Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

[ResidentHi11]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

You are giving a poor analogy.  In the case of the slave masters, simply belonging to that group means they are all oppressors and slavers.  That is guilt by doing, guilt by active participation.  Politicians are elected, public servants from any walk of life.  They are not committing atrocities simply by being who or what they are.  The Masters commit atrocities every day.  Each and every day they own slaves and continue the practice of slavery is an act of cruelty and oppression.  

I wouldn't say poor but maybe not a great analogy.  It was early and more coffee might have been prudent.

My point is while a majority of a group may be villains, there MAY be those within that are more benevolent. We don't know because Mad Adolescent Teen Queen Dany did not choose to learn more about the group and made assumptions.

I do not condone the Great Masters in any way shape or form, but as I said, WE live in a privileged (most of us anyways) society where we view what was happening as horrendous crimes. To the Mereenese, this is the culture that has been around for quite some time. WE can judge them harshly but in the world Martin has crafted, this is the way of life.

There are stories and reports that benevolent masters that treated their slave well were crucified. That IS in the text and the former slaves are distraught by it.

Dany is pissed about the crucifixion of children and absolutely rightly so. It is monstrous. A vile intimidation tactic.

So she crucified the same number of Great Masters in revengeance! But, do we know if the ones crucified were part of the group that decided on this action? Are the truly guilty still free? Are THEY the sons of the harpy because the wrong GM's were killed? Are ANY of the GM's actually good? ARE they all evil?

We do NOT know since we have no POV as a GM.

The guilty should be punished and accordingly.

Bringing freedom to thousands in bondage? Awesome job Dany, that's a good act. To simply kill a number of people without knowing their guilt for sure? That is not justice. Although I do think she realizes later her error in doing what she did.

I can say that I am glad some of you are not in a position of any power since your idea of justice is as bad as the Great Masters. This planets' history has a few unsavory individuals that also believed in killing wantonly for the simple act as being part of a race/culture.

[Bernie Mac]

45 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Or, f*ck the lore, the context, etc. of a given culture… and I have no sympathy for the Great Masters…

Which is silly. They are being born into a society that ,wrongly, thinks what they are doing is acceptable. For the most part they are simply ignorant of their crimes rather than actual bad people. You can't really blame them for not knowing better. It may well turn out that our society currently accepts doing something now that future generations find abhorrent. 

I greatly admire the notable figures of history who brought enlightenment to society and forced us to become better through their wisdom and sacrifice, but I don't hold it against the people born into such societies that teach them from birth that they their actions are acceptable, it is the society not the actual people (grand masters in this case) what is too blame. 

[The Commentator]

3 hours ago, ResidentHi11 said:

I wouldn't say poor but maybe not a great analogy.  It was early and more coffee might have been prudent.

My point is while a majority of a group may be villains, there MAY be those within that are more benevolent. We don't know because Mad Adolescent Teen Queen Dany did not choose to learn more about the group and made assumptions.

I do not condone the Great Masters in any way shape or form, but as I said, WE live in a privileged (most of us anyways) society where we view what was happening as horrendous crimes. To the Mereenese, this is the culture that has been around for quite some time. WE can judge them harshly but in the world Martin has crafted, this is the way of life.

There are stories and reports that benevolent masters that treated their slave well were crucified. That IS in the text and the former slaves are distraught by it.

Dany is pissed about the crucifixion of children and absolutely rightly so. It is monstrous. A vile intimidation tactic.

So she crucified the same number of Great Masters in revengeance! But, do we know if the ones crucified were part of the group that decided on this action? Are the truly guilty still free? Are THEY the sons of the harpy because the wrong GM's were killed? Are ANY of the GM's actually good? ARE they all evil?

We do NOT know since we have no POV as a GM.

The guilty should be punished and accordingly.

Bringing freedom to thousands in bondage? Awesome job Dany, that's a good act. To simply kill a number of people without knowing their guilt for sure? That is not justice. Although I do think she realizes later her error in doing what she did.

I can say that I am glad some of you are not in a position of any power since your idea of justice is as bad as the Great Masters. This planets' history has a few unsavory individuals that also believed in killing wantonly for the simple act as being part of a race/culture.

You and I see the situation differently and that is a tribute to Martin.  This is war.  Make no mistake that what happened and what is happening there in Meereen is war.  Let's look at wars that have been conducted within the novels.  

1. Arrogant Robb Stark declared rebellion.  Do you think the fact that the vast majority of the people who will get killed are innocent?  Did it stop him from going to war to obtain justice for his family and his father?  People who have nothing to do with the Lannisters or the Starks will die.  Did it stop Robb?  Dany's cause is way more important than that of Stark wanting to avenge the family patriarch.  
2. Stannis Baratheon attacked King's Landing to support his claim to the throne.  Did the fact that many innocent people, the very people that he wants to rule over, will die stop him from going forward to support what he sees as his entitlement to the throne?  Dany's cause, to help slaves become free men and women, is more important from a moral perspective than Stannis Baratheon's fight to support his claim.
3. Catelyn Stark knew how Lord Tywin would react if she takes Tyrion Lannister into custody.  Did it stop Catelyn from pursuing justice for her son even though it would result in the deaths of the truly innocent?  It did not.  Is Catelyn's cause to pursue justice for one little boy more important than a hero's quest to help slaves become free?  I don't think so.  
4. Jon Snow tried to get his sister away from Ramsay Bolton even when he knew it could result in the deaths of many people.  He knew that if found out, the Boltons would attack the wall and put his innocent Crow brothers in danger.  Not to mention disrupt their mission to fight the Others.  It didn't stop Jon.  Do you believe Dany's mission to help put an end to the slave trade that has taken away the lives of millions of people and will continue to do so until stopped is less important than Jon's mission to help one little sister?  It is not.  Dany's mission is clearly more important.

Listen, is it possible that some of those masters who were crucified were innocent?  I don't think so.  They were willing participants in the trading and owning of slaves.  They signed off on nailing those kids to the cross in an attempt to demoralize a war opponent.  But very well, for our discussion, let us assume that a few of those who were executed were innocent of the specific act of nailing those kids to the cross.  That is a very narrow window, but let's roll with it for now.  Are these men less deserving of death than the small folk that died from Robb's Rebellion?  I don't think so.  Who is more innocent, the Crow brothers who will face the wrath of the skin doctor because of Jon's meddling in Bolton affairs or these men who have been slavers during their entire lives?  The Crow brothers who will die and the Bolton servants who died because of Jon's choices are more deserving of mercy than these masters.  Ramsay is an amateur compared to these masters.  Are these slave masters who were executed more deserving of the finer points of justice than the men, women, and children who died during Stannis Baratheon's attack on King's Landing?  Many who are truly innocent, who have no stake at all in who puts their rump on the throne, died that day.  All I am saying is, the finer points of determining guilt or innocence for a very specific, very narrowly-defined act, is far from normal in those primitive times.  Daenerys Targaryen was actually very reasonable with her judgment.   Think how Stannis punished his own men for cannibalism on the already dead.  Mind you, it was his ambition that put them in that predicament in the first place.  You don't see too many fans bashing Stannis for that decision.  How did Jon Snow punish a sworn brother, a brother who was cleansed of his past crimes when he took his vows, because the man was disrespectful.  The Old Bear gave Jon a break for a crime that he could have taken the young wolf's head for.  Like Ned took Gared's.  Why couldn't Jon show the same forgiveness to Slynt, when he himself was the beneficiary of mercy?  I am not condemning Robb, Catelyn, Stannis, and Jon.  I am only saying that compared to those people, Daenerys Targaryen's decisions have been more responsible and her cause to help people become free is a very good one.  It is alright to criticize a character's actions, but we have to put their actions in context with those of the other characters.  Comparing Dany's decisions to the ones made by Robb, Jon, Catelyn, and Stannis makes her look very reasonable.

Peace man, and let's keep the discussion civil.  It's fine to reach different opinions.  We are all biased towards one character.  I know I am.  

[ResidentHi11]

8 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

You and I see the situation differently and that is a tribute to Martin.  This is war.  Make no mistake that what happened and what is happening there in Meereen is war.  Let's look at wars that have been conducted within the novels.  

1. Arrogant Robb Stark declared rebellion.  Do you think the fact that the vast majority of the people who will get killed are innocent?  Did it stop him from going to war to obtain justice for his family and his father?  People who have nothing to do with the Lannisters or the Starks will die.  Did it stop Robb?  Dany's cause is way more important than that of Stark wanting to avenge the family patriarch.  
2. Stannis Baratheon attacked King's Landing to support his claim to the throne.  Did the fact that many innocent people, the very people that he wants to rule over, will die stop him from going forward to support what he sees as his entitlement to the throne?  Dany's cause, to help slaves become free men and women, is more important from a moral perspective than Stannis Baratheon's fight to support his claim.
3. Catelyn Stark knew how Lord Tywin would react if she takes Tyrion Lannister into custody.  Did it stop Catelyn from pursuing justice for her son even though it would result in the deaths of the truly innocent?  It did not.  Is Catelyn's cause to pursue justice for one little boy more important than a hero's quest to help slaves become free?  I don't think so.  
4. Jon Snow tried to get his sister away from Ramsay Bolton even when he knew it could result in the deaths of many people.  He knew that if found out, the Boltons would attack the wall and put his innocent Crow brothers in danger.  Not to mention disrupt their mission to fight the Others.  It didn't stop Jon.  Do you believe Dany's mission to help put an end to the slave trade that has taken away the lives of millions of people and will continue to do so until stopped is less important than Jon's mission to help one little sister?  It is not.  Dany's mission is clearly more important.

Listen, is it possible that some of those masters who were crucified were innocent?  I don't think so.  They were willing participants in the trading and owning of slaves.  They signed off on nailing those kids to the cross in an attempt to demoralize a war opponent.  But very well, for our discussion, let us assume that a few of those who were executed were innocent of the specific act of nailing those kids to the cross.  That is a very narrow window, but let's roll with it for now.  Are these men less deserving of death than the small folk that died from Robb's Rebellion?  I don't think so.  Who is more innocent, the Crow brothers who will face the wrath of the skin doctor because of Jon's meddling in Bolton affairs or these men who have been slavers during their entire lives?  The Crow brothers who will die and the Bolton servants who died because of Jon's choices are more deserving of mercy than these masters.  Ramsay is an amateur compared to these masters.  Are these slave masters who were executed more deserving of the finer points of justice than the men, women, and children who died during Stannis Baratheon's attack on King's Landing?  Many who are truly innocent, who have no stake at all in who puts their rump on the throne, died that day.  All I am saying is, the finer points of determining guilt or innocence for a very specific, very narrowly-defined act, is far from normal in those primitive times.  Daenerys Targaryen was actually very reasonable with her judgment.   Think how Stannis punished his own men for cannibalism on the already dead.  Mind you, it was his ambition that put them in that predicament in the first place.  You don't see too many fans bashing Stannis for that decision.  How did Jon Snow punish a sworn brother, a brother who was cleansed of his past crimes when he took his vows, because the man was disrespectful.  The Old Bear gave Jon a break for a crime that he could have taken the young wolf's head for.  Like Ned took Gared's.  Why couldn't Jon show the same forgiveness to Slynt, when he himself was the beneficiary of mercy?  I am not condemning Robb, Catelyn, Stannis, and Jon.  I am only saying that compared to those people, Daenerys Targaryen's decisions have been more responsible and her cause to help people become free is a very good one.  It is alright to criticize a character's actions, but we have to put their actions in context with those of the other characters.  Comparing Dany's decisions to the ones made by Robb, Jon, Catelyn, and Stannis makes her look very reasonable.

Peace man, and let's keep the discussion civil.  It's fine to reach different opinions.  We are all biased towards one character.  I know I am.  

Haha I agree that we see this differently, and I enjoy a good discussion. It's all in good fun and I hope I don't come across as being hostile. A good debate is fun.

We were discussing Dany but you have broadened the scope significantly. I have no qualms going over each point at some point. Running short of time for today. I think it can be a very lengthy discussion on the subject of all of the characters and their pros and cons.

I can go for a bit with Robb's conquests and mistakes (he made a lot), Stannis and his following a red priest that doesn't know how to read the flames at all, etc.

For now, I will stay focused on Dany and this one action.

 

Let me start by saying that I do not disagree with her goal, in fact, I applaud it. It is a worthy goal. Bringing freedom to thousands is an astonishing task and one that is very difficult.

I was right there with her cheering when she crucified the Great Masters, but after thinking on it, felt differently about it.

The interesting (and frustrating) thing about this debate is, like I said, we have no POV from a Great Master.

But let's not forget that her cause did not begin with the freedom of the enslaved but for revenge and conquest of the seven kingdoms.

She did not know the Starks, but wants them dead. She thinks the throne is hers but in this world, might makes right.

Aegon the conqueror won by having dragons and if a lord failed to bend the knee, burned them. The Targ words are "Fire and Blood "not "Freedom for all". 

[Nowy Tends]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

 We are all biased towards one character.  I know I am.  

That's why your words are wind.

You start with "Arrogant Robb Stark declared rebellion" and you never mention why, against whom, etc.

Not a single word about the fact that the Lannister have usurpated the throne, through the delicious Cersei who aborted Robert's legit heir (Your Robert got me with child once. My brother found a woman to cleanse me; remember?), commited adultery AND incest, destroyed Robert's will and finally killed the King and put her abomination of son who's a sadistic psycho on the throne.

Talk about a major oversight!  What you call a bias is actually blind admiration beyond reason plus anti-whoever militancy…

And no, we are not all biased towards one character. I'm interested in both Daenerys and Arya's arcs, I even support one and understands the other;  I know I'm not the only one.

[Kandrax]

On 11.4.2018. at 8:42 PM, ResidentHi11 said:

Yes, to us that have the privilege to live in a civilized society, it is a monstrous crime. To the Mereenese however, no crime was committed.

According to Nuremberg laws, no crime was commited.

[Wolf's Bane]

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Which is silly. They are being born into a society that ,wrongly, thinks what they are doing is acceptable. For the most part they are simply ignorant of their crimes rather than actual bad people. You can't really blame them for not knowing better. It may well turn out that our society currently accepts doing something now that future generations find abhorrent. 

I greatly admire the notable figures of history who brought enlightenment to society and forced us to become better through their wisdom and sacrifice, but I don't hold it against the people born into such societies that teach them from birth that they their actions are acceptable, it is the society not the actual people (grand masters in this case) what is too blame. 

People always have a choice.  If people are only able to behave according to how they were brought up, the world would never change.  Humans always have a choice even if it is not an easy choice.  If they choose to live according to their culture instead of pursuing the moral course (a life without owning a slave) then they are guilty by choice.  They were brought up and educated to become slave masters but they have free will.  Dany gave them a choice. Release their slaves or face the consequences.  She gave them a completely fair choice.  They chose to continue to victimize the weak and take away the liberties of other men.  They chose to fight the change and lost.  It is within Dany's rights to judge them in whatever standards she chooses to apply.  She gets to make the rules and deliver punishment.  She is within her rights to set an example and send a message to the harpies.  The harpies would have been worse with open defiance if she had not executed those men.  At least they walk softly because they're afraid.  

 

 

[ResidentHi11]

I do have to say, it is another credit to Martin that he created a world with varied societies and norms (many of which parallel real world issues, past and present) that we can actually debate back and forth the moral ethics of the differing civilizations and the characters that act with or against said civilizations.

[ResidentHi11]

11 hours ago, Kandrax said:

According to Nuremberg laws, no crime was commited.

According to the Nuremberg Trials, many crimes were committed. What was your point?

Laws change when conquest happens.

Mereen was a slaver society until Dany's conquest.

Nazi Germany did many horrible atrocities until defeated by the Allies.

The difference is the Allies at least put the guilty on trial prior to execution.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

On 4/11/2018 at 10:14 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yes. People that she randomly chose from among the Great Masters. Or, in other words, random people.

She chose Grand Masters to execute. They are NOT random people. Being GM, they are collectively guilty of the crime as I said before.

Quote

The reason that the Great Masters were crucified is not because they were slavers. It's because of the crucifixion of the children. Or, at the least, that was a large motivating factor for Daenerys. That is something that the Great Masters may not know, and thus they might not point it out to her (which was my point). Of course they understand that they're on opposite sides of a conflict.

Why did the GM kill the children? Because they want to keep slavery intact. It’s an act of terrorism intended to discourage Dany and her supporters. It obviously doesn’t work.

Quote

That doesn't mean she can crucify people, with no evidence of what they're being accused of, without coming off as a mad tyrant.

Dany does have a right to act in retribution. She engages in “eye for an eye” type of justice here. We can say that it’s cruel and unusual to crucify people from a modern perspective, but in the medieval sense of justice, what Dany did is actually right. In other parts of Westeros, people get body parts chopped off even for petty crimes like stealing bread. So no one else in this world would blink twice at what Dany did, except maybe for Dany herself.

 Last time I checked, executing people for child murder don’t make anyone a “mad tyrant” just cause.

Quote

That's not true. A trial is customary. If there's no trial, they're not doing what they're supposed to do. Tyrion had multiple trials, for instance, from people who wanted him dead. If they didn't need a trial, Lysa would've killed Tyrion in A Game of Thrones. A trial is needed, if there's any room for doubt.

Lysa wanted to kill Tyrion. Catelyn tries to convince her otherwise. The Eyrie trial was just a sham. All the trials in the books I remember are shams, Tyrion’s later trial for supposedly killing Joff, and with Ned’s trial at the Sept—these are all shams. Guilt or innocence is established beforehand. The monarchs and oligarchs in Westeros or Essos don’t need trials to punish criminals. With the GM, though, what they did leaves no doubt as to who did it.

On 4/11/2018 at 10:14 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The man was a Night's Watch deserter. A fact he didn't hide. You may recall that Ned spoke to him, though. He hardly just executed him at a whim.

Dany doesn’t execute GM on a whim either. She retaliates with very good reason. The GM don’t hide the fact that they killed the kids. Ned doesn’t talk to the NW deserter, and that’s the whole problem. He doesn’t interrogate and ask him why he deserted. If he had, he would have learned of the WW and most of the tragedy that follows could have been avoided. Ned executed him because it’s tradition in the North.

Quote

I disagree. Innocent until proven guilty. There are provable crimes that can be laid at their feet. Being slavers, for instance. The crucifixion of the children isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. There'd be ways to find the guilty party, of course. Who the slave belonged to, etc. Those people would be found guilty of that crime. Daenerys didn't try that, though.

The guilty party IS the GM! Why is it so hard to understand? Each and every one of them is party to the crime, that’s why Dany has 163 of them executed!

Even in modern justice systems, groups are punished collectively. That’s why we have legislation like the RICO Act to bring justice to organized crime. We also have bills to fight modern day slavery and trafficking where everyone who participates in the group and profits from the group’s criminal activities are punished.

By modern standards though, GM would be called a terrorist group rather than a criminal enterprise. They would be killed regardless of trials today too.

Quote

Do they? I've never heard of a group that runs all things by each member. Do they collectively decide what to have for lunch? When to have a bath? It seems unlikely.

They collectively decide to be slavers and to kill the enslaved children to retaliate against and intimidate Dany’s anti-slavery conquest. The Nazis didn’t decide altogether when to have a bath or go to lunch either, but they were all dragged to Nuremberg trials anyway for collectively participating in the Holocaust.

Quote

Approval of slavery doesn't imply approval of the crucifixion of 163 children.

Why did the GM crucify the children? To preserve slavery and intimidate Dany. So yes. If anyone was against that, they would have defected.

Quote

The fact that there's no proof is cause enough. Innocent until proven guilty is hardly a novel concept.

It actually is; it’s about 200 years old I think. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the modern justice system works. Only a small number of cases go to trial to establish a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Most criminal cases are settled.

In any case, the GM are on an opposing side of a war. Even modern governments don’t use trials before sending troops or drones to kill suspected terrorists. That’s how it works with the GM.

Quote

So, what if, pre-Daenerys, a Great Master kills another Great Master. Should they all be punished for that one's actions? Presumably the murder of a Great Master is punished by some form of torturous death. Does that mean that no Great Master has ever killed another? They'd all be dead if one did, right?

You are sorely missing the point. An in-group crime committed by members within the group would be punished by other members as how they see fit. The child murder isn’t committed by an individual GM; it’s an action taken by the whole group against Dany and her supporters.

Quote

The Great Masters aren't some kind of hive mind collective. They're individuals, with individual desires, individual motivations, who commit individual crimes. We know that they're all guilty of one shared crime. Slavery. That doesn't imply, in any sense, that all of their crimes are shared crimes. There could be cannibal Great Masters. That doesn't mean they're all cannibals. There could be paedophile Great Masters. That doesn't mean they're all paedophiles. There could be vegetarian Great Masters. That doesn't mean they're all vegetarians. There are male Great Masters. Not all of the Great Masters are male. They are not the same person. They do not share guilt for crimes they aren't a part of.

They do share collective guilt for actions taken by the group. As I said, the Nuremberg trials.  Besides, this is a small and exclusive group, so no one can say they are ignorant of what the group is doing. They all saw over a hundred children being crucified. If anyone wanted to defect, there’s been plenty of time for that.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 4/9/2018 at 5:59 PM, Nowy Tends said:

Wait, "wench" is depreciating? In this case I apologize, I really didn't know…  (I tried two online translators that say otherwise)

Sure you didn't.  Would you refer to your mom and your sisters as wenches?  Arya and Sansa are both wenches, is that right?

 

[Moiraine Sedai]

6 hours ago, ResidentHi11 said:

According to the Nuremberg Trials, many crimes were committed. What was your point?

Laws change when conquest happens.

Mereen was a slaver society until Dany's conquest.

Nazi Germany did many horrible atrocities until defeated by the Allies.

The difference is the Allies at least put the guilty on trial prior to execution.

There is a difference.  The Masters were all slavers, without exception.  Most of the German people were not even affiliated with the Nazis.   

Do you believe the Masters put their slaves on trial before punishing them?  How much trial did Walder give Chet before banishing him to the wall?  Nothing Gared said could have kept Ned from taking his life.   

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

12 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She chose Grand Masters to execute. They are NOT random people.

Yeah, but she chose randomly from the group. It's not as if she judged each of the Great Masters and chose the 163 most distasteful to crucify. It was a random selection from within a group. That's how all random selections work, really. It's not as if she could randomly choose someone from Westeros or Asshai to crucify, could she?

12 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Why did the GM kill the children? Because they want to keep slavery intact. It’s an act of terrorism intended to discourage Dany and her supporters. It obviously doesn’t work.

Yes, I agree, but I'm not sure what your point is. In what you quoted, I'm only saying that the Great Masters might not know the reason Daenerys crucified the 163. If they think it was just for being slavers, a crime for which they are responsible without a doubt, none of them would bring it up to her.

12 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dany does have a right to act in retribution. She engages in “eye for an eye” type of justice here.

That's called vengeance. Vengeance is not justice.

12 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

We can say that it’s cruel and unusual to crucify people from a modern perspective, but in the medieval sense of justice, what Dany did is actually right. In other parts of Westeros, people get body parts chopped off even for petty crimes like stealing bread.

No. You won't see Ramsay getting flayed alive, for instance, if he's being lawfully punished. People don't have things stolen from them for being thieves, they don't get raped for being rapers, they don't get stabbed if they stab someone. The punishments might be harsher than modern punishments, but they're not "eye for an eye".

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

So no one else in this world would blink twice at what Dany did, except maybe for Dany herself.

I disagree. Take Melisandre's "executions". They're not like for like, but they were cruel, and many took issue with her burning people alive.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 Last time I checked, executing people for child murder don’t make anyone a “mad tyrant” just cause.

Yeah, she didn't execute them for murdering children. She crucified them because they could be the people who murdered children. Without any kind of proof. That's what makes someone a mad tyrant. If she just executed the right people, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Lysa wanted to kill Tyrion. Catelyn tries to convince her otherwise. The Eyrie trial was just a sham. All the trials in the books I remember are shams, Tyrion’s later trial for supposedly killing Joff, and with Ned’s trial at the Sept—these are all shams. Guilt or innocence is established beforehand. The monarchs and oligarchs in Westeros or Essos don’t need trials to punish criminals.

Sure, they're all shams, but why would they need to go through the farce, if they're not supposed to? Yes, the Eyrie trial was a sham, she just wanted Tyrion dead, but she let him go, because he was "proven" innocent. Should he have come up with some actual evidence, instead of the trial by combat, I'm sure Lysa wouldn't have been able to kill him (not with Catelyn there, at least). If Daenerys actually had a trial, even if she had already decided upon their guilt, she might've found proof that some weren't guilty. Or she might've found proof that they all were. Either way would be better than what she did. She didn't even allow for evidence to be presented.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

With the GM, though, what they did leaves no doubt as to who did it.

I completely disagree. There's no doubt that someone (or someones) within the Great Masters was responsible. Who actually was responsible is entirely in doubt.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dany doesn’t execute GM on a whim either. She retaliates with very good reason. The GM don’t hide the fact that they killed the kids.

If the Great Masters were one person, that'd be fine.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Ned doesn’t talk to the NW deserter, and that’s the whole problem. He doesn’t interrogate and ask him why he deserted. If he had, he would have learned of the WW and most of the tragedy that follows could have been avoided. Ned executed him because it’s tradition in the North.

Ned did speak to him, actually.

"He was the fourth this year," Ned said grimly. "The poor man was half-mad. Something had put a fear in him so deep that my words could not reach him."

It's entirely possible that Ned did learn about the Others. If someone spoke to me about mythical creatures truly existing (especially if these were their last moments), I'd think they were mad, too.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The guilty party IS the GM! Why is it so hard to understand?

Perhaps it's hard for me to understand because it's not true. There are quite a few Great Masters (considering Daenerys found 163 to crucify, there must be more), spread all across Meereen (and presumably there are some outside of the city walls, lording over farms and such). I've never seen a compelling argument for why all of these Great Masters would have had to come together to plot the crucifixion of those children. If they didn't come together to plot the deaths of the children, some wouldn't have known about the plot. If they didn't know, how can they be guilty? 

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Each and every one of them is party to the crime, that’s why Dany has 163 of them executed!

If they were all guilty, Daenerys should have had them all punished. Why didn't she? Could it be that she didn't actually have any proof that any of them were guilty, and simply wanted vengeance? The number that she had crucified, and the fact that she had them crucified, speaks loudly to her desire for vengeance, not to a desire for justice.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Even in modern justice systems, groups are punished collectively. That’s why we have legislation like the RICO Act to bring justice to organized crime.

Members of a group are often offered deals to testify against others, so that those who committed the most heinous crimes can be punished more fully by the law. If they were being punished collectively, they'd all get the same punishment, and nobody would turn. So, that's not true.

The RICO Act allows, among other things, for leaders to be punished for giving orders to commit crimes. So if someone says "Go kill this guy", they're guilty of the murder. That doesn't mean that the equal of the guy giving the order, who was sitting in a bar across town at the time of the order, is also guilty.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

We also have bills to fight modern day slavery and trafficking where everyone who participates in the group and profits from the group’s criminal activities are punished.

Yes, they're all guilty of slavery, no matter their direct involvement. They're not guilty of the other crimes that the other participants are guilty of. They're not all cannibals if one of them is, for instance.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

They collectively decide to be slavers

Yes.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

and to kill the enslaved children

No. The fact that they are slavers is proof that they've made the decision to be slavers. What's the proof they were complicit in the crucifixion of those children? "Being a slaver" isn't proof of that.

13 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The Nazis didn’t decide altogether when to have a bath or go to lunch either, but they were all dragged to Nuremberg trials anyway for collectively participating in the Holocaust.

Fine, let's go with the Nazi analogy. Being a slaver is akin to being a Nazi. Sure. The crucifixion of the children, however (you know, the crime these people were crucified for), can be more likened to the atrocities committed by Josef Mengele and his ilk. Atrocities that were never placed at the feet of the individual Nazis, despite being Nazi atrocities.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Why did the GM crucify the children? To preserve slavery and intimidate Dany. So yes. If anyone was against that, they would have defected.

Why would they defect? That's ridiculous. If one of your coworkers does something you don't like, not quitting doesn't mean you accept and approve of their actions. Not to mention, you might not even know what they're doing.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

It actually is; it’s about 200 years old I think.

So you've had 200 years to get used to it. Why not apply it to this situation?

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the modern justice system works. Only a small number of cases go to trial to establish a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Most criminal cases are settled.

Why do you think that is? It's because, for those cases, there's no doubt. The only reason there'd be no doubt is when there's a confession, or when the defendant was caught red-handed. Neither of those apply to those Daenerys had crucified.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

In any case, the GM are on an opposing side of a war. Even modern governments don’t use trials before sending troops or drones to kill suspected terrorists. That’s how it works with the GM.

Yeah, except the war ended. You used the Nazi analogy, so I'll go with it. The Nazis had trials, as you're well aware.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You are sorely missing the point. An in-group crime committed by members within the group would be punished by other members as how they see fit.

Right, so collective punishment is only okay when you want it to be? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't? Yeah, that, uh, doesn't make sense.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The child murder isn’t committed by an individual GM; it’s an action taken by the whole group against Dany and her supporters.

But how do you know? How can you possibly be so damnably certain? I must have missed the passage when the Great Masters were all sitting together, saying "Muahaha, let's crucify these children. She won't know what hit her", at which point they raised a toast, to pure evil.

Seriously, what is it that makes you so certain?

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

They do share collective guilt for actions taken by the group. As I said, the Nuremberg trials.

You keep bringing up the Nuremberg trials. It's worth noting, I think, that they were the trials of 22 Nazis, and only 12 of them were sentenced to death. So... they weren't even punished collectively.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Besides, this is a small and exclusive group, so no one can say they are ignorant of what the group is doing.

Nonsense. The group could be two people, and one could still hide things from the other.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

They all saw over a hundred children being crucified.

Did they? I daresay that the vast majority of the Great Masters were within the walls of Meereen when those children were being crucified. Daenerys was on her way, after all.

14 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

If anyone wanted to defect, there’s been plenty of time for that.

I still don't see why they'd want to defect, but there really wasn't that much time, even if they did. The crucifixions started when Daenerys was 164 miles out from Meereen. A few days.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

On 4/12/2018 at 4:12 AM, ResidentHi11 said:

Why do people refer to what the Great Masters did, to include slavery and the crucifixions, as crimes in this case? Yes, to us that have the privilege to live in a civilized society, it is a monstrous crime. To the Mereenese however, no crime was committed.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm referring to them as crimes because Daenerys considers them crimes, and she was Queen of Meereen when she was punishing those people.

I agree they didn't commit any crimes. Atrocities might be a better word. Things can be atrocious without being illegal.

[Nowy Tends]

17 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

  Arya and Sansa are both wenches, is that right?

Then Daenerys is Wench-in-Chief, Her Suprême Wenchitude, Empress of Wenchdom of Wenchistan, etc. I guess?

[Springwatch]

I never knew 'wench' was still in current use till I read this...

On 09/04/2018 at 11:25 PM, Lollygag said:

It's a tough word. Technically means "young girl" so you're ok, but its usage is different in the US. It generally implies being low class and/or prostitution. Serving wench is used, but not in a modern restaurant, only in 1700s or so atmosphere and when a someone is wearing Oktoberfest costumes.

I've only ever seen the 'serving wench' used historically to describe young women of low status who serve customers in an inn.

When Jaime calls Brienne 'wench', the insult is that he's refusing her the respect due to her rank and implying she's a weak female, not a fighter. It wouldn't make sense to call her a prostitute, so I don't think that applies.

[Lollygag]

34 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I never knew 'wench' was still in current use till I read this...

I've only ever seen the 'serving wench' used historically to describe young women of low status who serve customers in an inn.

When Jaime calls Brienne 'wench', the insult is that he's refusing her the respect due to her rank and implying she's a weak female, not a fighter. It wouldn't make sense to call her a prostitute, so I don't think that applies.

This was brought up when a poster pulled the wrong word and called another poster 'wench' and a poster brought up the usage, not discussing the books' usage. In the US, it also can come up in "dirty talk", usually of the variety that is terribly missing the mark.

But now that you mention it, I looked up the use of wench in A Search of Ice and Fire, and a vast majority of the uses refer to prostitution. It doesn't really work for Jaime and Brienne though, but now I'm wondering if we're supposed to read into Jaime using that word. Not so much that he was referring to Brienne as a prostitute, but more about Jaime's intent of insult and maybe his frame of mind after a year or so of forced celibacy. Hmmm....

[Nowy Tends]

55 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

 It wouldn't make sense to call her a prostitute, so I don't think that applies.

However I got a blame/warning from a mod for using the word, then I believe it's related… (I had no idea).

In the french translation of the books the word isn't linked to prostitution…

[Roswell]

On 4/12/2018 at 2:56 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

You and I see the situation differently and that is a tribute to Martin.  This is war.  Make no mistake that what happened and what is happening there in Meereen is war.  Let's look at wars that have been conducted within the novels.  

1. Arrogant Robb Stark declared rebellion.  Do you think the fact that the vast majority of the people who will get killed are innocent?  Did it stop him from going to war to obtain justice for his family and his father?  People who have nothing to do with the Lannisters or the Starks will die.  Did it stop Robb?  Dany's cause is way more important than that of Stark wanting to avenge the family patriarch.  
2. Stannis Baratheon attacked King's Landing to support his claim to the throne.  Did the fact that many innocent people, the very people that he wants to rule over, will die stop him from going forward to support what he sees as his entitlement to the throne?  Dany's cause, to help slaves become free men and women, is more important from a moral perspective than Stannis Baratheon's fight to support his claim.
3. Catelyn Stark knew how Lord Tywin would react if she takes Tyrion Lannister into custody.  Did it stop Catelyn from pursuing justice for her son even though it would result in the deaths of the truly innocent?  It did not.  Is Catelyn's cause to pursue justice for one little boy more important than a hero's quest to help slaves become free?  I don't think so.  
4. Jon Snow tried to get his sister away from Ramsay Bolton even when he knew it could result in the deaths of many people.  He knew that if found out, the Boltons would attack the wall and put his innocent Crow brothers in danger.  Not to mention disrupt their mission to fight the Others.  It didn't stop Jon.  Do you believe Dany's mission to help put an end to the slave trade that has taken away the lives of millions of people and will continue to do so until stopped is less important than Jon's mission to help one little sister?  It is not.  Dany's mission is clearly more important.

Listen, is it possible that some of those masters who were crucified were innocent?  I don't think so.  They were willing participants in the trading and owning of slaves.  They signed off on nailing those kids to the cross in an attempt to demoralize a war opponent.  But very well, for our discussion, let us assume that a few of those who were executed were innocent of the specific act of nailing those kids to the cross.  That is a very narrow window, but let's roll with it for now.  Are these men less deserving of death than the small folk that died from Robb's Rebellion?  I don't think so.  Who is more innocent, the Crow brothers who will face the wrath of the skin doctor because of Jon's meddling in Bolton affairs or these men who have been slavers during their entire lives?  The Crow brothers who will die and the Bolton servants who died because of Jon's choices are more deserving of mercy than these masters.  Ramsay is an amateur compared to these masters.  Are these slave masters who were executed more deserving of the finer points of justice than the men, women, and children who died during Stannis Baratheon's attack on King's Landing?  Many who are truly innocent, who have no stake at all in who puts their rump on the throne, died that day.  All I am saying is, the finer points of determining guilt or innocence for a very specific, very narrowly-defined act, is far from normal in those primitive times.  Daenerys Targaryen was actually very reasonable with her judgment.   Think how Stannis punished his own men for cannibalism on the already dead.  Mind you, it was his ambition that put them in that predicament in the first place.  You don't see too many fans bashing Stannis for that decision.  How did Jon Snow punish a sworn brother, a brother who was cleansed of his past crimes when he took his vows, because the man was disrespectful.  The Old Bear gave Jon a break for a crime that he could have taken the young wolf's head for.  Like Ned took Gared's.  Why couldn't Jon show the same forgiveness to Slynt, when he himself was the beneficiary of mercy?  I am not condemning Robb, Catelyn, Stannis, and Jon.  I am only saying that compared to those people, Daenerys Targaryen's decisions have been more responsible and her cause to help people become free is a very good one.  It is alright to criticize a character's actions, but we have to put their actions in context with those of the other characters.  Comparing Dany's decisions to the ones made by Robb, Jon, Catelyn, and Stannis makes her look very reasonable.

Peace man, and let's keep the discussion civil.  It's fine to reach different opinions.  We are all biased towards one character.  I know I am.  

Excellent work.  It's not fair to scrutinize the decisions of one without looking at how the others have handled big decisions.  

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

However I got a blame/warning from a mod for using the word, then I believe it's related… (I had no idea).

In the french translation of the books the word isn't linked to prostitution…

I don't know.  It was acceptable in medieval times but I would not use it today.  Use that in the American work place and you will be called to human resources.  It's not flattering someone to call them that, imo.  I watch myself here because you never know what is the norm for the person's culture.