Jump to content
AlaerysTargaryen

My biggest issue with the finale is that they tried to make us feel guilty for supporting Daenerys' journey.

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

If Arya Stark's vengeance justifies the death of every Frey, what level of vengeance is justified here?

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't defend what Arya Stark did to House Frey. I think that decision was an enormous mistake on the part of the writers. I feel the same way about Sansa's execution of Ramsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tallTale said:

Narcissism does not automatically lead to murderous tyrant.

This is an opinion with zero facts to back it up.

Bad things could mean anything.

 

The question isn't about if the 7 kingdoms will let just bow down to her, the argument is about whether Daeny would become a bloodthristy pycho that targets innocents.

the seven and half seasons prove she wouldn't do that.

She frees slavery from bondage because she sees them as oppressed.

She marries a guy she doesn't even like to be a more fair ruler.

She locks up dragons for killing one innocent person.

She saves the north, even without a guarantee they would bend the knee.

She didn't go blood thirsty insane even when much worse things happened to her in life then her briefly known boyfriend not liking her anymore.

What the show showed us, for 71 episodes, was that Dany had a very black and white view of the world, was often compassionate, but sometimes cruel and brutal.  But, her cruelty and brutality did not exceed the norms of cruelty and brutality in this world.

Until they did, in Ep. 72, so that she could be killed off in Ep. 73, so that the surviving Starks could inherit the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2019 at 6:06 PM, Ice Queen said:

Jon killed her for the greater good.

Her speech about "liberating" the kingdom from Winterfell to Dorne should have horrified everyone. Liberated from what, exactly? Replaced with what, exactly? Were we greeted as liberators in Iraq or Vietnam? Hell no. And she didn't have a plan for what to do after, only that the people of Westeros from Winterfell to Dorne were going to suffer yet again because of her ego.

Insanity. 

not to mention that the cities she already "liberated" fell into deep poverty and/or retracted back into slave trade when they lacked any kind of leadership. her reign was not unlike what pol pot did in cambodia, who also murdered the wealthiest and most educated people in a society and just expected everything to even itself out. small wonder that it did not. dany would basically just pat herself on the back and congratulate herself on being such a wonderful person, only to abandon her people and move onto her next conquest. her story was idiotic.

Edited by the red god

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ToddDavid said:

1) Jarah most certainly did say that, explicitly!  I must’ve watched a dubbed scene then, this one right here at the 2:03 mark: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4pEMoJ1kE

2) No, that’s not how I interpreted it whatsoever.  Please reread my comment, unless you’re intentionally trying to create a straw argument.  I clearly stated that some one those people she executed for “representing the enemy” could’ve actually had good within him and thus deserved mercy, just as Jorah EXPLICITLY told her of how Ned showed him mercy.  

3) Ugh, there’s a huge difference between killing people in battle and mercilessly slaughtering people after the fact.  Ned, Rob, Jon, Tyrion etc didn’t herd people into pens and slaughter them like beasts. 

4) Now you’re stooping low enough in your defense of Mad Dany to suggest that it’s ok to BBQ a little girl so long as you’re not a human?  I tend to think you’re the mad one now. 

No he didn't. The quote is "I wouldn't be here to help you if Ned Stark had done to me what you want to do to the masters of Yunkai." Ned Stark didn't get to execute Jorah because Jorah managed to flee before Ned caught him. 

So the Night's Watch deserter who understandably panicked when confronted with Others and got his head hacked off by Ned Stark for desertion had no good within him? Jorah Mormont who Ned also wanted to execute had no good within him? The guy just playing lookout while Karstark did his murders couldn't have had good within him? Theon had no good within him? Or are you suggesting that Robb wouldn't have executed Theon if he had caught him after he seized Winterfell? You're singling out Daenerys for taking harsh measures against people who might potentially be good as proof o her being mad or potentially a mass murdered all along when every character in the setting engages in these sorts of things. 

Neither did Daenerys. Point out where she did. All you can actually say is "she thought about doing it." I remember Tyrion thinking some harsh words about the inhabitants of King's Landing at his trial. Guess he was a mass murderer all along too. 

So because I can tell the difference between an animal that is a carnivorous predator and human beings I'm saying it's okay for the carnivorous predator to kill little girls? No of course its not okay and that's why Daenerys took action (at great personal cost to herself) to try and prevent it from happening again. But you don't try animals for murder or expect them to obey laws or have any sense of ethics. Because they're animals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tallTale said:

Narcissism does not automatically lead to murderous tyrant. No it doesn’t, but it tells us that the capacity is certainly there, and that’s all that matters. 

This is an opinion with zero facts to back it up.  The show literally provided oodles of foreshadowing & clues, so much so that it was tantamount to a 3rd trip to the buffet line. 

Bad things could mean anything. Finally we’re getting somewhere. If you understand that bad things could mean anything, then why the heck are you so surprised about S8E5?

The question isn't about if the 7 kingdoms will let just bow down to her, the argument is about whether Daeny would become a bloodthristy pycho that targets innocents.  She didn’t target the innocent; she targeted the throne.... and she believed that the only way to successfully rule it was by creating fear. 

the seven and half seasons prove she wouldn't do that. No they didn’t. Here’s how it works. This is Dany’s beliefs/values hierarchy: 

1. the Throne/conqueror

2. Revenge

3. her Dragons [2 of which died]

4. Compassion for slaves

Now, 4 sits in direct conflict with 1 & 2. Not only can such conflict fracture one’s psyche, but she was destined to sacrifice her humanity for the preservation of 1 & 2, as they can’t all harmoniously coexist. The loss of 3 added fuel to the fire.

Her primary goal from day 1 has always been about “TAKING BACK WHAT’S MINE [by all means necessary]”, not “saving the people”.... and Dany’s definition of what’s hers is apparently the entire world.

She frees slavery from bondage because she sees them as oppressed. ...and then refuses to allow them to live the lives that they desire, even when being compensated for it.    Slaves are relatable to Dany bc of shared backgrounds.  Regular free folks, however, aren’t relatable to her. Again, mad or wicked people don’t have to be ALL evil. Heck, even the White Walkers occasionally showed compassion, mercy, what have you

She marries a guy she doesn't even like to be a more fair ruler. Dany and her army couldn’t move on to her primary objective [Westeros] until a politically peaceful Meereen was established.  She’s a narcissist. An unpeaceful Meereen would represent failure, a status that’s not very agreeable w/ narcissists.

She locks up dragons for killing one innocent person..... but would mercilessly slaughter a hundred slave owners if just 1 of them harmed a child.  She shows mercy to a dragon but virtually none to humans.

She saves the north, even without a guarantee they would bend the knee. It was a strategic move to gain the support of foreign people of whose lands she wanted to conquer, and she quite well recognized that the Army of the Dead posed a heavy threat to her ruling Westeros.

She didn't go blood thirsty insane even when much worse things happened to her in life then her briefly known boyfriend not liking her anymore. She didn’t go insane.  She may have been hotheaded, impulsive, revengeful, and a host of other ugly traits, but her decision was calculated.  You could even see it in her face.  The throne was and has always been more important to her than the people, and she realized while circling above King’s Landing that the only way for her to achieve her goal in Westeros would be by making the continent fear her, especially when she’s down to just 1 dragon and a slightly diminished army.  Girl’s gotta show what 1 dragon alone is capable of.  

See responses in bold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

No he didn't. The quote is "I wouldn't be here to help you if Ned Stark had done to me what you want to do to the masters of Yunkai." Ned Stark didn't get to execute Jorah because Jorah managed to flee before Ned caught him. 

So the Night's Watch deserter who understandably panicked when confronted with Others and got his head hacked off by Ned Stark for desertion had no good within him? Jorah Mormont who Ned also wanted to execute had no good within him? The guy just playing lookout while Karstark did his murders couldn't have had good within him? Theon had no good within him? Or are you suggesting that Robb wouldn't have executed Theon if he had caught him after he seized Winterfell? You're singling out Daenerys for taking harsh measures against people who might potentially be good as proof o her being mad or potentially a mass murdered all along when every character in the setting engages in these sorts of things. 

Neither did Daenerys. Point out where she did. All you can actually say is "she thought about doing it." I remember Tyrion thinking some harsh words about the inhabitants of King's Landing at his trial. Guess he was a mass murderer all along too. 

So because I can tell the difference between an animal that is a carnivorous predator and human beings I'm saying it's okay for the carnivorous predator to kill little girls? No of course its not okay and that's why Daenerys took action (at great personal cost to herself) to try and prevent it from happening again. But you don't try animals for murder or expect them to obey laws or have any sense of ethics. Because they're animals. 

Stop it with Ned Stark. a) Jorah’s statement was unequivocally about showing mercy, not about telling Dany what happens if she lets the slave owners escape.  b) Ned was bound by duty to execute a man who violated his Night’s Watch OATH and whom knew the permanent repercussions of violating said oath.

Uh wrong. How many times did individuals have to urge Dany to show mercy? Quite a f***in lot. 

Remind me again, what was emphatically requested of her regarding KL when she hears the bells [you know- the sign of surrender]? What did Jon Snow urge of Dany’s cognitive extension, Greyworm, when all the soldiers laid down their arms?  She’s been merciless and obsessed with fire & blood since S1. 

Even Daario recognizes it in S6: 

"You weren't made to sit on a chair in a palace."

"What was I made for?"

"You're a conqueror, Daenerys Stormborn."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ToddDavid said:

Stop it with Ned Stark. a) Jorah’s statement was unequivocally about showing mercy, not about telling Dany what happens if she lets the slave owners escape.  b) Ned was bound by duty to execute a man who violated his Night’s Watch OATH and whom knew the permanent repercussions of violating said oath.

Uh wrong. How many times did individuals have to urge Dany to show mercy? Quite a f***in lot. 

Remind me again, what was emphatically requested of her regarding KL when she hears the bells [you know- the sign of surrender]? What did Jon Snow urge of Dany’s cognitive extension, Greyworm, when all the soldiers laid down their arms?  She’s been merciless and obsessed with fire & blood since S1. 

Even Daario recognizes it in S6: 

"You weren't made to sit on a chair in a palace."

"What was I made for?"

"You're a conqueror, Daenerys Stormborn."

You're the one who brought up Ned Stark as an example of a character who would never do the things Daenerys did in Episode 5. Then when I pointed out that we could find "foreshadowing" for Ned (and many of the other characters you cited) acting similarly by his execution of Jorah you insisted he showed Jorah mercy when he didn't. Jorah just escaped before Ned could cut his head off. 

I dunno. Three times. Four maybe? Much foreshadowing. I would also argue that no other character ended up conquering entire regions full of horrid slavers so to take how often her advisers urged actions on her as proof that Daenerys was uniquely bloodthirsty or mad is pretty silly. In S7 she was also urged to attack King's Landing and to be a dragon by Olenna and she rejected that in favor of trying to make her invasion as least harmful as possible. That's why this whole "it was there all along" is so dumb. If Daenerys hadn't burned hundreds of thousands of people in King's Landing and had ruled as a queen who tries to improve the lot of the common people there would have been plenty of "foreshadowing" for that too and it would've been perfectly congruent with her character up to that point. 

I don't care about her actions in Episode 5 in terms of this discussion. The whole point is whether her actions in Episode 5 and 6 were part of a gradual descent of the character and they plainly weren't. She had never demonstrated a capacity or desire for mass murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent commoners up until that point. 

Being a conqueror does not inherently translate to personally butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Of course it can but the point is that is definitely not how the show has treated conquest and killings up to this point. If Arya had suddenly gone on a killing spree and started slitting the throats of women and children in King's Landing in Episode 5 that would be fucking stupid. But hey since she murdered every male Frey (good slavers but no good Freys I guess) and brutally tortured and executed a pedophile clearly her turn to mass murdering common people for no reason would be well foreshadowed. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeanF said:

What the show showed us, for 71 episodes, was that Dany had a very black and white view of the world, was often compassionate, but sometimes cruel and brutal.  But, her cruelty and brutality did not exceed the norms of cruelty and brutality in this world.

Until they did, in Ep. 72, so that she could be killed off in Ep. 73, so that the surviving Starks could inherit the earth.

Correction. “but was always cruel and brutal”.  

I love how Team Dany conveniently operates under the mindset that it’s not considered cruelty or brutality if it happens to people who represent Dany’s idea of the enemy.

Dany’s level of cruelty & brutality FAR EXCEDED that of the honorable & virtuosos of that time. Not to mention the major flaw implied in your statement,  which is- representing the barbaric norm just makes her more of the same; it doesn’t make her a “wheel breaker”, so thank you for proving my point. 

Well, the Starks, unlike Dany, deserved to inherit the earth, for mankind’s sake.  That’s why they’re called the Starks, bc there’s a Stark f***ing difference between them and Mad Dany.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ToddDavid said:

Correction. “but was always cruel and brutal”.  

I love how Team Dany conveniently operates under the mindset that it’s not considered cruelty or brutality if it happens to people who represent Dany’s idea of the enemy.

Dany’s level of cruelty & brutality FAR EXCEDED that of the honorable & virtuosos of that time. Not to mention the major flaw implied in your statement,  which is- representing the barbaric norm just makes her more of the same; it doesn’t make her a “wheel breaker”, so thank you for proving my point. 

Well, the Starks, unlike Dany, deserved to inherit the earth, for mankind’s sake.  That’s why they’re called the Starks, bc there’s a Stark f***ing difference between them and Mad Dany.  

There is no evidence that she is *always* cruel and brutal.  That's your imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ToddDavid said:

Correction. “but was always cruel and brutal”.  

I love how Team Dany conveniently operates under the mindset that it’s not considered cruelty or brutality if it happens to people who represent Dany’s idea of the enemy.

Dany’s level of cruelty & brutality FAR EXCEDED that of the honorable & virtuosos of that time. Not to mention the major flaw implied in your statement,  which is- representing the barbaric norm just makes her more of the same; it doesn’t make her a “wheel breaker”, so thank you for proving my point. 

Well, the Starks, unlike Dany, deserved to inherit the earth, for mankind’s sake.  That’s why they’re called the Starks, bc there’s a Stark f***ing difference between them and Mad Dany.  

:lmao::lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a fun f***in philosophical question: If the slaves of Essos were offered an  opportunity to flip the script and become the Masters while the Masters become the slaves, would they have done it? You’re damn right they would!!!!  Wups, major blow to Team Dany.

Let’s expand on the implications. We’d then have Mad Dany rolling into Meereen a month later rescuing all the slaves [who were actually the slave owners] and slaughtering the slave owners who were previously the slaves. Yikes.

The majority of the slaves Dany fought for and the majority of slave owners she slaughtered were simply the results of sheer happenstance.  Just bc they’re slaves, it doesn’t mean that they don’t possess the propensity for evil, just as not all slave owners lack a propensity for goodness under different circumstances either.  

Kind of a giant LOL that Team Dany actually treats this as though slave owners & slaves were once a battle among regular people between good & evil, with each man choosing the side he believed he belonged, and that Team Evil won this battle and as a result they subjugated Team Good into slavery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

You're the one who brought up Ned Stark as an example of a character who would never do the things Daenerys did in Episode 5. Then when I pointed out that we could find "foreshadowing" for Ned (and many of the other characters you cited) acting similarly by his execution of Jorah you insisted he showed Jorah mercy when he didn't. Jorah just escaped before Ned could cut his head off. 

I dunno. Three times. Four maybe? Much foreshadowing. I would also argue that no other character ended up conquering entire regions full of horrid slavers so to take how often her advisers urged actions on her as proof that Daenerys was uniquely bloodthirsty or mad is pretty silly. In S7 she was also urged to attack King's Landing and to be a dragon by Olenna and she rejected that in favor of trying to make her invasion as least harmful as possible. That's why this whole "it was there all along" is so dumb. If Daenerys hadn't burned hundreds of thousands of people in King's Landing and had ruled as a queen who tries to improve the lot of the common people there would have been plenty of "foreshadowing" for that too and it would've been perfectly congruent with her character up to that point. 

I don't care about her actions in Episode 5 in terms of this discussion. The whole point is whether her actions in Episode 5 and 6 were part of a gradual descent of the character and they plainly weren't. She had never demonstrated a capacity or desire for mass murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent commoners up until that point. 

Being a conqueror does not inherently translate to personally butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Of course it can but the point is that is definitely not how the show has treated conquest and killings up to this point. If Arya had suddenly gone on a killing spree and started slitting the throats of women and children in King's Landing in Episode 5 that would be fucking stupid. But hey since she murdered every male Frey (good slavers but no good Freys I guess) and brutally tortured and executed a pedophile clearly her turn to mass murdering common people for no reason would be well foreshadowed. 

 

 

When you have to dishonestly resort to chopping down one of the show’s most honorable characters [Ned] in order to try and make Mad Dany’s cruelty & brutality appear acceptable, then you’ve thoroughly lost the debate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There is no evidence that she is *always* cruel and brutal.  That's your imagination.

Perhaps you should watch the show rather than rekindle memories of the book.  The only few times that she wasn’t merciless were when she had advisors strongly urging her against such drastic action, but that doesn’t change the fact that her first inclination in those instances was to represent the harbinger of fear and brutality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show still missed several beats that were necessary to make her turn toward mass murder of citizens believable and earned.  We needed an atrocity that was larger than burning the Tarlys, like instead of just 2 guys she would have burned all the POWs there.  We needed a few more scenes of her feeling angry at how ungrateful the North was, of her wondering why KL didn't revolt against Cersei, of her beginning to blur the lines between the 'people' and the 'leaders'...and her starting to talk about the need to liberate people everywhere.

They just really, really needed 20 episodes to have a hope of telling this story well, not 13.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ToddDavid said:

Here’s a fun f***in philosophical question: If the slaves of Essos were offered an  opportunity to flip the script and become the Masters while the Masters become the slaves, would they have done it? You’re damn right they would!!!!  Wups, major blow to Team Dany.<snip> [more similar tripe]

Wow. You are actually saying that being a slave is the moral equivalent of being a slave-owner. Got nothing I wish to say to that, but I do want to point out that it's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The One Who Kneels said:

You're the one who brought up Ned Stark as an example of a character who would never do the things Daenerys did in Episode 5. Then when I pointed out that we could find "foreshadowing" for Ned (and many of the other characters you cited) acting similarly by his execution of Jorah you insisted he showed Jorah mercy when he didn't. Jorah just escaped before Ned could cut his head off. 

I dunno. Three times. Four maybe? Much foreshadowing. I would also argue that no other character ended up conquering entire regions full of horrid slavers so to take how often her advisers urged actions on her as proof that Daenerys was uniquely bloodthirsty or mad is pretty silly. In S7 she was also urged to attack King's Landing and to be a dragon by Olenna and she rejected that in favor of trying to make her invasion as least harmful as possible. That's why this whole "it was there all along" is so dumb. If Daenerys hadn't burned hundreds of thousands of people in King's Landing and had ruled as a queen who tries to improve the lot of the common people there would have been plenty of "foreshadowing" for that too and it would've been perfectly congruent with her character up to that point. 

I don't care about her actions in Episode 5 in terms of this discussion. The whole point is whether her actions in Episode 5 and 6 were part of a gradual descent of the character and they plainly weren't. She had never demonstrated a capacity or desire for mass murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent commoners up until that point. 

Being a conqueror does not inherently translate to personally butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Of course it can but the point is that is definitely not how the show has treated conquest and killings up to this point. If Arya had suddenly gone on a killing spree and started slitting the throats of women and children in King's Landing in Episode 5 that would be fucking stupid. But hey since she murdered every male Frey (good slavers but no good Freys I guess) and brutally tortured and executed a pedophile clearly her turn to mass murdering common people for no reason would be well foreshadowed. 

 

 

Ned was justified to execute Jorah. Are you really trying to cite Ned's hypothetical execution of Jorah as evidence that Ned is merciless like Dany?

Jorah knew the punishment for selling slaves was death. He did it anyway.
The slavers did not know the punishment for being born in a slaving society was death. Dany killed them anyway.

There seems to be this mistaken idea that the progression to murdering a million people goes 1 3 10 100 1000 100000 1m. That isn't how it works. It goes 1 and then 1 million. If you can justify murdering one person then you can justify murdering 1 million because all you do is apply the same justification 1 million times. This is just a psychological truth. It's why mass killings happen out of nowhere. It's why the family of mass killers often say that they had no idea their son, daughter, uncle, friend or father was capable of something like that. People were NOT paying attention to the psychology of the character of Daenerys. Her progression didn't come out of nowhere, it was developed slowly since season 1 right in front of you, but we weren't paying attention to it because we sympathize with her.

Step 1: I know it's wrong but I'm not the one doing it. (Viserys, Wineseller)
Step 2: I know it's wrong but I'm not the only one doing it. (Crucify masters in retaliation)
Step 3: I know it's wrong but someone made me do it. (Tarlys made me kill them. Sansa made me kill Varys.)
Step 4: Now she doesn't know it's wrong anymore. The mechanism that was telling her the difference between right and wrong is corrupted and broken, because she kept misusing it and broke it. That's why she feels perfectly justified to burn KL and everyone in it.

Jorah WARNED her to look away from Viserys's murder.
Barristan WARNED her not to crucify the masters and apply mercy.
Tyrion WARNED her to apply mercy and let the Tarlys think in a dark cell JUST LIKE NED DID when Ned changed his mind.

Edited by rustythesmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The show still missed several beats that were necessary to make her turn toward mass murder of citizens believable and earned.  We needed an atrocity that was larger than burning the Tarlys, like instead of just 2 guys she would have burned all the POWs there.  We needed a few more scenes of her feeling angry at how ungrateful the North was, of her wondering why KL didn't revolt against Cersei, of her beginning to blur the lines between the 'people' and the 'leaders'...and her starting to talk about the need to liberate people everywhere.

They just really, really needed 20 episodes to have a hope of telling this story well, not 13.  

No, the show didn’t miss any beats.  A significant underlying theme was whether or not Dany would become the proverbial apple that doesn’t fall far from the tree.  

That sentiment was fully woven into the fabric of the series.... and it was necessary for the mystery of the show to hold out on her inevitability as long as possible while simultaneously providing the viewer an immense wealth of hints along the way reminding us that it could happen at any moment.  

It seems to me that this is a case of Team Dany feeling both duped and falsely entitled to having been warned earlier that she would 100% become her father.  The show doesn’t owe you anything.  If you can’t fill in the blanks based on the abundance of hints provided bc you were too preoccupied with burying your heads in the sand, then that’s on you guys. 

Again, a raging Narcissist can appear normal up until the time that she doesn’t, and it’s not like we’re talking about 60 year old woman here with years & years of a track record of normalcy.  In the grand scheme of things, Dany displayed her wickedness at a young age [what was she at KL, maybe 24?].... and had she survived Westeros and continued on to the ripe age of 60, we’d be talking about how she’s been a cruel barbaric conqueror for a very long time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÍWow. Feeling the burn of some comments here.

So a young woman whose only claim to power are the dragons she hatched in a turn of really shitty luck out of misery or, before that, the savage she was forced to marry, can't use those means as a way to not be a victim?

GoT is not real life, people. Applying the morals of evil vs good in a fictoonal universe of medieval, feudal society? Really.

Even in the skewed universe of the show? Daenerys couldn't swing a broadsword over her head. Sure shit she was going to burn people to execute them. Bad luck Westeros had her dear ol' dad as the last Targ. With his fire obsession? That bitch is crazy! 

Was she a shit ruler? Yeah, she wasn't trained from infancy like the likes of Robb Stark. And even he fucked up royally.

Were her methods bloodthirsty? Her incipient rule was as one of the dothraki. Ffs she was melow as shit. 

Was there ever a chance she was not going to go coocoo? Well no. A saint wouldn't last in those conditions. Especially not having that kind of power available to her. 

Spinning back to modern day morals? Isn't that what scares the shit out of any of us minnows when we accidentally think about who is in control of nuclear weapons? 

It's not that she was always crazy. But they did insist on telling her she was always right.

Then what? 

We don't need you anymore? You're obsolete? It's been used as a plot device more than once..

So I was Team Dany. Even knowing they were going to screw her over. Same with Bland!Jon. 

But I cheered when Viserys got his crown, when Joffrey went buhbye, when Olly hung. Hell, I thought it was awesome when Cersei blew the Sept. 

I don't feel rooting for Daenerys was any more stupid or guilt inducing than going 'Go mini-Arya' when she butchered the Freys. 

My mother asked me once: 'Who are the good guys here?'

I answered 'No one. That's why the story works.'

Retconning everything one character did into 'she was evul from the womb pal, u stoopid' in order to get a HEA like ending for others was a slap in the face. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Wow. You are actually saying that being a slave is the moral equivalent of being a slave-owner. Got nothing I wish to say to that, but I do want to point out that it's happening.

Hahaha, that’s not what I said. At all.  Nice try man. Either eliminate all the straw man nonsense & hyperbole or don’t bother responding at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ToddDavid said:

Hahaha, that’s not what I said. At all.  Nice try man. Either eliminate all the straw man nonsense & hyperbole or don’t bother responding at all.  

The hell it isn't. You said that every slave would definitely be a slave master if given a chance. You even used a bunch of exclamation points! !!! That leaves no room at all for the possibility that perhaps there is a moral dimension that is considered by some but not others.

Here's what I originally said: "You are actually saying that being a slave is the moral equivalent of being a slave-owner."

You might have room to argue if you had qualified what you said in any way, but you didn't. You made all the slaves happy to become masters if they had a chance. If both groups would make the exact same moral choice, then they are moral equivalents. Period. 

Analytically, we can boil this down into two options:

(1) Slavery is morally objectionable and the masters shouldn't be doing it.

- Since the slaves would do the same thing if they get a chance, that means the slaves would have the exact same moral failing as the masters. Ergo, if you believe slavery is morally objectionable then you're saying slaves are the moral equals of the masters.

- (2) Slavery is not morally objectionable and is the proper way for humans to behave. 

So naturally slaves would become masters if they had a chance, because that is the proper way for humans to behave. Ergo, if you believe slavery is just fine, then slaves are the moral equals of the masters.

Instead of slinging your "straw man" BS, tell me what I got wrong here.

As a reminder, this is what YOU said that I called you on:

Quote

 If the slaves of Essos were offered an  opportunity to flip the script and become the Masters while the Masters become the slaves, would they have done it? You’re damn right they would!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×