looking for one thing and it's not an answer to the question in the title. The author answers that for himself in the OP, the author is simply looking for a conformation of bias. He wants his opinion approved of.

You have a good point here. And now we're talking about the infamous dress...

When I first saw it, someone asked me "what colour is? I see it white and gold, but X told me it was black and blue!!". I said white and gold. I just asked my kid what colour was for him, without any option given, and using the same pic and the same pc monitor. He said black and blue, which is the right colour.

If the question is "what will be Dany's justification for invading Westeros" we are already presenting it as a force of destruction. The true answer to that is because GRRM wants her to, because Dany WILL land in Westeros, otherwise, he simply waisted five books on her. A better phrased question would be "what will be Dany's motivations for bringing her people to Westeros?" or "what will Dany's actions be once she has landed". Same questioning, different perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the Wildling thing is totally different to the Dothraki. Dany, when she was with Drogo, intended to take the Dothraki to Westeros for invasion. She kept asking and asking Drogo to consider it and after the attempt on her life he agreed, giving that lovely speech about raping the Westerosi women and enslaving their children. So yes, Dany had every intent to invade Westeros with the Dothraki. Now of course things are different, but the intent was there and an attempt to do it was made (luckily, Drogo died).



Jon on the other hand actually helped stop an invasion of Wildlings. He at no point wanted an invasion of the North by Wildlings. He allowed some Wildlings acorss the Wall in exchange for hostages and oaths that they would obey the laws of the North. He did this for practical and altruistic reasons, but would not have even attempted it were it not for the threat of the Others (and the backing of Stannis).



Similarities?



Well, both groups are dangerous, feared and hated by the Westerosi.



Differences?



Dany's intent was to invade Westeros with the Dothraki. Jon's intent was to allow some Wildlings across the Wall if they agreed to obey the laws and help defend the Wall.


If a wlidling breaks a Westerosi law and is punished, well he swore to obey those laws when he crossed. Unless Dany has Drogo and his Khalasar swear to obey the laws of Westeros, what's to stop them from breaking those laws? I'm sure Dany would try to minimize the damage; no-one can say she doesn't try when she's aware of an issue.



One was an intended invasion, the other a refugee campaign in exchange for aid.



Now, you might say it's unfair that I'm using GoT Dany to argue this. I'm certain that an invasion of Westeros by ADWD Dany or post-ADWD Dany would be very different, probably better in the majority of things (for example, she'll be leading it, not Drogo, and it won't be funded by slavery, as was the original attempt). But this was an attempt by her to invade Westeros with the Dothraki and I don't wish to attempt to guess how a future invasion would go.



In short: the Wildlings and Dothraki are completely different cases. Dany did intend and attempt to invade Westeros with Dothraki. Jon helped prevent an invasion by Wildlings and allowed some of them to live in the North in exchange for hostages and oaths to obey the laws. Jon did plenty of stuff up for criticism, but to pretend that these things are even remotely similar is a pretty huge stretch. If you want to criticise Jon, please do so. See Ser Creighton's post (some of which I disagree with).



And to answer the OP again, Dany's justification will be the same as other claimants: she feels it's her throne and she wants it. I'm sure she intends to attempt to do justice when she gets there, just like some of the other claimants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people even make threads about characters they totally hate? What was the goal of the OP? Actual unbiased discussion of the character, or a a veiled hate thread?

I already reached my goal. From the confused and tautological posts by Dany fans, it is clear that they never really thought about how Dany’s invasion of Westeros can be justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"HOW IS DANY GOING TO FUCK UP WESTEROS? WITH FIRE? WITH PILLAGING? WITH RAPING? WITH HER ENTITLEMENT????"

"What? Well, I don't think that's how it will be. See, I think Dany might actually do good things in Westeros, because [quoting] and [quoting] and [GRRM's talking]".

"YOU DONT GET HER, YOU READ IT WRONG IM RIGHT, YOUR RUINING MY THREAD IWH TYOUR WHITEWASHIN I CAN BELIEVE PEOPEL IS SO BLIND"

Yeah. We ruined the thread. We better leave you all guys with your totally logical analysis of Dany the Barbarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What? Well, I don't think that's how it will be. See, I think Dany might actually do good things in Westeros, because [quoting] and [quoting] and [GRRM's talking]".

"What? Well, I don't think that's how it will be. See, I think Dany will actually bugger Westeros in the arse, because [quoting: wineseller’s daughters, 163, Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen, starting a reckless abolitionist campaign without a plan and betraying that campaign step by step, fickle understanding of justice, lack of self-reflection, lack of knowledge, self-righteous cruelty, collective punishment etc.] and [quoting: people will die everywhere the dragons dance, I will teach the Usurper’s Dogs that women neither forgive nor forget, Stark and Lannister make no difference etc.] and [GRRM's talking: Dany’s invasion is the second threat to the Realm which will be greater than the Wot5K, there will be a Second Dance etc.]".

Fixed for ya :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already reached my goal. From the confused and tautological posts by Dany fans, it is clear that they never really thought about how Dany’s invasion of Westeros can be justified.

I don't actually spend that much time trying to figure out the motivations of fictional characters. But to the extent I have given this issue any thought (and it does modestly interest me), it seems clear to me that Dany has always believed that the Targ dynasty was unjustly overthrown, and she has the right, duty and obligation to retake the throne and reinstate the Targ dynasty. Whether you find that reasoning to be "justification" is irrelevant. Such "justification" has been used in the real world historically time and again (sometimes with success and sometimes without success). She also has dragons which gives her reason to believe she will succeed at her mission (not that the dragons are part of the justification--just basis for it not to be a complete fool's errand).

And I am not a Dany fan or foe. I don't think any monarch really has the "right" to rule, as they have not really been given the consent of a majority of the governed (the only legitimate basis I believe there is to rule--not that we can always live up to that ideal). But Dany has just as much a justification to "invade" as Stannis has to attack KL or as Tommen has to continue to assert that he is king. Ultimately, realpolitik prevails. Each believes he or she is the "true" ruler for his or her own personal reasons -- and then acts on that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I dislike Dany. I can't say I particularly want her to end up winning in Westeros. But she's not being set up to be a villain, even if I did want that to be the case. She's clearly meant to be a sympathetic but grey character. She may end up on the IT, or married to our favourite characters, and we just have to accept it. I personally hate the idea of her and Jon falling in love and marrying, but accept it is a possibility.



I will say though that I am always wary of criticising Dany, because her antagonists are sooooooo evil that I run the risk of being accused of being a slaver sympathiser or something.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people even make threads about characters they totally hate? What was the goal of the OP? Actual unbiased discussion of the character, or a a veiled hate thread?

then why do you even bother to comment in this kind of thread? the thread is not the problem , the problem is the haters and the worshipers who only come here to pick a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't actually spend that much time trying to figure out the motivations of fictional characters. But to the extent I have given this issue any thought (and it does modestly interest me), it seems clear to me that Dany has always believed that the Targ dynasty was unjustly overthrown, and she has the right, duty and obligation to retake the throne and reinstate the Targ dynasty. Whether you find that reasoning to be "justification" is irrelevant. Such "justification" has been used in the real world historically time and again (sometimes with success and sometimes without success). She also has dragons which gives her reason to believe she will succeed at her mission (not that the dragons are part of the justification--just basis for it not to be a complete fool's errand).

And I am not a Dany fan or foe. I don't think any monarch really has the "right" to rule, as they have not really been given the consent of a majority of the governed (the only legitimate basis I believe there is to rule--not that we can always live up to that ideal). But Dany has just as much a justification to "invade" as Stannis has to attack KL or as Tommen has to continue to assert that he is king. Ultimately, realpolitik prevails. Each believes he or she is the "true" ruler for his or her own personal reasons -- and then acts on that belief.

Of course it is relevant because as the readers, we know that the Targaryens are not overthrown unjustly. Robert’s Rebellion was completely justified and legal. So, if Dany rejects the chances to learn the truth time and again while using the bolded as her justification, she deserves all the bashing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What? Well, I don't think that's how it will be. See, I think Dany will actually bugger Westeros in the arse, because [quoting: wineseller’s daughters, 163, Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen, starting a reckless abolitionist campaign without a plan and betraying that campaign step by step, fickle understanding of justice, lack of self-reflection, lack of knowledge, self-righteous cruelty, collective punishment etc.] and [quoting: people will die everywhere the dragons dance, I will teach the Usurper’s Dogs that women neither forgive nor forget, Stark and Lannister make no difference etc.] and [GRRM's talking: Dany’s invasion is the second threat to the Realm which will be greater than the Wot5K, there will be a Second Dance etc.]".

Fixed for ya :)

The thing is, why you think your explanation is better than ours?

Dany is not the only character who says and acts in a way completely different at what her own inner self actually wants to do.

Jon joined the Watch and later regretted it, even for a moment.

Jaime decided to be indifferent towards his children and later, regretted it and now wants to be in charge of them and protect them, even if that means going against Cersei.

Theon acted against the Starks in one moment of pride and idiocy and said they weren't his family, and later, admitted he always wanted to be one of them.

Dany said she hated all of the Usurpers. So, what? She had every reasons for it. That doesn't mean she will go and kill everybody related to them. She also said she wanted to take the throne. That doesn't mean either that she will later realise what's the real danger in Westeros and that the danger of the Others is more important than gaining a throne. I don't see a reason why we should completely treat her like she's the only character unable to change, when everybody else has done it already: Stannis has bent, Jaime doesn't care if Cersei dies, Jon accepted he wants children, Theon has realised his mistakes. But not Dany: she will remain with all the flaws she has because Mithras says so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't actually spend that much time trying to figure out the motivations of fictional characters. But to the extent I have given this issue any thought (and it does modestly interest me), it seems clear to me that Dany has always believed that the Targ dynasty was unjustly overthrown, and she has the right, duty and obligation to retake the throne and reinstate the Targ dynasty. Whether you find that reasoning to be "justification" is irrelevant. Such "justification" has been used in the real world historically time and again (sometimes with success and sometimes without success). She also has dragons which gives her reason to believe she will succeed at her mission (not that the dragons are part of the justification--just basis for it not to be a complete fool's errand).

And I am not a Dany fan or foe. I don't think any monarch really has the "right" to rule, as they have not really been given the consent of a majority of the governed (the only legitimate basis I believe there is to rule--not that we can always live up to that ideal). But Dany has just as much a justification to "invade" as Stannis has to attack KL or as Tommen has to continue to assert that he is king. Ultimately, realpolitik prevails. Each believes he or she is the "true" ruler for his or her own personal reasons -- and then acts on that belief.

Which is the reason that has been given by pretty much every Dany fan on this thread but since that OP doesn't agree with it, he thinks that nobody has done any thinking on the subject and therefore its wrong.

It is why this thread was pointless from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more. The Dany defenders are totally incoherent, completely biased, and extremely emotional and reactionary. They've essentially ruined this thread completely.

No, everyone doesn't agree with you. No, the OP didn't set up logical fallacies - it asked a simple question, what are her possible motivations for INVADING, which is exactly what she has been planning to do the entire time? The OP then examines all the reasons we have been given, and shoots them down.

So, in a nutshell, the OP is reasoned, balanced and logical (and later hits us with even more of that), while the other side is incoherent, biased and emotional? Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people even make threads about characters they totally hate? What was the goal of the OP? Actual unbiased discussion of the character, or a a veiled hate thread?

Perhaps the purpose is to question the premise that someone in Dany's position has a right to invade her former homeland? How about, to debate the ethics of war? There are lots of reasons. The conquering hero is a standard fantasy trope - I think George means for us to question it, and that's what is happening. You perceive it as a personal attack because you identify with Dany - but that's an emotional reaction. This is a thread to suggest Dany's justifications don't hold up to scrutiny. That's totally legitimate Ice and fire analysis. Just because someone concludes her justifications are baseless doesn't indicate any kind of bias - it's simply a conclusion based on evidence and opinion.

The way some people are defending Dany is essentially like defending the honor of their best friend - it's totally irrational, based on loyalty, not facts or reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...