Witchy Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I'll never understand how people can ignore Dany's good qualities. She is empathetic. She is moral. She always helps the underdog. Every time she has harmed someone it was to protect someone weaker (her Khalasar of slaves, her child, her hand maidens, the unsullied--who are soldiers but also 8000 severely abused children, barely grown) or to punish someone who has betrayed her. We don't mind when Arya gets vengeance...so why do we mind when Dany does? She is magic. She has prophetic dreams and visions and was able to hatch the dragons. Add to that her arc, an orphaned exile sold to a warlord by her own brother, raped, forced to abandon the only home she knew to live among savages. She is the ultimate underdog herself. She has made mistakes, and she has lost her temper. But considering ending slavery a negative on her part is...well, it's mind numbing. Slavery is evil. She is smashing evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witchy Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 One is male who is a golden boy and Rhaegar as his father and the other is a girl, with slaves and barbarians whose husband killed her brother and has Aerys as her father. Seriously you see no difference? So the issue is truly her gender, not her madness? Then why mention her mad father to begin with? And how are these Westerosi failing to notice that beloved Rhaegar's son has invaded with sellswords? And how do we know she will invade with slaves and "barbarians"? I can't help but notice that you forgot to mention the Unsullied, who are known for their order. Given that Dany has explicitly expressed her desire to avoid sacking Westeros at all, which is why she acquired the Unsullied in the first place, I don't see how the argument isn't just another way of saying, "these are my wishes so that I can finally be validated in spreading unwarranted vitriol about a fictional character. These imagined crimes are the justification I need. Forget her character and the inconsistency this implies, I want it to happen this way, however simplistic it is, this is how I want it to happen. And I won't even bother to put much effort into the argument. I'll just mention things in the arrogant manner I usually do, add FIIIIIIIIIIRE AND BLUUUUUUDDDDDD and think it well put." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I'll never understand how people can ignore Dany's good qualities. She is empathetic. She is moral. She always helps the underdog. Every time she has harmed someone it was to protect someone weaker (her Khalasar of slaves, her child, her hand maidens, the unsullied--who are soldiers but also 8000 severely abused children, barely grown) or to punish someone who has betrayed her. We don't mind when Arya gets vengeance...so why do we mind when Dany does? She is magic. She has prophetic dreams and visions and was able to hatch the dragons. Add to that her arc, an orphaned exile sold to a warlord by her own brother, raped, forced to abandon the only home she knew to live among savages. She is the ultimate underdog herself. She has made mistakes, and she has lost her temper. But considering ending slavery a negative on her part is...well, it's mind numbing. Slavery is evil. She is smashing evil. My point exactly. Her imagined crimes go against her character. This FIIIIREEEE AND BLUUUUUUDDD shit sounds like something D+D would write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikkel Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 double post I'll never understand how people can ignore Dany's good qualities. She is empathetic. She is moral. She always helps the underdog. Every time she has harmed someone it was to protect someone weaker (her Khalasar of slaves, her child, her hand maidens, the unsullied--who are soldiers but also 8000 severely abused children, barely grown) or to punish someone who has betrayed her. We don't mind when Arya gets vengeance...so why do we mind when Dany does? She is magic. She has prophetic dreams and visions and was able to hatch the dragons. Add to that her arc, an orphaned exile sold to a warlord by her own brother, raped, forced to abandon the only home she knew to live among savages. She is the ultimate underdog herself. She has made mistakes, and she has lost her temper. But considering ending slavery a negative on her part is...well, it's mind numbing. Slavery is evil. She is smashing evil. Yes, ASOIAF is just that black and white. All these characters and complex motives and interactions, and it turns out Dany is simply flawless :dunno: She may be "smashing evil", but she's causing a lot of evil in the process. Will the end result be worth it? The majority of the slaves would be better off in the short term, how many of them can die for the potential improvement of the rest? If you have owned and taken slaves yourself, loved a slavemaster and serial-rapist like Drogo, and continue to profit off the slavetrade even after killing thousands of people for their involvement in the slave trade, are you still allowed to claim the moral high ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Okay very last comment but the dragons Don't seem to want to end humanity. Do the Others? Up to now, they have killed far less humans than Dany's dragons! I'll never understand how people can ignore Dany's good qualities. She is empathetic. She is moral. She always helps the underdog. Every time she has harmed someone it was to protect someone weaker (her Khalasar of slaves, her child, her hand maidens, the unsullied--who are soldiers but also 8000 severely abused children, barely grown) or to punish someone who has betrayed her. We don't mind when Arya gets vengeance...so why do we mind when Dany does? She is magic. She has prophetic dreams and visions and was able to hatch the dragons. Like the Meereenese underdog come to her for justice? Or the poor, underage girls she had tortured to death (and most likely raped in the process) to make their father, who she knew to know nothing, talk? So the issue is truly her gender, not her madness? Then why mention her mad father to begin with? Both. And how are these Westerosi failing to notice that beloved Rhaegar's son has invaded with sellswords? Exiles. The Golden Company. The peers of the Westerosi. And how do we know she will invade with slaves and "barbarians"? I can't help but notice that you forgot to mention the Unsullied, who are known for their order. Given that Dany has explicitly expressed her desire to avoid sacking Westeros at all, which is why she acquired the Unsullied in the first place, I don't see how the argument isn't just another way of saying, "these are my wishes so that I can finally be validated in spreading unwarranted vitriol about a fictional character. These imagined crimes are the justification I need. Forget her character and the inconsistency this implies, I want it to happen this way, however simplistic it is, this is how I want it to happen. And I won't even bother to put much effort into the argument. I'll just mention things in the arrogant manner I usually do, add FIIIIIIIIIIRE AND BLUUUUUUDDDDDD and think it well put." So, Unsullied aren't slaves? Or barbarians, from a Westerosi perspective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 She is moral. A moral person would pay the price of those Unsullied she stole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 So the issue is truly her gender, not her madness? Then why mention her mad father to begin with? And how are these Westerosi failing to notice that beloved Rhaegar's son has invaded with sellswords? And how do we know she will invade with slaves and "barbarians"? I can't help but notice that you forgot to mention the Unsullied, who are known for their order. Given that Dany has explicitly expressed her desire to avoid sacking Westeros at all, which is why she acquired the Unsullied in the first place, I don't see how the argument isn't just another way of saying, "these are my wishes so that I can finally be validated in spreading unwarranted vitriol about a fictional character. These imagined crimes are the justification I need. Forget her character and the inconsistency this implies, I want it to happen this way, however simplistic it is, this is how I want it to happen. And I won't even bother to put much effort into the argument. I'll just mention things in the arrogant manner I usually do, add FIIIIIIIIIIRE AND BLUUUUUUDDDDDD and think it well put."She is MadKing's daughter and FAegon will be *Rhaegar*'s son. Aerion's son didn't become the King because of who his father was not because of who is grandfather was. Westerosi sellswords who are accompanied by Rhaegar's best friend a known Targaryen supporter and his mother family. Danny is just a PR nightmare he doesn't have anything positive. Ok she has Drogon but that is not positive, that is threatening. She has Dothraki and Unsullied, how they are not barbarians and slaves? A moral person would pay the price of those Unsullied she stole.A moral person wouldn't torture children because she would thought that their father will admit something he might hadn't done to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 A moral person would pay the price of those Unsullied she stole.The Unsullied were nobody's to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 The Unsullied were nobody's to sell. A moral person would not fail to mention this before the exhange. Besides, a moral person would not allow freedmen to sell themselves to slavery again and certainly not claim one tenth of the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen of dragonstone Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Conversations like these are pointless. Nobody will change their mind, least of all people who are saying she stole humans by not paying for them, tortures kids (the wineseller was probably guilty so you can't call him innocent), has them raped and to top it off is mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikkel Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 There was nothing honorable or moral about Dany's interaction with the masters of Astapor. It could be argued (and often is) that they're so reprehensible that they themselves possess neither honor or morals. Just as long as we don't start attributing anything altruistic to Dany's motives here, because it all came from her inability to purchase the soldiers in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If you have owned and taken slaves yourself, loved a slavemaster and serial-rapist like Drogo, and continue to profit off the slavetrade even after killing thousands of people for their involvement in the slave trade, are you still allowed to claim the moral high ground? I think most of this is fan-fiction, and suggestive of the notion that redemption is impossible to achieve, despite extensive effort. snip Ohhh, we're talking about perspective? I wasn't aware. In that case, what difference does it make? Also, How exactly are exiles peers? And just because they are exiles and not barbarians makes their invasion and whatever mayhem they will bring okay? Colour me confused. A moral person would pay the price of those Unsullied she stole. The Unsullied are people, they weren't anyone's to sell. She is MadKing's daughter and FAegon will be *Rhaegar*'s son. Aerion's son didn't become the King because of who his father was not because of who is grandfather was. Westerosi sellswords who are accompanied by Rhaegar's best friend a known Targaryen supporter and his mother family. Danny is just a PR nightmare he doesn't have anything positive. Ok she has Drogon but that is not positive, that is threatening. She has Dothraki and Unsullied, how they are not barbarians and slaves? A moral person wouldn't torture children because she would thought that their father will admit something he might hadn't done to begin with. The first sentence puzzles me. I literally don't know how to read it. I don't see how Targaryenism is suddenly a good thing now that Jon Con is there. Does he somehow neutralise what I understand you hate about Targaryenism? How is it that you of all people, are now in support of this...when Dany isn't attached? Curious post. Curioser and curioser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (the wineseller was probably guilty so you can't call him innocent), So a child has to be punished for what a father may or may haven't done? The first sentence puzzles me. I literally don't know how to read it. I don't see how Targaryenism is suddenly a good thing now that Jon Con is there. Does he somehow neutralise what I understand you hate about Targaryenism? How is it that you of all people, are now in support of this...when Dany isn't attached? Curious post. Curioser and curioser. I don't see how more clear I can be. Aerion's son didn't become the king because of who his father was, no one cared about his grandfather. Oh it isn't, but it shows who is gonna be the heir and who is gonna be the usurper, kislayer and King slayer for the Westerosdi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witchy Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Astapor was a sesspool. In one fell swoop she killed people who had been enslaving and abusing thousands upon thousands of children, got an army that won't rape and pillage when she uses them (which is very important to her and another reason I call her moral), and got revenge on that shit for disrespecting her. She had several motives, and while it was a bit ruthless, it was also justified and awesome. I never said Dany had no bad qualities, only that she has plenty of good ones, and she is very obviously being set up as the savior of this series (along with Jon and Tyrion) so I think Dany haters are setting yourselves up for major disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witchy Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikkel Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I think most of this is fan-fiction, and suggestive of the notion that redemption is impossible to achieve, despite extensive effort. We can argue about whether redemption is achievable - I don't rule it out, I just ask the question - but you cannot deny she has done all the things listed. Calling it fan-fiction is a cheap and ridiculous attempt to sweep away an unpalatable truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drogonthedread Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 So a child has to be punished for what a father may or may haven't done? they were arrested for the crime too ..they were not just there to get answers from their father .. the first order she gave was keep the three of them apart from each other and and question them ...so they were suspects too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 There was nothing honorable or moral about Dany's interaction with the masters of Astapor. It could be argued (and often is) that they're so reprehensible that they themselves possess neither honor or morals. Just as long as we don't start attributing anything altruistic to Dany's motives here, because it all came from her inability to purchase the soldiers in the first place.Dany risked a hideous death to free the Unsullied. I'd say that's moral.Arguably, the degree of slaughter at Astapor was immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 they were arrested for the crime too ..they were not just there to get answers from their father .. the first order she gave was keep the three of them apart from each other and and question them ...so they were suspects too That doens't make sense. She ordered them to be tortured because she thought that their father will admit something he did. How is that moral? Do children have to pay for what their father did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.