GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

[Saturno]

15 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

There are NO innocents among the slavers. You completely miss my point. The GM are ALL guilty. Dany knows this. But she only kills 163 of them, in revenge for the 163 children they ordered dead. That's proportionate and it avoids killing a lot more GM and destabilizing the ruling class. 

From a military perspective, Dany should have killed all the GM, and avoided the problems of the Harpies later. This is what she realizes in the Dothraki Sea. 

There must be, it is very very very unlikely for an organization without a centralized leadership to take actions with full consensus. Look, this may look like an attack or something random, but are you socialist, or communist, or marxist or something like that? No judgements, but you are coming from a point that can only be made through a collectivist perspective. Otherwise it is impossible for you to consider that a collective of people is guilty of something. And if that is the case then really is no point of arguing, our brains just don't work at the same pattern of logic.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have made clear that I have no problem with her outlawing the practice and giving punishment for people that violate those laws.

The issue is what to do with people that have practiced it before it became outlawed. I mean do you think Dany should start having mass executions of the Dothraki for having engaged in the practice? I suspect many a Dan fan would say no because they really like Dany and Dany really likes the Dothraki. But, you know, that doesn't seem to be a very good reason.

That's exactly what she does. Also, Dany doesn't execute the Great Masters for slavery. She executes them for child murder. Eye for an eye, and GM for a child. Then she tried to make nice with the former slavers and make them live alongside the former slaves as equals. But they don't want to. Hence her predicament. 

Dany does fault the Dothraki for slaving. Her khalasar breaks up in the Red Waste. It's only the women, the elderly, and the so on that she leads to slaver's bay. And also her bloodriders. At this point, she has sworn merciless vengeance on the other khals that broke away and took slaves with them. She swears by the gods to give Mago a cruel death for what he did to Eroeh. And we can safely speculate that the other khals that broke away from Drogo are not going to survive doing what they do. Dany's khalasar no longer slaves or rapes bc she doesn't tolerate these things. She doesn't really have a Dothraki fighting force at this moment. She only has the Unsullied. 

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Read Dany's Mereen chapters where she adjudicates legal cases. It's in there.

Quote it then. 

27 minutes ago, Saturno said:

There must be, it is very very very unlikely for an organization without a centralized leadership to take actions with full consensus. Look, this may look like an attack or something random, but are you socialist, or communist, or marxist or something like that? No judgements, but you are coming from a point that can only be made through a collectivist perspective. Otherwise it is impossible for you to consider that a collective of people is guilty of something. And if that is the case then really is no point of arguing, our brains just don't work at the same pattern of logic.

It's clear in the books that the Great Masters of Meereen are the ruling class of the city. It's an oligarchy. When leadership is centralized, it's easy to point at a one leader and blame him or her for it. Like a monarch. But in an oligarchy all the rulers are responsible for their actions. Now it would be very different if Dany randomly selects and kills 163 non-enslaved people of Meereen. That would be unjustified under all circumstances. 

In Dany's case, she's going for the eye-for-and-eye type of vengeance attack, where the punishment is proportionate to the action. I keep saying, all the GM are guilty, but Dany doesn't kill them all. She's not punishing all for the actions of a few. She's punishing a few for the actions of all. 

I don't know why you would ask me for my political affiliations, because what would that matter? In real world, all sorts of things go into decisions. In individual disputes, courts may consider things like context and individual guilt. But not so in war. Everyone in Aleppo, Baghdad, or Afghanistan gets bombed, even though they may never had had anything to do with violent militant organizations the US considers the enemy. 

 

[Saturno]

10 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That's exactly what she does. Also, Dany doesn't execute the Great Masters for slavery. She executes them for child murder. Eye for an eye, and GM for a child. Then she tried to make nice with the former slavers and make them live alongside the former slaves as equals. But they don't want to. Hence her predicament. 

Dany does fault the Dothraki for slaving. Her khalasar breaks up in the Red Waste. It's only the women, the elderly, and the so on that she leads to slaver's bay. And also her bloodriders. At this point, she has sworn merciless vengeance on the other khals that broke away and took slaves with them. She swears by the gods to give Mago a cruel death for what he did to Eroeh. And we can safely speculate that the other khals that broke away from Drogo are not going to survive doing what they do. Dany's khalasar no longer slaves or rapes bc she doesn't tolerate these things. She doesn't really have a Dothraki fighting force at this moment. She only has the Unsullied. 

Quote it then. 

It's clear in the books that the Great Masters of Meereen are the ruling class of the city. It's an oligarchy. When leadership is centralized, it's easy to point at a one leader and blame him or her for it. Like a monarch. But in an oligarchy all the rulers are responsible for their actions. Now it would be very different if Dany randomly selects and kills 163 non-enslaved people of Meereen. That would be unjustified under all circumstances. 

In Dany's case, she's going for the eye-for-and-eye type of vengeance attack, where the punishment is proportionate to the action. I keep saying, all the GM are guilty, but Dany doesn't kill them all. She's not punishing all for the actions of a few. She's punishing a few for the actions of all. 

I don't know why you would ask me for my political affiliations, because what would that matter? In real world, all sorts of things go into decisions. In individual disputes, courts may consider things like context and individual guilt. But not so in war. Everyone in Aleppo, Baghdad, or Afghanistan gets bombed, even though they may never had had anything to do with violent militant organizations the US considers the enemy. 

 

Because I think that the main division between ideology (the extremes at least, not the nuances at the middle) is one of the mind. A third of the world is individualistic and think through that lens. A third is collectivist and think through that lens. The other third shifts through both sides accordingly to circunstances. I'm under the impression that you can't understand how could be possible for an innocent GM to exist among the selected 163. And I believe the only way to reason that way is being a collectivist person. And if that is the case I won't press my argument anymore because we can't think the same way.

[OldGimletEye]

25 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That's exactly what she does. Also, Dany doesn't execute the Great Masters for slavery. She executes them for child murder. Eye for an eye, and GM for a child. Then she tried to make nice with the former slavers and make them live alongside the former slaves as equals. But they don't want to. Hence her predicament. 

Dany does fault the Dothraki for slaving. Her khalasar breaks up in the Red Waste. It's only the women, the elderly, and the so on that she leads to slaver's bay. And also her bloodriders. At this point, she has sworn merciless vengeance on the other khals that broke away and took slaves with them. She swears by the gods to give Mago a cruel death for what he did to Eroeh. And we can safely speculate that the other khals that broke away from Drogo are not going to survive doing what they do. Dany's khalasar no longer slaves or rapes bc she doesn't tolerate these things. She doesn't really have a Dothraki fighting force at this moment. She only has the Unsullied. 

I've argued long enough with Dany fans over this matter to know that the justification for the executions often changes.  Accordingly, it's important to pin down the precise reason. One hand some will argue that the executions were justified since the GM held the status of slavers. But, certainly that can't be quite right. One reason is if that is the reason, then Dany should have executed the the Dothraki for engaging in the same practice, which she doesn't. The other reason is of course that applying ex post facto criminal laws has its own set of problems. On the other hand others will argue that the executions happened because of the crucifixion of the children. That is, of course, the reason.

 Dany simply executing 163 person without even bothering to make the slightest inquiry into the guilt or innocents of those condemned is collective punishment, which is rather abhorrent. And since you have taken the occasion to lecture me about 21st Century norms with respect slavery, I think at this juncture I will point out to you that in the 21st Century, collective punishment is generally considered to be abhorrent and is in fact listed as a war crime.

25 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Quote it then. 

 

Quote

A former slave came, to accuse a certain noble of the Zhak. The man had recently taken to wife a freedwoman who had been the noble’s bedwarmer before the city fell. The noble had taken her maidenhood, used her for his pleasure, and gotten her with child. Her newhusband wanted the noble gelded for the crime of rape, and he wanted a purse of gold as well, to pay him for raising the noble’s bastard as his own. Dany granted him the gold, but not the gelding. “When he lay with her, your wife was his property, to do with as he would. By law, there was no rape.” Her decision did not please him, she could see, but if she gelded every man who ever forced a bedslave, she would soon rule a city of eunuchs.

I believe that is in Dany Chapter 1, ADWD.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

One reason is if that is the reason, then Dany should have executed the the Dothraki for engaging in the same practice, which she doesn't.

YET. She hasn't even engaged with the Dothraki khals yet. She'd defeat the Dothraki as the prophesy goes. But unlike the GM, the Dothraki probably won't try to pull dumb antics that only infuriate their enemy even further. Like I said, she swore vengeance by the gods way back in book 1. 

24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And since you have taken the occasion to lecture me about 21st Century norms with respect slavery, I think at this juncture I will point out to you that in the 21st Century, collective punishment is generally considered to be abhorrent and is in fact listed as a war crime.

Maybe you need to read the news better. Ever heard of Gitmo (that imprisons people just for being associated with possible terrorists), drone killings, things that happen in places like Syria? That's a lot of people who have to suffer for action of a few. Also, we do have laws to punish groups of people. For example, a corporate board won't be able to get away with a crime like murder by pleading ignorance. (they may cut deals but that's a different matter). In modern times, the GM would be like the board of governors of a slave enterprise. And if the group killed kids to get back at an enemy, do you think there would be long and drawn out procedures to find out who was guilty or not? They would all go to jail (or get the death penalty depending the place). And some will point fingers and try to cut a deal. In the US, now there's this called corporate personhood, where essentially a whole bunch of executives and managers are considered one legal entity. 

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I believe that is in Dany Chapter 1, ADWD.

Lol she's not following a legal precedent here, she's being very practical. Read the last sentence. If she did geld the one slaver, then she would have to do it for all. So she avoid setting a very problematic precedent here. Again, Dany's predicament in not wanting to punish all the slavers and trying to get them to assimilate to the new society. 

38 minutes ago, Saturno said:

I'm under the impression that you can't understand how could be possible for an innocent GM to exist among the selected 163. And I believe the only way to reason that way is being a collectivist person.

Why can't you understand that among a group of slaver MASTERS who decide en mass to enslave people and set laws in Meereen, that it would not be impossible for all of them to be guilty of the same crime? 

[OldGimletEye]

27 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

YET. She hasn't even engaged with the Dothraki khals yet. She'd defeat the Dothraki as the prophesy goes. But unlike the GM, the Dothraki probably won't try to pull dumb antics that only infuriate their enemy even further. Like I said, she swore vengeance by the gods way back in book 1. 

Do you think she is going to start executing Dothraki for commiting slavery in the past. No she isn't. And it's delusional to think otherwise.

27 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Maybe you need to read the news better. Ever heard of Gitmo (that imprisons people just for being associated with possible terrorists), drone killings, things that happen in places like Syria? That's a lot of people who have to suffer for action of a few. Also, we do have laws to punish groups of people. For example, a corporate board won't be able to get away with a crime like murder by pleading ignorance. (they may cut deals but that's a different matter). In modern times, the GM would be like the board of governors of a slave enterprise. And if the group killed kids to get back at an enemy, do you think there would be long and drawn out procedures to find out who was guilty or not? They would all go to jail (or get the death penalty depending the place). And some will point fingers and try to cut a deal. In the US, now there's this called corporate personhood, where essentially a whole bunch of executives and managers are considered one legal entity. 

And maybe you should know what in the hell you're talking about. Fact is that there was a lot of opposition to Gitmo. And besides that there were people that argued that you either treat prisoners as POWs, who aren't accused of committing any particular crime, or you treat them as criminals who are entitled to certain procedural rights. The Bush administration essentially tried to create a different category that many people found objectionable.

Also, when civilians die in war, from drone strikes, or say the thousands of French civilians that died during the invasion of Normandy, nobody tries to argue those civilians died because they were guilty of a crime.

Also. merely being a member of a corporate board would not get you convicted of a crime.

Also it is true that corporations can be found of committing crimes or civil violations. But, that does not mean that individual members of the corporation are individually punished. And I'm not aware of any civil or criminal law that permits the death penalty for corporate violations of the law or for that matter, imprisonment for individuals when the corporation as entity is found in violation of the law.

27 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Lol she's not following a legal precedent here, she's being very practical. Read the last sentence. If she did geld the one slaver, then she would have to do it for all. So she avoid setting a very problematic precedent here. Again, Dany's predicament in not wanting to punish all the slavers and trying to get them to assimilate to the new society. 

And she quite clearly states that it wasn't crime. I don't know how it can be any plainer.

 

[Saturno]

22 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Why can't you understand that among a group of slaver MASTERS who decide en mass to enslave people and set laws in Meereen, that it would not be impossible for all of them to be guilty of the same crime? 

Because I think in terms of individuals, as mainstream philosophy does. So I belive there is no rationality and moral legitimacy behind collective guilt, nor guilt by association. Here is a direct quote from Dany:

 

Quote

“I want your leaders,” Dany told them. “Give them up, and the rest of you shall be spared.” 
“How many?” one old woman had asked, sobbing. “How many must you have to spare us?” 
“One hundred and sixty-three,” she answered.

Dany basically asked the mob to sort this out and arrest 163 Great Masters. Mob justice is not justice by definition, there are simply no tools or motivation or ways for a mob to correctly judge innocent from guilty. And we are not even taking into account the infinitude of different motivations and interests that can come into play on circunstances like this. A very common thing under mob rule is the practice of falsely accusing someone innocent of the crime only for personal gain. After WWII many french civilians falsely accused their own people of helping the nazi invaders only to have vengeance for petty things, personal grievances, debts and so on. Many french women who were first raped and then forced to become prostitutes to soldiers to feed themselves and their children were, after the war, rapped again or even killed by french mobs for supposedly "siding with nazis". 

In the Great Masters case there is not even a way Dany can sort out if her new prisoners are ACTUALLY Great Masters, as she received only bloodied prisoners that the mob promised were the evil nobles. And even if all of them were GM, what about the GM that took no part on the assassinations? One thing is to be born on a society based on slavery, this is something passive, you may rebel against it but it is the default system and you are just a cog. Another completely different thing is to organize in a structural hierarchy and voting on assembly, for instance, on the next course of action, that being the killing and crucification of children. What if there were Great Masters that voted against such measure? What if there was any opposition? What if there were sub-factions? We don't know and can't know. That's why George puts emphasys on the hollowness of Dany's action and the general feeling that the crucifixion was shallow and farsical. 

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Do you think she is going to start executing Dothraki for commiting slavery in the past.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. You seem to be under the impression that Dany has Dothraki under her command that enslaves people, and your original argument was that is she going to punish them? But in the books she doesn't actually have Dothraki khals that go raiding in her khalasar. Hers is made up of the undesirables that got left behind in the Red Waste before she led them to safety. She has two bloodriders sworn to her, and they don't go raiding. Her khalasar doesn't raid and enslave people. There are other khals out there, and Dany has sworn vengeance on one of them. And she certainly wouldn't tolerate what they do. Dany doesn't go around punishing people for slavery. Her job is liberating slaves in Slaver's Bay and dismantling the slavery-based ruling systems. 

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And she quite clearly states that it wasn't crime. I don't know how it can be any plainer.

She tells the aggrieved to placate them. She also gives them gold so they have some justice. The whole point of having POV chapters is that we can see the character's reasoning. Dany's reasoning here is clear: it's not that she thinks the master raping is slave was legal. She realizes that if she started punishing one slave master for what they used to do, she would have to do it for everyone. And considering all the slave masters were equally bad, it wouldn't leave much room for making peace. The prisons would literally overflow. The same with the GM. The whole point of her choosing 163 was so that she wouldn't have to execute all of them at once, which would have been far worse. Now everyone could see that that some justice was delivered for the dead children. 

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

nd maybe you should know what in the hell you're talking about. Fact is that there was a lot of opposition to Gitmo.

People didn't even know it existed. Then people want it shut down, but the point is it wasn't. And a lot of newspapers and magazines have articles published on people who were imprisoned there. Not all were terrorists as claimed, but some people were just family members or associates with others who may have had stronger links to it. 

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, when civilians die in war, from drone strikes, or say the thousands of French civilians that died during the invasion of Normandy, nobody tries to argue those civilians died because they were guilty of a crime.

Civilian casualties may occur. But the point is these cities get firebombed because the whole group is believed to be guilty in a way. Why do whole groups of people come under strict surveillance? That's collectivist thinking in modern times, which you said doesn't happen. In Dany's case, it's the opposite. The GM were all guilty of horrific crimes, but she restraints herself in delivering justice. Now people act like she randomly picked 163 people out of nowhere because she was feeling vengeful. That's not what GRRM's text implies. 

17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also. merely being a member of a corporate board would not get you convicted of a crime.

Also it is true that corporations can be found of committing crimes or civil violations. But, that does not mean that individual members of the corporation are individually punished. And I'm not aware of any civil or criminal law that permits the death penalty for corporate violations of the law.

If you were part of a corporate board that engaged in human trafficking, slavery, murder and whatnot, yes, you would definitely go down for the crime no matter how hard you plead ignorance. You cannot pretend to shirk responsibility at the same time benefiting from the same actions. 

Corporate boards can be found guilty of criminal violations. What about the case of Backpage? It didn't have a big board, but there were two guys (and I think several other executives) who got dragged in front of the courtrooms for on criminal charges of sex trafficking. They were not dumb enough to plead innocence saying 'oh I didn't know, it was this other's guy's idea" and then pocket millions in profit. And wasn't there's a case of the Japanese general during WWII who was found guilty of war crimes his troops committed, even when he was separated from them. As an individual, he wasn't guilty. But as a leader of the imperial army, he was. 

Anyway, the ultimate point it. Dany wasn't being a vengeful tyrant when she ordered the 163 executed. The nature of the punishment was horrible. But it was done to deliver justice after a fashion. The parents of the slave children would have expected it. And practically, only doing away with a few of the GM allows room for Dany to negotiate with the remaining. 

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

7 minutes ago, Saturno said:

Dany basically asked the mob to sort this out and arrest 163 Great Masters. Mob justice is not justice by definition, there are simply no tools or motivation or ways for a mob to correctly judge innocent from guilty.

Wrong. Here's what comes right before those sentences:

Quote

In the plaza before the Great Pyramid, the Meereenese huddled forlorn. The Great Masters had looked anything but great in the morning light. Stripped of their jewels and their fringed tokars, they were contemptible;

What mob are you talking about? She asked the GM to give her 163 to avenge the deaths of the children they killed, so she wouldn't have to kill ALL of them. It's not mob justice where there isn't a MOB. If non-nobles of the city had dragged a bunch of GM and asked Dany to kill them, then that would be a type of mob justice. 

9 minutes ago, Saturno said:

A very common thing under mob rule is the practice of falsely accusing someone innocent of the crime only for personal gain.

LMAO. Are you kidding? These are the GREAT MASTERS. They decided the horrible things done in the war. Some of them decide to spare themselves by offering a bunch of others. But the point it, if it hadn't been done, Dany would have had to kill them all. Instead, she avenges proportionately and tries to make peace with the rest. If it actually had been up to the mob, then none of these GM would have lived. Or, like in Astapor, they may have demanded them enslaved so they can get a taste of their own medicine. 

And your example of French rape victims doesn't make any sense in this context. They didn't hold any power and order a bunch of kids killed. 

Also, this:

Quote

The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood . . .
Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.

She does question if it was the right thing to do. We can all agree that the nature of the punishment was horrific. And later she realizes that it was wrong for other reasons as well. Meaning, the remaining GM are truly the worst and has no intention of giving up slavery. But was it wrong for her to kill only 163 as opposed to killing them all or letting the deaths of the children just pass? That's wrong too for both practical and moral reasons. 

16 minutes ago, Saturno said:

In the Great Masters case there is not even a way Dany can sort out if her new prisoners are ACTUALLY Great Masters, as she received only bloodied prisoners that the mob promised were the evil nobles.

You are seriously kidding. The GM chose which GM should die. And no one delivered her bloody prisoners to kill. You are imagining an angry mob that GRRM never wrote here. 

18 minutes ago, Saturno said:

What if there were Great Masters that voted against such measure? What if there was any opposition? What if there were sub-factions? We don't know and can't know.

We don't know how GM thing works. So you can keep asking how these what-if scenarios played out. But they were all in it when it came to ruling Meereen. 

20 minutes ago, Saturno said:

That's why George puts emphasys on the hollowness of Dany's action

Where exactly does he do this? Dany is torn between whether it was a just action or not. But in the next book, Dany realizes that the GM are cunning and that she hasn't gone far enough in reining them in. The thing that she does wrong here is not punishing all the GM for the crimes that they commit, whether it's slavery or killing kids. If she had done that, then she wouldn't have the harpy problem. If GRRM is emphasizing anything here is that vengeful actions may feel just, and might be so under the circumstances, but it isn't always particularly smart. 

Also, they didn't "assassinate" anyone, they KILLED CHILDREN.

[OldGimletEye]

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. You seem to be under the impression that Dany has Dothraki under her command that enslaves people, and your original argument was that is she going to punish them? But in the books she doesn't actually have Dothraki khals that go raiding in her khalasar. Hers is made up of the undesirables that got left behind in the Red Waste before she led them to safety. She has two bloodriders sworn to her, and they don't go raiding. Her khalasar doesn't raid and enslave people. There are other khals out there, and Dany has sworn vengeance on one of them. And she certainly wouldn't tolerate what they do. Dany doesn't go around punishing people for slavery. Her job is liberating slaves in Slaver's Bay and dismantling the slavery-based ruling systems. 

The point here is to eliminate the idea that execution of the 163 was justified by their past practice of slavery.

Fact is that slavery is widely practiced within Dothraki culture. Dany will likely outlaw it and punish for future transgressions, but not for past ones before she made slavery illegal.

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She tells the aggrieved to placate them. She also gives them gold so they have some justice. The whole point of having POV chapters is that we can see the character's reasoning. Dany's reasoning here is clear: it's not that she thinks the master raping is slave was legal. She realizes that if she started punishing one slave master for what they used to do, she would have to do it for everyone. And considering all the slave masters were equally bad, it wouldn't leave much room for making peace. The prisons would literally overflow. The same with the GM. The whole point of her choosing 163 was so that she wouldn't have to execute all of them at once, which would have been far worse. Now everyone could see that that some justice was delivered for the dead children. 

On the contrary, Dany actually articulates a very good reason for not punishing past acts with ex post facto criminal laws. Were she to impement them, she would have a bunch of eunuchs in Mereen. Were she to implement them with respect to the Dothraki, she would end up having a lot of dead Dothraki.

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

People didn't even know it existed. Then people want it shut down, but the point is it wasn't. And a lot of newspapers and magazines have articles published on people who were imprisoned there. Not all were terrorists as claimed, but some people were just family members or associates with others who may have had stronger links to it. 

And the point is that POWs have never been traditionally thought of as being criminals or having committed any crime. As such there is a set of rights that attaches to the status of being a POW. Their status and rights are different from those accused of actual crimes, to which a set of procedural rights attach. The Bush administration tried to essentially play games with both statuses which rightly drew a lot of criticism.

 

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Civilian casualties may occur. But the point is these cities get firebombed because the whole group is believed to be guilty in a way.

Who in their right mind thinks this way? If you do, no wonder you are so quick to approve of Dany's execution of the 163.

Most of the strategic airpower literature that come out in the 1920s spoke in terms of undermining the morale to fight. Little of it talked about punishing people for their guilt. To the extent it did, it would legitimize a lot horrid shit. A lot of those firebombings were questionable to begin with.

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

If you were part of a corporate board that engaged in human trafficking, slavery, murder and whatnot, yes, you would definitely go down for the crime no matter how hard you plead ignorance. You cannot pretend to shirk responsibility at the same time benefiting from the same actions. 

The state would still have prove that I met the mens rea and actus reus requirement. Merely having the status as a member would not be enough.

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 Corporate boards can be found guilty of criminal violations. What about the case of Backpage? It didn't have a big board, but there were two guys (and I think several other executives) who got dragged in front of the courtrooms for on criminal charges of sex trafficking. They were not dumb enough to plead innocence saying 'oh I didn't know, it was this other's guy's idea" and then pocket millions in profit.

It sounds like they were charged individually for crimes. I never said being a member of a corporate board would provide you with immunity. I just said having status as a member wouldn't be enough to lead to a conviction.

28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

And wasn't there's a case of the Japanese general during WWII who was found guilty of war crimes his troops committed, even when he was separated from them .

Under modern military law a commander, can essentially be convicted in two ways. He can give an illegal order. If he does so and it is carried out, he is guilty, even if his underlings committed the act. He can also be convicted for failing to take reasonable precautions to stop war crimes: Its called the doctrine of command responsibility. A military commander can be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, without being present when the crimes are committed by his troops.

In both these types of cases, it is the commander as individual who is charged for his individual acts. He is not charged for the illegal acts of others.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

he point here is to eliminate the idea that execution of the 163 was justified by their past practice of slavery.

Isn't GRRM clear that Dany did it to avenge the dead kids? And then weren't you the one who wanted to say the executed people were random nobles? And I pointed out that no, they were GM, responsible for decisions made in the city. And as someone else here reminds, in ASOS, it was the GM themselves who decide which ones should get executed. Wouldn't they know better than anyone else who was guilty? Lol. 

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Where she to implement them with respect to the Dothraki, she would end up having a lot of dead Dothraki.

I still don't see where you are going with this whole Dothraki thing. The Dothraki don't run slave cities. It's these GM in the Slaver's Bay cities who keep the system going. Dothraki khals sometimes sell their captives to these people. In any case, Dany isn't on a mission to punish people for their past behavior. She's here's to break the system of slavery. 

As with your ridiculous arguments about civilian casualties, and corporate boards getting sued, the examples were to show that collective guilt is not a thing of the past. Raketeering charges also come to mind. You seem to be lost in your train of thought. 

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I just said having status as a member wouldn't be enough to lead to a conviction.

No, that's what get you arrested and then tried for a crime. And they were both charged in the same lawsuit and even had to appear in court together. You can't be a part of a criminal group and them pretend not to know what the group was doing all this time. In any case, all this just goes over the point I'm trying to make: Dany didn't randomly kill 163 innocent people. 

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

A military commander can be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, without being present when the crimes are committed by his troops.

Uh huh. So under modern law, the GM would be responsible even if their goons went off on their own to kill children. There's responsibility even in non-direct action when you are a leader of something. 

The ultimate point is, Dany's actions in Meereen don't paint her as a murderous psycho. She rethinks her actions, has tremendous guilt, and realizes that stooping down to the level of GM may have made things worse. GRRM is clearly not painting her as a genocidal maniac or someone with a superiority complex who thinks she's always right. In this case, she's unwilling to bring fire and blood and that seems to be the whole problem. 

[OldGimletEye]

37 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Isn't GRRM clear that Dany did it to avenge the dead kids? And then weren't you the one who wanted to say the executed people were random nobles? And I pointed out that no, they were GM, responsible for decisions made in the city. And as someone else here reminds, in ASOS, it was the GM themselves who decide which ones should get executed. Wouldn't they know better than anyone else who was guilty? Lol. 

GRRM is quite clear for Dany's reasons. The problem here is Dany's fans aren't always very clear about the precise justification. As I said, I'm trying to pin down the precise justification.

And no there is not a particular reason to assume that the GM's picked the most guilty. We have no idea how the picked. Maybe they drew straws. Maybe those with the best political connections were able to avoid getting executed. We simply do not know.

37 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I still don't see where you are going with this whole Dothraki thing. The Dothraki don't run slave cities. It's these GM in the Slaver's Bay cities who keep the system going. Dothraki khals sometimes sell their captives to these people. In any case, Dany isn't on a mission to punish people for their past behavior. She's here's to break the system of slavery. 

Fair enough, so long as we have narrowed down the precise issue in question.

37 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

As with your ridiculous arguments about civilian casualties,

On the contrary it is you who is being ridiculous here.

You know, you're the one trying to justify horrendous firebombings on a theory of collective guilt.

37 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

As with your ridiculous arguments about civilian casualties, and corporate boards getting sued, the examples were to show that collective guilt is not a thing of the past. Raketeering charges also come to mind.

I'm pretty sure the Federal Rico charge still requires a showing that an individual participated in at least a couple of racketeering activities.

37 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

No, that's what get you arrested and then tried for a crime. And they were both charged in the same lawsuit and even had to appear in court together. You can't be a part of a criminal group and them pretend not to know what the group was doing all this time. In any case, all this just goes over the point I'm trying to make: Dany didn't randomly kill 163 innocent people. 

It may provide probable cause you were involved in a crime. It doesn't serve as sufficient proof you committed one.  All the GM were likely aware of the plans with respect to the children. But, I don't know why that should establish guilt in this case. If they dissented from it, what else were they supposed to do? If they failed to act, after dissenting, Dany could have had at least heard the reason, particularly if she was going to in ex post fact manner impose a duty to do something.

37 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Uh huh. So under modern law, the GM would be responsible even if their goons went off on their own to kill children. There's responsibility even in non-direct action when you are a leader of something. 

Under modern law military commanders are responsible for soldiers in their direct chain of command. They are not responsible the actions of troops in other chains of command. With respect to the GMs, we have no idea what the "chain of command" looks like. Also, it's not a crime of strict liability. It turn on the commanders reasonable conduct. A crime committed by a soldier doesn't implicate the commander, unless the commander was negligent in that regard. If GM dissented from the execution of the children, it would be difficult to argue negligence. And of course, Dany gave nobody any chance to explain their actions to determine whether they were reasonable under the circumstances or not.

 

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

With respect to the GMs, we have no idea what the "chain of command" looks like.

Yes, then why would you make up all these assumptions about them being innocent of killing kids and all? It was a wartime act they all committed together. Had it happened after Dany sacked the city, then they would have gone in front of her throne for a judgement. 

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

All the GM were likely aware of the plans with respect to the children. But, I don't know why that should establish guilt in this case. If they dissented from it, what else were they supposed to do? If they failed to act, after dissenting, Dany could have had at least heard the reason, particularly if she was going to in ex post fact manner impose a duty to do something.

She was furious about dead kids, as any reasonable person would be, and knew what was responsible for it. So she went for vengeance. That, too, was done in a relatively reasonable manner, not her burning all the GM as she liked. How does that make Dany the evil baddie here? Considering she reflected on her actions, how does that portray her as someone on the path to be a mad queen, which was kind of the point of the argument here?

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

GRRM is quite clear for Dany's reasons. The problem here is Dany's fans aren't always very clear about the precise justification. As I said, I'm trying to pin down the precise justification.

You initially argued that Dany was totally unjustified and evil to execute 163 GM. So she was totally on her way to becoming the mad queen or something. Not quite what GRRM wrote. That brings to Dany's portrayal in the show, where she ends up a genocidal maniac, which doesn't have much backing from her chapters written so far. In the books, she's relatable in the moral quandaries she faces. But in the show, they make up all these deaths that don't exist in the books, or exists very differently from what's actually in the books. Like Hizdar's daddy getting "crucified" for "no reason." Hizdar I'm pretty sure is a sexual sadist in the books and his daddy isn't mentioned anywhere. 

That goes to the misogyny with which her character is portrayed on the show as the OP points out. People liked Dany's character because she wants to do right in pretty impossible situations. But in the show, she's just crazy, tyrannical in her own righteousness, and undeserving of the dragon power she earns (the dragons don't just fall on her lap). But the mostly male characters who do even worse get better conclusions to their arcs. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Yes, then why would you make up all these assumptions about them being innocent of killing kids and all? It was a wartime act they all committed together. Had it happened after Dany sacked the city, then they would have gone in front of her throne for a judgement. 

Why are you making up all these assumptions as to their individual culpability? 

1 minute ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She was furious about dead kids, as any reasonable person would be, and knew what was responsible for it. So she went for vengeance.

What should have been the object here? Vengeance or Justice?

3 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

How does that make Dany the evil baddie here? 

I think I've been quite clear while I think her action was very wrong, I don't think it turned her into an evil person, at that particular juncture of the story.

5 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You initially argued that Dany was totally unjustified and evil to execute 163 GM.

And I still do. Nothing about my argument has changed here.

6 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

So she was totally on her way to becoming the mad queen or something.

Either here or in other threads, I have written that I was somewhat surprised by Dany's actions with respect to KL. I expected her to get more ruthless as she pursued the IT, but did not expect exactly that she would target innocents in the manner she did.

That said, people shouldn't ignore that Dany does and can have both a violent and brutal streak. I'm certainly not as surprised as those that saw Dany as a white knight that did no wrong.

9 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That brings to Dany's portrayal in the show, where she ends up a genocidal maniac, which doesn't have much backing from her chapters written so far. In the books, she's relatable in the moral quandaries she faces. But in the show, they make up all these deaths that don't exist in the books, or exists very differently from what's actually in the books. 

If the complaint here is that the show did not develop her character arc enough to make her actions at KL seem believable, I have no real strong objection here. The fact is I'm not a fan of D&D's writing. They have screwed up plenty of characters in GOT.

11 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That goes to the misogyny with which her character is portrayed on the show as the OP points out. People liked Dany's character because she wants to do right in pretty impossible situations. 

If Dany ends up as a failed ruler or leader in the books, I'm not quite convinced that is a clear cut case of misogyny. The fact of the matter is that most of the rulers of Westeros, as far as I can tell, have not been successes. Sure there have been a few good ones, but it seems for any given monarch they are more likely than not to turn into a failure as ruler.

17 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

People liked Dany's character because she wants to do right in pretty impossible situations. But in the show, she's just crazy, tyrannical in her own righteousness, and undeserving of the dragon power she earns (the dragons don't just fall on her lap). 

As I have said, I'm not a fan of D&D's writing. So I'm bit sympathetic to Dany's fans who feel like they had the rug pulled from underneath them.

If she does do something similar in the books, as she does in the show, I'd hope their would be a lot more indications that is where her arc is heading.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why are you making up all these assumptions as to their individual culpability? 

I'm not, you are. You are the one who tried to show what-if scenarios where the executed GM might not have been aware of the kids killed in their name. And you are doing that to portray Dany as a crazed tyrant. I've never seen anyone do this with any other major character, even if they do terrible things. I've never seen anyone pick on the violent acts Jon or Tyrion does to call them unhinged. We are supposed to question Dany's acts here, as she does, but why go out of your way to hold onto this one thing to show that Dany is too mad to be in power? 

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What should have been the object here? Vengeance or Justice?

In this case, it's obviously BOTH. That's the moral quandary here. 

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

That said, people shouldn't ignore that Dany does and can have both a violent and brutal streak. I'm certainly not as surprised as those that saw Dany as a white knight that did no wrong.

Why is it always Dany? Why doesn't other "good" protags get the same treatment? There isn't a single pacifist character in the books. And just about everyone, except Bran so far, commit violet and sometimes jarring acts. Only Dany gets dragged through the mud for that, usually by portraying the things she did as far worse that what's actually shown in the books (she crucifies "random" people! she brings back slavery to her own profit! she burned everyone in the House of undying!) 

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If Dany ends up as a failed ruler or leader in the books, I'm not quite convinced that is a clear cut case of misogyny.

No one said she ends up a failed ruler in the books. That's not where the misogyny lies. lol The way GRRM writes Dany (so far) she's actually smart, survives impossible situations, and rules as best as she could given the circumstances. In contrast, kings like Bobby B couldn't do half that even in peaceful times. 

I don't agree that a hereditary monarchy in itself is bad. It all depends on the leader. A monarchy works when there's a good king, like Jeharys I for example in the books. While everyone these days claims democracy is the best form of government, it only works when people manage to elect a capable leader. In contemporary world, strong institutions are the best for keeping societies going, but that's a whole different thing not related to ASOIAF. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I'm not, you are. You are the one who tried to show what-if scenarios where the executed GM might not have been aware of the kids killed in their name. 

I never said they wouldn't be aware. I said what if they dissented. You cannot with any certainty claim they all assented to it. To do so is simply making shit up.

Your dismissal of my so called what-if scenarios is making assumptions about facts simply not known to us.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

In this case, it's obviously BOTH. That's the moral quandary here. 

I think the justice component could have been better.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Why is it always Dany? Why doesn't other "good" protags get the same treatment? There isn't a single pacifist character in the books. And just about everyone, except Bran so far, commit violet and sometimes jarring acts. Only Dany gets dragged through the mud for that, usually by portraying the things she did as far worse that what's actually shown in the books (she crucifies "random" people! she brings back slavery to her own profit! she burned everyone in the House of undying!) 

I'm pretty sure Jon and everybody else gets their rash of shit.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

No one said she ends up a failed ruler in the books.

That's why there is an "if" before that sentence.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

lol

LOL right back at you. Hope you understand you're not the only one capable of being a wise ass here.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

. A monarchy works when there's a good king, like Jeharys I for example in the books.

The problem is guys or gals like that don't come around often.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

. While everyone these days claims democracy is the best form of government, it only works when people manage to elect a capable leader.

I think I'd prefer a democracy with an occasional bad leader, than a dictatorship with occasional competent leaders. That said, I'm not expecting monarchy to end any time soon in Westeros.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

In contemporary world, strong institutions are the best for keeping societies going, but that's a whole different thing not related to ASOIAF. 

I agree in the long run good institutions matter more than hoping you'll get a string of good leaders. I dissent though that thinking about better institutions is wholly unrelated to ASOIAF.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I never said they wouldn't be aware. I said what if they dissented. You cannot with any certainty claim they all assented to it. To do so is simply making shit up.

Why go out of your way to say that Dany is super wrong because it's possible some GM really didn't want to kill slave children they don't even see as fellow humans? Here's a what-if scenario: they GM were all guilty, they were all in on it. Does that make what Dany did suddenly right? It was a given in the books that these people are guilty as ef doing horrible things. They are not dwellers of the city as you and others initially claimed but the rulers. From what GRRM has written about GM being responsible for the whole deal, why shouldn't we take it as they are guilty? The narrative doesn't end there, it moves on. GRRM makes Dany reflect on whether doing it was right. And it comes up in the next book as well. The scenario is supposed to be taken as a morally complex one. Righteous vengeance vs doing the right thing. The problem would be easy to solve in the modern world, but not so in Dany's world where just about everyone practices sharia law.  

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Why go out of your way to say that Dany is super wrong because it's possible some GM really didn't want to kill slave children they don't even see as fellow humans?

Well sorry if I suspected something might be very amiss here and did not just pump my fist and say how "bad ass" that was.

A lot of dirty shit happens in our world because people do that.

8 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 Does that make what Dany did suddenly right? It was a given in the books that these people are guilty as ef doing horrible things. 

 We're talking about guilt for a specific act here. You're basically trying to invoke character evidence here.

8 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

From what GRRM has written about GM being responsible for the whole deal, why shouldn't we take it as they are guilty? 

There is no reason to assume anything here.

 

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well sorry if I suspected something might be very amiss here and did not just pump my fist and say how "bad ass" that was.

No you tried to use it as evidence to show Dany was evil. It's commonly invoked to show Dany is bad, unsuited for ruling, tyrannical, and whatnot, usually by twisting what's actually written in the book. You go even further by pulling common law principles out of nowhere so the same tired old argument, what, sounds smarter? It's idiotic considering that Dany is now a conqueror and it's really up to her to say what the law is, from a legal perspective if it's relevant (it's not). From a moral perspective, it's clearly written the act is ambiguous. To us, it's wrong because we live in the modern world. 

It was never written as a badass moment. Dany's badass moment was defeating the slavers and liberating the cities. GRRM has asked what comes after the hero wins the war. This is him showing how difficult it is to rule. Aragorn's tax policy as GRRM wants to write it. 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

No you tried to use it as evidence to show Dany was evil. It's commonly invoked to show Dany is bad, unsuited for ruling, tyrannical, and whatnot, usually by twisting what's actually written in the book.

I argued that it was indication that Dany is capable of being violent and brutal. That the Khaleesi Stormborn white knight brigade doesn't what to recognize that fact isn't on me.

7 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

usually by twisting what's actually written in the book.

You're the one adding in assumptions about people's guilt.

7 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

. You go even further by pulling common law principles out of nowhere so the same tired old argument, what, sounds smarter? It's idiotic considering that Dany is now a conqueror and it's really up to her to say what the law is, from a legal perspective if it's relevant (it's not). From a moral perspective, it's clearly written the act is ambiguous. To us, it's wrong because we live in the modern world. 

So because Dany is a conqueror she decides all that is ethical and moral? So typical from many Dany fans. And it's a reason why I often have arguments with them.