I'm Going to Break the Wheel

[Clariana]

I think Dany/Jon/Tyrion are going to secure the future of Westeros but Rickon + Shireen will be the consolidators...

Well, at least that's what I think today...

[JonisHenryTudor]

And I think he would be wrong in that conclusion. I'm not sure why absolutism is a precondition to centralization. I might be more convinced if somebody working in the poltical science department of some university has a credible model as to why.

I meant more or less following the European political trend from the 12th century until present. Not that it has to happen that way. I would agree that absolutism is not a precondition, because England and the UP provide solid examples of powerful states that were not absolute. Second to them would be the power states of Venice, Genoa, and the other "republics".

I should have been more clearer.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Which dialogue are you talking about? Show or book? In the books, she calls Starks in plural as usurper dogs because it was Ned, Brandon and Rickard who started the rebellion.

Brandon and Rickard were burned alive. IIRC, MAD daddy called for Neddies head straight after, then the rebellion occurred.

[Dany's Golden Fleece]

Marching on WF being the right decision is debatable.

Or the proposed Hardhome expedition, that had disaster written all over it. Luckily the pink letter happened and Jon changed all those plans in a whim.

[Khal Boner]

How does she break the wheel?

1) Make it illegal for the nobility to have private armies.

2) Upgrade the smallfolk from serfs to freedmen who own their little patch of Westeros, rather than merely working it for someone else.

3) Remove the feudal obligation for the smallfolk to fight for anyone other than the monarch.

[ummester]

This is just silly. I'd ask you to state your support for this proposition except that it's 100% obvious there isn't any and there couldn't be any.

Well, I can.

Ideal, first definition on internet

1.satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable:

Perfection does not exist other than being an ideal - it is a pie in the sky thing that we can strive for but the reality of life and being human prevents us from ever obtaining. For example - Justice is an ideal, law is the human solution.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Well, I can.

Ideal, first definition on internet

1.satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable:

Perfection does not exist other than being an ideal - it is a pie in the sky thing that we can strive for but the reality of life and being human prevents us from ever obtaining. For example - Justice is an ideal, law is the human solution.

Those are just unsupported declarations, not evidence of any sort of truth. There is no physical barrier between the broad category of "ideal" and the even broader category of "not ideal." In fact, the entire concept of "ideal" is so vast that categorical assertions about it are just, I'm sorry, silly. Is it impossible to breathe the ideal amount of oxygen? To drink the ideal amount of water? To have the ideal number of children? To get an ideal night's sleep?

Is it impossible for an electrical socket to deliver the ideal amount of electricity to your portable electronic device?

And then you try to "prove" something with a statement like "the reality of life and being human prevents us?" I'm sorry, that's dead vague. What reality? Prevents us from what? What does being human have to do with it? Could we reach the ideal if we were spiny anteaters?

Put it this way: if I wanted to test whether your statement were true or false, how would you suggest that I go about doing that?

[ummester]

Put it this way: if I wanted to test whether your statement were true or false, how would you suggest that I go about doing that?

Prove to me you can provide justice to any given situation. If my statement is false, you should be able to prove that you can.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Those are just unsupported declarations, not evidence of any sort of truth. There is no physical barrier between the broad category of "ideal" and the even broader category of "not ideal." In fact, the entire concept of "ideal" is so vast that categorical assertions about it are just, I'm sorry, silly. Is it impossible to breathe the ideal amount of oxygen? To drink the ideal amount of water? To have the ideal number of children? To get an ideal night's sleep?

Is it impossible for an electrical socket to deliver the ideal amount of electricity to your portable electronic device?

And then you try to "prove" something with a statement like "the reality of life and being human prevents us?" I'm sorry, that's dead vague. What reality? Prevents us from what? What does being human have to do with it? Could we reach the ideal if we were spiny anteaters?

Put it this way: if I wanted to test whether your statement were true or false, how would you suggest that I go about doing that?

To be fair this is probably not the best example for your argument. If you take short, quick breathes, you might pass out or eventually suffer from brain damage for lack of oxygen. So normal, deep breaths are "ideal". There are ideal breathing techniques when exercising, and so on... Most physicians suggest an ideal amount of water for consumption.

Having said that, "ideal" is flexible from one thing to another, and in terms of certain issues changes with culture, etc.

[ummester]

I'm not talking about physical ideals, obviously, when the discussion is about Dany as a character.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I'm not talking about physical ideals, obviously, when the discussion is about Dany as a character.

Here's the statement I replied to: " Also, ideals are unobtainable, that's why they are labelled as ideals - idealists chase the unobtainable."

That's not about Dany in any way, shape or form. It is an independent statement of a "truth" that you are citing to support your argument about Dany.

In reality, it's not a "truth" at all. It's an incredibly broad and vague statement that you would do well to just walk away from.

Prove to me you can provide justice to any given situation. If my statement is false, you should be able to prove that you can.

Man. I don't even know what you're asking me to do, much less what it has to do with whether "idealists" always fail by definition, which is what you are arguing.

[ummester]

Here's the statement I replied to: " Also, ideals are unobtainable, that's why they are labelled as ideals - idealists chase the unobtainable."

That's not about Dany in any way, shape or form. It is an independent statement of a "truth" that you are citing to support your argument about Dany.

In reality, it's not a "truth" at all. It's an incredibly broad and vague statement that you would do well to just walk away from.

Man. I don't even know what you're asking me to do, much less what it has to do with whether "idealists" always fail by definition, which is what you are arguing.

I'm not saying idealists fail by definition, I'm saying that ideals are impossible to achieve - ideals are unobtainable. An idealist may achieve some good things, striving for ideals - they can not, however, achieve the ideals.

I showed that an ideal was defined as perfection. If you think ideals themselves are achievable, you think perfection exists - which means you obviously have a much lower standard for what perfection is than what I do.

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

How does she break the wheel?

1) Make it illegal for the nobility to have private armies.

2) Upgrade the smallfolk from serfs to freedmen who own their little patch of Westeros, rather than merely working it for someone else.

3) Remove the feudal obligation for the smallfolk to fight for anyone other than the monarch.

To be honest I don't even think Dany knows.

[El Guapo]

How does she break the wheel?

1) Make it illegal for the nobility to have private armies.

2) Upgrade the smallfolk from serfs to freedmen who own their little patch of Westeros, rather than merely working it for someone else.

3) Remove the feudal obligation for the smallfolk to fight for anyone other than the monarch.

With fire and blood.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I'm not saying idealists fail by definition, I'm saying that ideals are impossible to achieve - ideals are unobtainable. An idealist may achieve some good things, striving for ideals - they can not, however, achieve the ideals.

I showed that an ideal was defined as perfection. If you think ideals themselves are achievable, you think perfection exists - which means you obviously have a much lower standard for what perfection is than what I do.

I'm puzzled. What's the difference between "idealists fail by definition" and "ideals are impossible to achieve - ideals are unobtainable?"

Listen, man. You're making some very blanket statements about a broad and general category. That almost never works, and this ain't the exception. There is nothing about the definition of "ideal" or about the definition of "perfection" that makes those things impossible to achieve.

You might be thinking something that kind of makes sense, like "I believe we will never live in an ideal world" or "I believe there will never be a perfect society," but that is not what you're saying. Completely broad and unlimited statements like "ideals are impossible to achieve" are totally ungrounded in reality and, I'm sorry, I have to go back to my original statement, just silly; nonsensical. So if you really want to bash Dany, don't just make up broad rules about how the world operates that aren't grounded in any kind of fact or evidence, say something that makes sense.

[ErasmusF]

She is a highborn of couse she is entitled, just like every other high born in the books. You do realize this is a feudal society right?

No. Some of the characters see their titles as a duty, not a privilege. Ned Stark, Catelyn Stark, Tyrion, even Jamie. If she had more of a sense of duty she would abandon Westeros and save Slaver's Bay.

[ErasmusF]

See it is comments like this that make people think that Dany-haters are completely and utterly blinkered.

Really? When has she said something even as modest as Littlefinger - "Hey, if I want the Iron Throne, I need to prove that I deserve it." No, she just says it's hers by right.

[ErasmusF]

How does she break the wheel?

1) Make it illegal for the nobility to have private armies.

2) Upgrade the smallfolk from serfs to freedmen who own their little patch of Westeros, rather than merely working it for someone else.

3) Remove the feudal obligation for the smallfolk to fight for anyone other than the monarch.

Smallfolk are free. If they live on a Lord's land they can be conscripted and generally have to work for him one way or another, but they are free to leave.

[SerJeremiahLouistark]

D&D also can't seem to keep their shit straight for how they're portraying her though. One episode, she's beheading mossador for killing a wise master who was awaiting trial (supposedly to show her fairness as a leader) then a few episodes later she's feeding them arbitrarily to her dragons, without a trial or even any indication that this particular guy even did anything wrong, because she's mad about the Harpy attack that killed Barriston. Also, I don't think that people's opinions on Dany being a "mad queen" are completely unfounded. She does tend to fly off the handle and disregard her own ethics when someone has really pissed her off. Both in the books and the show, in different ways. She expresses regret for it often, after cooling down.

I think the 2 D's were just trying to show her as needing a smart advisor like Tyrion, because Dany has been of late very reactionary instead of proactive. I think that was also confirmed by what Tyrion said by he suspects the people around only used her for what she could get them.

[ErasmusF]

What's ironic about this is that Torrhen Stark was the king who was wise enough to put pride aside and realize that a battle against dragons could be a disaster for all Westeros (if the Wall came down).

Dany needs some Torrhen Stark. I hope Tyrion tells her the story.