Is Dany a hypocrite?

[Erudain]

ok off topic but Jon "done absolutely zero to advance the Targaryen cause"...yeah because he's busy trying to save the whole kingdom from zombie apocalypse lol (or comatose after being stabbed)

[Protagoras]

2 minutes ago, Erudain said:

ok off topic but Jon "done absolutely zero to advance the Targaryen cause"...yeah because he's busy trying to save the whole kingdom from zombie apocalypse lol (or comatose after being stabbed)

Doesn´t really matter, does it. If I fail to do my job and claim that is because I saved women from being raped in Pakistan, I still havnt done my work and no excuse will change that. I will still get fired/not getting payed.

If you want to prove yourself suitable as the Targaryen hier, you need to advance that cause. If not - why should you be a candidate for the eventual power that comes from it?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

How is this even a question? Of course she is! Let’s see.

She always says about how she want to take the House back yet on the same time

Quote

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear.[...]but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

So she has the right to her *House* but the old woman has lost the right to take back her house?

She wants to bring justice to SB and her way of doing that is by mass killing of 163 people without actually trying to find if they are the same people who crucified the slaves.

She abolishes slavery and yet she  

Quote

“Sweet queen, when he saw me, my old friend fell to his knees and begged me to buy him as a slave and take him back to Qarth.” “She felt as if hed slapped her. Buy him, then."

 

Quote

 “In Astapor the city took a tenth part of the price, each time a slave changed hands,” Missandei told her. “We’ll do the same,” Dany decided. Wars were won with gold as much as swords. “A tenth part. In gold or silver coin, or ivory. Meereen has no need of saffron, cloves, or zorse hides.”

Hence from Breaker of chains she becames someone who gets money from people who sell themselves into slavery not only the first time but also everytime someone buys them, because she had made the life as a free man unbearable. Isn’t that what the slavers do?

She claims that she cares about the smallfolk and yet she orders the torture of two innocent children because she believes that their father might know something.

She claims to care about children and yet orders her warriors to kill 12 year old children because of what they wear. It’s not like they will ask for proof about their age before killing them,  or that they might just been a member of the family business. What she actually say is that a person who was born into a social group should die. That would be like killing Shireen, Myrcella and other highborn over the age of 12 just because they are highborn even if they hadn’t done anything to harm her.

She calls Robert an Usurper and yet she begins a war in SB and usurper the leaders of the cities she conquers like an usurper.

She always says that she will go back to her people, which is wrong since she always repeat how she is the blood of the dragon and Valyria, to free them and so on but she will take what is hers by fire and blood. Meaning that she want to kill her people, because in what other way she could do this?

[Erudain]

2 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Doesn´t really matter, does it. If I fail to do my job and claim that is because I saved women from being raped in Pakistan, I still havnt done my work and no excuse will change that. I will still get fired/not getting payed.

If you want to prove yourself suitable as the Targaryen hier, you need to advance that cause. If not - why should you be a candidate for the eventual power that comes from it?

That's kinda hard to do when you ignore you are a potential heir, isnt it?

[Protagoras]

9 minutes ago, Erudain said:

That's kinda hard to do when you ignore you are a potential heir, isnt it?

Indeed, which is why there is no real reason for Daenerys to believe that Jon is "the rightful king" (Which he really is not, considering the complications already outlined) and therefore is not a hypocrite if she considers her claim stronger. 

To quote myself from another thread:

In order for either of them to sit the Iron Throne, House Targaryen must win the Iron Throne back.

Jon however, is not officially a part of said dynasty. In order for him to be a Targaryen it must be proved that he is. Unfortunately - Howland Reed won´t count for much evidence (maybe, big maybe that he can convince the lords about R+L=J but even so, Howland Reed can´t prove that there was a marriage), nor can it be proved that R+L was married (which is needed for Jon to enter the succession in the first place). In addition, Jons own wows towards the night´s watch make it impossible for him to leave the watch without (at minimum) the permission of a monarch (or maybe a great council too).

Luckily, he only need to convince one person about all this and that person is Daenerys, the scion and only known member of House Targaryen (I can also see the possibility that Aegon will legitimize him, but I find that unlikely).

So, if Jon want´s the throne (and lets ignore all unrealistic bullshit that Jon will somehow get the throne regardless of blood because he is sooo awesome and everyone somehow "realize" this - thats lame, unrealistic and very much not GRRM and you all know it) he need to be legimized as a Targaryen by a already known Targaryen and freed from his wows by preferably the same person. Sure, in theory, Jon could name himself Jon Targaryen and make an attempt himself but he lacks an army, will be seen as a oathbreaker and, most importantly, a raison d'etre to do this since he today has no connection to the Targaryen name.

If that happens, Daenerys will obviously be the one in charge and will sit the throne. Jon really can´t rebel against her since the fact that he is a legitimate candidate in the first place will be because of her and by refusing to acknowledge her rule he will also refuse his own legitimization. Jons best odds to get the throne is to be named her heir (Pretty likely if he can convince Daenerys of all of the above) and rule after her death.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

8 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

In order for either of them to sit the Iron Throne, House Targaryen must win the Iron Throne back.

I don't see why if Jon is to take the Throne the Targs have to be a part of that.

[Caspoi]

20 hours ago, bloodofthedragon1995 said:

In my opinion, Dany's character has changed massively and her arc has taken a massive change. In aGoT and aCoK, Dany can be seen as being more desperate to claim the Iron Throne and not wanting to delay it at any cost. However in aSoS and aDwD, she has other issues she deems more important and can be seen as pushing aside her mission to Westeros in favour of being the champion of the commoners and former slaves in Meereen. In the latter two novels her main aim is totally crushing the slave trade and helping transform slavers bay into a democratic place.

However, i personally feel that Dany here is acting with no right and simply with presumption. It is quite annoying that she is determined to stay and rule Slaver's bay, a region she has no blood claim too and yet establishes a monarchy in meereen through right of conquest. However, she struggles to accept that the Baratheon's also claimed Westeros and the Iron Throne through right of conquest, viewing their dynasty as illegitimate. She seems completely fine however with staying in Slaver's Bay despite all of the chaos her 'reign' has caused. Dany essentially broke guest right in Astapor when she was buying unsullied and then killed most of the masters and high-born present. She also see's no problem in doing this seeing it as her right in order to save the people from tyranny or something but it is her ruthlessness which is quite shocking. She is "Only a young girl and knows little of the ways of war" yet she is willing to allow any children over 14 to be killed.

It is quite frustrating for me and maybe some other people that Dany is perfectly okay with conquering slaver's bay and completely changing cultures and societies thousands of years old simply because she has dragons and she can. To met this is similar to the colonisation of lesser civilisations by more powerful countries. Dany feels she is superior to this way of life that has existed since the days of old Valyria and so is determined to change it - being the "blood of the dragon" does not give her a right.

I also find Dany's stance on slavery to be quite hypocritical. In the first two novels when Dany is considerably weaker and less powerful, she has no problems with being attended on by Dothraki slaves, nor the thralls or slaves in Qarth. It seems like this hatred of slavery has popped up in aSoS almost out of nowhere. 

Although my favourite house is Targaryen (apart from Dany), I am also very pro-stark. Dany's unfounded hatred of House Stark is somewhat irritating. She has no clue about what really happened during Robert's Rebellion, not much has been revealed to the readers and even less to Dany. Dany believes that because she has heard limited biased tales from Viserys and Barristan, she understands everything that occurred. She is also heavily influenced by Jorah's biased hatred of Ned and her constant "usurper's dogs" comments are very annoying, portraying her as being childish and petulant, going on about something she knows nothing about. 

This is NOT A DANY HATE THREAD. I just want to discuss how Dany's character changed so much. How did she turn from the innocent, kind child in Illyrio's manse to the power-crazed, hypocritical woman she is aDwD who belives she has the right to just turn civilisations into dust.

 

Ugh, I hate the missuse of the word "democratic", she abolished previous republican governements and set herself up as a queen, that is about as far away from democratic as you could get. You could argue that she strives to be an enlightend monarch as opposed to the corrupt and oppressive previous goverments but that is not the same as being "democratic.

 

Other than that I agree with your post.

[Masha]

I don't like Dany but what I don't think she is a hypocrite but an idealistic teenager who been spoon-fed her history

She knows that she is a Targaryens and Targaryens conquer. Conquering from outside the country as invader is completely different than being usurped from within, Robert is usurper precisely because he was her subject (and a kin to boot), he rebelled against his king and overthrew his king, thus making him Usurper. Two different things.

She hates slavery because of her experience being sold by her brother and feels that Drogo was the best thing that happened to her. I seem to remember there was an actual line in the books, where she actually says that was just so lucky it was Drogo she married. Doesn't make her hypocrite in this.

The thing that I dislike, and I think it was made clear in the TV series for me, that Dany got consumed with being "Mhysa", it felt good when people prayed to her, adored her and told her that she is good. Its very easy for teenager to be susceptible to fluttery. That's why she stopped at Meereen, she was Mhysa of slaves and she was the one who could make it work.

Its also pretty easy for teenager to go "na na na" and close her ears when she doesn't want to hear things she knows she wouldn't like - like Aerys was mad and rebels were justified in rebelling.

So Dany is annoying as character as teenagers are but not a hypocrite

 

[Grissom]

7 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How is this even a question? Of course she is! Let’s see.

She always says about how she want to take the House back yet on the same time

So she has the right to her *House* but the old woman has lost the right to take back her house?

She wants to bring justice to SB and her way of doing that is by mass killing of 163 people without actually trying to find if they are the same people who crucified the slaves.

She abolishes slavery and yet she  

Hence from Breaker of chains she becames someone who gets money from people who sell themselves into slavery not only the first time but also everytime someone buys them, because she had made the life as a free man unbearable. Isn’t that what the slavers do?

She claims that she cares about the smallfolk and yet she orders the torture of two innocent children because she believes that their father might know something.

She claims to care about children and yet orders her warriors to kill 12 year old children because of what they wear. It’s not like they will ask for proof about their age before killing them,  or that they might just been a member of the family business. What she actually say is that a person who was born into a social group should die. That would be like killing Shireen, Myrcella and other highborn over the age of 12 just because they are highborn even if they hadn’t done anything to harm her.

She calls Robert an Usurper and yet she begins a war in SB and usurper the leaders of the cities she conquers like an usurper.

She always says that she will go back to her people, which is wrong since she always repeat how she is the blood of the dragon and Valyria, to free them and so on but she will take what is hers by fire and blood. Meaning that she want to kill her people, because in what other way she could do this?

A lot of the things you said can be justified by the fact that she isn't the smartest crayon in the bunch. She is a bit of a hypocrite yes, but the most important thing here is that she is just a little girl who doesn't really understand what she is doing. She wants to do nice things but she is just too dull to do anything truly good. Maybe she can be a decent ruler when she is older, but not yet.

[khal drogon]

17 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How is thi s evenr question? Of coue she is! Let’s see.

She always says about how she want to take the House back yet on the same time

So she has the right to her *House* but the old woman has lost the right to take back her house?

She wants to bring justice to SB and her way of doing that is by mass killing of 163 people without actually trying to find if they are the same people who crucified the slaves.

She abolishes slavery and yet she  

Hence from Breaker of chains she becames someone who gets money from people who sell themselves into slavery not only the first time but also everytime someone buys them, because she had made the life as a free man unbearable. Isn’t that what the slavers do?

She claims that she cares about the smallfolk and yet she orders the torture of two innocent children because she believes that their father might know something.

She claims to care about children and yet orders her warriors to kill 12 year old children because of what they wear. It’s not like they will ask for proof about their age before killing them,  or that they might just been a member of the family business. What she actually say is that a person who was born into a social group should die. That would be like killing Shireen, Myrcella and other highborn over the age of 12 just because they are highborn even if they hadn’t done anything to harm her.

She calls Robert an Usurper and yet she begins a war in SB and usurper the leaders of the cities she conquers like an usurper.

She always says that she will go back to her people, which is wrong since she always repeat how she is the blood of the dragon and Valyria, to free them and so on but she will take what is hers by fire and blood. Meaning that she want to kill her people, because in what other way she could do this?

The case with the rich woman was the only case where her hypocrisy shows and Martin added this to show exactly that. 

Others not. Especially the thing with those slaves who wants chains. As freemen, they have the right to choose to go back to the chains. If she forces them not to do so, then she contradicts with herself by restricting their choice. But she doesn't. She leaves the choice to themselves. Does this make her a slaver? This is tricky. If a slaver is someone who benefits from from slave trade. Then she is, except she has no control in this situation and she needs money to run the city. But if a slaver is a person, who restricts free will then she is not.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 10/3/2016 at 1:06 AM, Grissom said:

A lot of the things you said can be justified by the fact that she isn't the smartest crayon in the bunch. She is a bit of a hypocrite yes, but the most important thing here is that she is just a little girl who doesn't really understand what she is doing. She wants to do nice things but she is just too dull to do anything truly good. Maybe she can be a decent ruler when she is older, but not yet.

If she doesn't understand which is what she say anyway "I am but a young girl and know little of the ways of war." but yet she manage to claim that  “I am the blood of the dragon. Do not presume to teach me lessons.”. How is that not hypoctitical? The fact that her storyline in Essos proves that most of the times she has double digit IQ doesn't mean that what she does aren't hypocritical.

On 11/3/2016 at 11:24 AM, khal drogon said:

The case with the rich woman was the only case where her hypocrisy shows and Martin added this to show exactly that. 

Others not. Especially the thing with those slaves who wants chains. As freemen, they have the right to choose to go back to the chains. If she forces them not to do so, then she contradicts with herself by restricting their choice. But she doesn't. She leaves the choice to themselves. Does this make her a slaver? This is tricky. If a slaver is someone who benefits from from slave trade. Then she is, except she has no control in this situation and she needs money to run the city. But if a slaver is a person, who restricts free will then she is not.

The point is that she made their life unbereable and when they try to escape in order to have a chance to live she takles they money. And yes a slaver is someone who gains profit for slavery so she from the "Breaker" becomes a part of the chain.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Just now, Protagoras said:

Well, if you think Robb´s will gives him access to the Iron Throne (aka the throne I was talking about in the post you quoted) we are certainly in that territory.

You didn´t miss which throne we were talking about earlier right? (considering that before you entered the discussion we were comparing Daenerys and Jons respective claims seen from a Targaryen standpoint). Only one throne is possible to claim from that standpoint. 

My mistake then. I wasn't talking about the IT, basically because I don't believe that there will be an IT at the end. In any case if we believe that the Targs have a divine right on the IT then by the right of *blood* ,? I don't know the word, Jon is before Dany.

[Protagoras]

18 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

My mistake then. I wasn't talking about the IT, basically because I don't believe that there will be an IT at the end. In any case if we believe that the Targs have a divine right on the IT then by the right of *blood* ,? I don't know the word, Jon is before Dany.

No he isn´t by exactly those reasons I wrote above in the post you quoted (seriosly, did you even read what I wrote?), namely 1. Its impossible to prove that there was a marriage (sure, I believe there was one, but how to prove that to the populace of Westeros?). 2. Jon´s own oaths sworn to the watch (They don´t do away just because his fans want them to) and 3. The lack of Targaryen connection in Jon (his raison d'etre) as well as the possibility that Rhaegar was excluded from the succession by Aerys in favor of Viserys, who in turn named Deanerys as his hier.

In addition to these legal arguments is Daenerys dragons, which markes her has the scion of the house and should make her win legal discussions by the power of symbolism alone. Hell, I would argue that her dragons allow her to supersede the normal rules of inheritance (not that those are in Jon´s favor anyway but still).

Jon´s claim to the Iron Throne only looks good if you are in a very forgiving mood and handwaives troubling issues away by pure fanboyism (see the bullshit/fanfic I was talking about above).

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

No he isn´t by exactly those reasons I wrote above in the post you quoted (seriosly, did you even read what I wrote?), namely 1. Its impossible to prove that there was a marriage (sure, I believe there was one, but how to prove that to the populace of Westeros?). 2. Jon´s own oaths sworn to the watch (They don´t do away just because his fans want them to) and 3. The lack of Targaryen connection in Jon (his raison d'etre) as well as the possibility that Rhaegar was excluded from the succession by Aerys in favor of Viserys, who in turn named Deanerys as his hier.

In addition to these legal arguments is Daenerys dragons, which markes her has the scion of the house and should make her win legal discussions by the power of symbolism alone. Hell, I would argue that her dragons allow her to supersede the normal rules of inheritance (not that those are in Jon´s favor anyway but still). 

Jon´s claim to the Iron Throne only looks good if you are in a very forgiving mood and handwaives troubling issues away by pure fanboyism (see the bullshit/fanfic I was talking about above).

Do you really expect me to remember what I read days ago? All your arguments are about now not at the end and what can happen then. Because I don't believe taht anyone will chose Dany the KingandKinslayer. 

If you are looking for symblolism or forshadowings and you have missed those about Jon being the King then ok.

[Protagoras]

12 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Do you really expect me to remember what I read days ago? All your arguments are about now not at the end and what can happen then. Because I don't believe taht anyone will chose Dany the KingandKinslayer. 

If you are looking for symblolism or forshadowings and you have missed those about Jon being the King then ok.

I like logic and arguments. Sure, anything could happen but this is how things stand in this moment. What you believe or what I believe will happen have little weight since its GRRM who writes the book. If you actually have any arguments for me to analyze please contribute, but I think you understand yourself that if your conterargument is that no one will choose Daenerys over Jon in this, despite the legal position, you are not really giving me anything to work with and confirms that you are not really arguing in good faith - you have decided that it is a certain way because you say so and that is pretty intellectual dishonest as well as a sign of fanboyism. 

And yes, I think its reasonable for me to expect you to have read my post if you decide to quote it. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, Protagoras said:

I like logic and arguments. Sure, anything could happen but this is how things stand in this moment. What you believe or what I believe will happen have little weight since its GRRM who writes the book. If you actually have any arguments for me to analyze please contribute but I think you understand yourself that if your conterargument is that no one will choose Daenerys over Jon in this, despite the legal position you are not really giving me anything to work with and confirms that you are not really arguing in good faith - you have decided that it is a certain way because you say so and that is pretty intellectual dshonest as well as a sign of fanboyism. 

And yes, I think its reasonable for me to expect you to have read my post if you decide to quote them. 

Read it yes. Remebert it days later no.

At this moment Dany has one dragon and she is sick, Jon is near dead and FAegon has already landed and had already won his first battle. So at this point is more logical and probable for FAegon to take the Throne. You are talking about the hypothetical scenario that all of her dragons will survive both from DotD2.0, will have some Westerosi support and that the LN2.0 will not have come yet. 

[Protagoras]

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Read it yes. Remebert it days later no.

At this moment Dany has one dragon and she is sick, Jon is near dead and FAegon has already landed and had already won his first battle. So at this point is more logical and probable for FAegon to take the Throne. You are talking about the hypothetical scenario that all of her dragons will survive both from DotD2.0, will have some Westerosi support and that the LN2.0 will not have come yet. 

Indeed, at this moment Faegon stand strong. Nothing of what Faegon do however affects the legal status between Jons and Daenerys claim compared to eachother. The three arguments against Jon I wrote are still as strong as before regardless of the status of Daenerys and her dragons (unless she dies, that is) and they need to change somehow in order for him to advance in the succession. Daenerys doesn´t really need to do anything - the onus is not on her (of course - in the end all claimates must be able to retake Westeros but until then - all we have is their current basis of legality to go on).

The Comparison between Faegons and Daenerys claim is of course an entirely different discussion than the comparison between Jons and Daenerys claim. If he is what he say he is, it is clearly a stronger claim than Daenerys has and if he can win, well then it wont matter in the long run if he is true or not. But again, I fail to see why he matters in the Jon vs Daenerys claim discussion. 

[Azul DeLaRosa]

I find her to be no more of a hypocrite than anyone else in the series. Her actions may seem to be contrary to how she behaved and thought as a character in the earlier books, though I view them more as a process of growth. It is very difficult to maintain both ones honor and ones life in the world she is living in. She makes the choices she feels like she needs to make in the situations she is given to work with. At times she makes very bad decisions, like Ned did in his time.