Why did George give daenerys everything

[Starkz]

4 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Yeah, she' was pretty much surrounded by pedophiles. You can also add Illyrio, who admitted to Tyrion that he thought about taking her himself when he thought Viserys might right before she was wedded to the horse savage. 

Add in the rest of the Dorthraki  with her and Daario/ majority of her sellswords.

[Sigella]

12 hours ago, Starkz said:

They’re not her children nor is she from their culture. She’s not “shielding” them from anything. Also I thought she only took about 10 hostages from the dubious families she was suspicious of?

If you think slavery is great you are free to do so. I just hope you don't ever get into politics because you will get eaten alive.  

[Starkz]

3 hours ago, Sigella said:

If you think slavery is great you are free to do so. I just hope you don't ever get into politics because you will get eaten alive.  

I don’t think slavery is great no one in their right mind should think that. What I’m getting at here is she shouldn’t of taken the children at all. She didn’t have the intention of teaching them about morals/humanitarian laws, she took them for leverage over the nobles that she would kill them if they didn’t stop. She took these children for the purpose of threatening the masters by killing their innocent children which obviously didn’t work and she still hasn’t let them go.

[argonak]

49 minutes ago, Starkz said:

I don’t think slavery is great no one in their right mind should think that. What I’m getting at here is she shouldn’t of taken the children at all. She didn’t have the intention of teaching them about morals/humanitarian laws, she took them for leverage over the nobles that she would kill them if they didn’t stop. She took these children for the purpose of threatening the masters by killing their innocent children which obviously didn’t work and she still hasn’t let them go.

Hostages for good behavior is a very traditional tactic in Westeros.  It doesn't work when you have cultures that care little for their offspring, or if they believe you won't follow through.  However, there are times it makes sense to not follow through on killing the hostages, if you think you can still use them for negotiation pieces later.  That happened often enough historically.  There's also potential for using them to replace their parents in some situations (typically with nobility), especially if you've had long enough period of time to build a good rapport with the hostages.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was Ned and Robert's original intent with Theon.  Raise him up as a reliable vassel so when he inherited the throne there'd be no more rebellions.

[White Ravens]

On 8/21/2018 at 5:29 PM, Bowen 747 said:

I'm not starting a quarrel with manchester-babe.      

You probably don't have to worry about that.   A typical thread started by manchester_babe almost always consists of a provocative thread title which is supported with little or no content in the opening post.  This is almost always followed up with little or no participation in the discussion.

[Starkz]

3 hours ago, argonak said:

Hostages for good behavior is a very traditional tactic in Westeros.  It doesn't work when you have cultures that care little for their offspring, or if they believe you won't follow through.  However, there are times it makes sense to not follow through on killing the hostages, if you think you can still use them for negotiation pieces later.  That happened often enough historically.  There's also potential for using them to replace their parents in some situations (typically with nobility), especially if you've had long enough period of time to build a good rapport with the hostages.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was Ned and Robert's original intent with Theon.  Raise him up as a reliable vassel so when he inherited the throne there'd be no more rebellions.

Daenerys didn’t spare them in some greater scheme. She grew attached and didnt want to. She’s not going to “replace” anyone with 10 year olds and younger. The nobles called her bluff and they were right. She was never going to kill the children.

[Sigella]

5 hours ago, Starkz said:

I don’t think slavery is great no one in their right mind should think that. What I’m getting at here is she shouldn’t of taken the children at all. She didn’t have the intention of teaching them about morals/humanitarian laws, she took them for leverage over the nobles that she would kill them if they didn’t stop. She took these children for the purpose of threatening the masters by killing their innocent children which obviously didn’t work and she still hasn’t let them go.

Yes but your argument doesn't work, slavery being abhorrent on one side and acceptable on the other. It is logically impossible to combine the two (which is what your are doing).

[The Commentator]

4 hours ago, argonak said:

Hostages for good behavior is a very traditional tactic in Westeros.  It doesn't work when you have cultures that care little for their offspring, or if they believe you won't follow through.  However, there are times it makes sense to not follow through on killing the hostages, if you think you can still use them for negotiation pieces later.  That happened often enough historically.  There's also potential for using them to replace their parents in some situations (typically with nobility), especially if you've had long enough period of time to build a good rapport with the hostages.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was Ned and Robert's original intent with Theon.  Raise him up as a reliable vassel so when he inherited the throne there'd be no more rebellions.

I agree.  If you kill them they are lost for good.  There is no going back should you change your mind later.  There is a potential for them to be different from their slave-owning parents.  

[The Commentator]

On 8/22/2018 at 7:34 PM, The Pink Letter said:

Fair question.  But taking the children is a good start in their deprogramming.  Or their new programming.  They will need to be raised to think slavery is wrong.  Sure, some will buy into it and some won't.  You can never win them all.   

The alternative is to let them grow up with their prejudice, slaver parents.  They will never change that way.  They will never see the light.  The path to goodness will continue to be hidden from them.   Their generation will be little different from their slaver parents.

I agree with this too.  They should have a chance to choose the right path, which will not happen if they remain with their slave-owning parents.  

[El Guapo]

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 5:26 PM, Starkz said:

The thrones does rightfully belong to him. If not him than who? Line of succession from Robert goes to Stannis.

The Baratheons are usurpers. 

The line of succession is Aerys-Viserys-Daenerys

 

[Starkz]

28 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

The Baratheons are usurpers. 

The line of succession is Aerys-Viserys-Daenerys

 

Every dynasty has its beginning. The Targaryens have been disposed of and how did the Targaryens become rulers? Through conquest and war. How did the Baratheons become rulers? Through conquest and war.

[Starkz]

54 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Yes but your argument doesn't work, slavery being abhorrent on one side and acceptable on the other. It is logically impossible to combine the two (which is what your are doing).

What do you mean? The Meereen nobles and majority of free cities believe slavery is acceptable and how it should be whereas other think it should be abolished.  My main point here that I’m arguing is that she shouldn’t have taken the children at all. She had no alterior motive or plan. All she wanted to do was stop the killings by threatening to kill the children which she wasn’t willing to do which is one reason why I don’t think she should of taken them. Mainly I don’t think she should of threatened children at all or taken them with that intention.

[Clegane'sPup]

49 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Every dynasty has its beginning. The Targaryens have been disposed of and how did the Targaryens become rulers? Through conquest and war. How did the Baratheons become rulers? Through conquest and war.

I sorta agree with you.  Conquest and war is how humans live. Peaceful people are fodder for <sarcasm on> for the righteous. For war to exist there has to be an us against them. <sarcasm off>

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

Yes but your argument doesn't work, slavery being abhorrent on one side and acceptable on the other. It is logically impossible to combine the two (which is what your are doing).

Trying to make sense of slavery is a difficult undertaking considering that since the beginning of recorded human history slavery has been present.

Loaded topic.

Maybe that is a reason martin put it in his books.

 

[Starkz]

51 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I sorta agree with you.  Conquest and war is how humans live. Peaceful people are fodder for <sarcasm on> for the righteous. For war to exist there has to be an us against them. <sarcasm off>

 

I mean the asoiaf world isn’t exactly a “modern world” like ours which is why there is a lot of war, though I mostly blame it on the instability in Westeros as there was peace before Aerys happened. I probably should of been more specific in my response before. The Targaryens had lost the trust and respect of the majority of the 7K, mostly because of Aerys, and a portion of the blame to Rheager, and in response they were replaced by the Baratheons for failing in their duty to be the protector of the realm.

[Clegane'sPup]

20 minutes ago, Starkz said:

I probably should of been more specific in my response before.

Not necessary.

You kinda hit the nail on the head, Conquest is conquest. Targs ruled. Rebels rebelled and overthrew. Now the cuckold Baratheon children rule via their elders.

Daenerys wants to be the Targ to overthrow the Baratheon rule.

 

[Darth Sidious]

4 hours ago, Starkz said:

Every dynasty has its beginning. The Targaryens have been disposed of and how did the Targaryens become rulers? Through conquest and war. How did the Baratheons become rulers? Through conquest and war.

If you believe this then you also have to believe that the Boltons now are the rightful holders of the north.  Or do we have another case of the double-standards?

[Starkz]

1 hour ago, Buell Rider said:

If you believe this then you also have to believe that the Boltons now are the rightful holders of the north.  Or do we have another case of the double-standards?

Look at my second response. The Targaryens failed their promise to protect the realm and overall to put in simple terms to be a “good” ruler. The Starks never betrayed the Bolton’s, nor did they kill their family members nor ask for their heads nor were they mad or stealing and raping someone’s bride. The Bolton’s took over the North through murder and treachery. The Targaryens betrayed their people, the Starks didn’t. It’s called the Right of Revolution, take a peek at it.

[Clegane'sPup]

13 hours ago, Buell Rider said:

If you believe this then you also have to believe that the Boltons now are the rightful holders of the north.  Or do we have another case of the double-standards?

Objection, your honor!  One wrench does not fit every nut. A ratchet socket set might help though.

I dunna know about you but I can try to objectively  examine the variables of the story situations/scenarios instead of trying to lump them all together in one pile.

That is not having  double standards nor is it hypocritical --- it is critical thinking ---- weighing the who, what, when, where, why and how.

Dany's power comes from hatching the dragons. People want her dragons. Some people want the dragons dead. Some people want them alive. Why would I type such a thing, you may be thinking. Because a fully grown fire breathing dragon that can be controlled is a powerful creature. And as it stands at the end of DwD two of the dragons are free ranging after being let out of the pit. And Drogon, although he swooped in to interviene barely heeds Dany's demands.

My objective opinion:  Dany wants to rule or if you prefer retake the Iron Throne from people she considers traitors and usurper (a person who takes a position of power or importance illegally or by force). That is well within her right considering the Targs ruled Westeros before Robert's Rebellion.

My subjective opinion:  Do I agree or empathize with the character Dany decisions, actions, struggles, etc.?  Frankly I wish martin would leave her on Essos for a while and get on with the cleaning up of the multiple cliff hangers.

This is a Dany (Targ) thread. No need to derail it by bringing up a Stark comparison.

[The Sunland Lord]

.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Starkz said:

Every dynasty has its beginning. The Targaryens have been disposed of and how did the Targaryens become rulers? Through conquest and war. How did the Baratheons become rulers? Through conquest and war.

It is not that easy. For one, conquest and war usually take place between different nations and sovereigns. If you are a subject or a vassal of a king you can only rebel and depose him, you cannot 'conquer' the country. That's why people winning civil usually don't conquer anything - they are already part of the land they want to control.

But that's not the only problem with Robert taking power - Aerys II may have been mad and a tyrant, and Rhaegar definitely wronged the Starks and Robert, but that has nothing to do with the laws of succession and inheritance. Aerys II and Rhaegar did have heirs, heirs that had nothing to do with the wars their elders fought.

Aegon III took no part in the Dance, and succeeded both his mother and his uncle. Jaehaerys I also succeeded his father and uncle, and not Lord Rogar Baratheon, the actual grown-up leader of the rebellion.

There is no question that the lords unjustly attacked by Aerys II had a right to defend themselves and even depose/kill the man, but it is not right to then just place one of their own on the throne, a man whose legal claim also goes back to his Targaryen blood.

And the Stark case is complex, too:

Roose Bolton never acknowledged Robb Stark as his liege, nor did he do him homage as king. It was war and he decided to not side with the pretender Robb but King Joffrey. That doesn't change the fact that he feigned loyalty to Robb and cruelly murdered him, but he isn't the kind of traitor he would have been if he had actually be one of the men who proclaimed Robb their king and did him homage afterwards.

From the moment Robb is proclaimed king he is a pretender and a rebel for the entire rest of Westeros. He no longer fights against an unjust/tyrannical king (Joffrey) but for his own petty little kingdom which he had no right to even found. Any former Baratheon/Targaryen subject has the right to say 'Wait a minute, that's not right. We are subjects to the Iron Throne, not Winterfell.' and then act accordingly.

Robb lost his war and House Stark was attainted. Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya would have as much right to Winterfell now than Viserys III and Daenerys and Aegon have to the Iron Throne - absolutely none.

But that's not what people believe. They still believe a Stark should sit in Winterfell, just as they believe a Targaryen should sit on the Iron Throne. There is no Baratheon tradition of kingship in Westeros, and in comparison to a Targaryen claimant a Baratheon - be he Stannis, Renly, Joffrey, or Tommen - will all look not very good.

Robert was the one who knew and understood that. He knew he would face very severe problems should Viserys III ever invade Westeros with a sizable host. His only hope to counter that was a massive marriage alliance and friendship pact with many great houses of the Realm. Without that, the Baratheon dynasty stood no chance at surviving such an invasion.