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

[Techmaester]

Just now, CrypticWeirwood said:

Ya think? ;->

But she emerged with three dragons...leading to what she did as being merited. Insanity can only be called so if it fails. Otherwise it's something else. 

[CrypticWeirwood]

On 5/23/2019 at 7:44 AM, Cas Stark said:

I agree w/all of this.  When she locked up her dragons and basically forgot about them, never tried to seek any information on how to train them, never visited them, is when I finally turned against her and started rooting for Drogon to eat her ....

It sure took a long time for the show to get to that point, didn't it just? And they even went and had it happen off-screen, too, just like all the tasty bits this season!

Probably spent that CGI money on cuddling with Ghost instead. Oh well, you win some, you lose some. 

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Right.  She had no army to sack Qaarth with, nor dragons to burn it to the ground. Plus Xaro in the books preferred men over women, so that was silly, too. 

No, it was in Astapor that she betrayed her own honor to steal an army and then use that stolen army to murder their previous owners, sacking the city and putting all who wore a tokar to the sword. Later even worse things would befall Astapor and its children, all thanks to her actions that day. Check the books for what happened to those she left in charge, and their successors several times through. Also, the children. 

She attacked Astapor after hearing in gruesome detail how that slave army had been created. Can you steal an army that has been created by people who have been stolen from their homes, enslaved, mutilated and forced to kill a baby for each soldier as part of their training? People were already dying in Astapor, and because of Astapor, they just weren't the perpetrators of that system. I think there are criticisms to make of Dany's actions but they shouldn't involve suggesting that brutal slave traders have been hard done-by. 

If it was wrong for Dany to attack those causing the death and suffering of innocents, why is it right for Jon to kill Dany for the same reason?

[CrypticWeirwood]

On 5/23/2019 at 2:46 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

 

Daenerys never executed anyone for being born into a slaving society. The masters of Meereen were crucified for murdering slave children not for being masters. 

Sure she did. She didn't crucify the ones responsible for the kids' deaths. She even crucified her innocent future father-in-law who had opposed said atrocity!

And there were still people who sympathized with her. Well, in the audience. 

[Wall Flower]

On 5/24/2019 at 7:51 PM, rustythesmith said:

If I can understand why a person did a thing and I am able to admit that I might have done the same thing in his situation, then how in the world am I justified to punish him for it?

This is the fundamental question at the heart of justice that every would-be judge has to contend with. When you think about it long enough, it forces you to define a highest value. What is our goal? What is this system meant to protect? Life, liberty, property? If the purpose of justice is to protect something, what should it protect above all else?

In the western world, that highest value is human life.

Now that we know the system's purpose, we can continue the thought experiment at the hypothetical extremes where we will find the boundaries that constitute a functional definition of ethics.

If I can understand why a person did a thing and I am able to admit that I might have done the same thing in his situation, then how in the world am I justified to punish him for it?

Conceit: If I were able to know everything there is to know about this person, his culture, norms, values, his life experiences, neurology, biology, genetics, upbringing and so on, then I have no reason to believe that I would not have done exactly what he did if I were in his situation, in his culture, experienced his life experiences, were born with his neurology, biology, genetics, and was brought up the same way he was brought up and by the same people.

This is sympathy at the most extreme. There is no conceit more sympathetic than this, and it happens to be impenetrable. I had as little choice in my biology as you had in yours. I had as little choice in my parents as you had in yours. I had as little choice in my place of birth as you had in yours.

I can't point to any justifiable reason why I wouldn't think, feel, and behave exactly like you do if I were you. And you can't point to any justifiable reason why you wouldn't think, feel and behave exactly like I do if you were me.

In other words, people, their nature and their environments are inextricable. If we're going to judge someone, the appropriate way to do it is to consider the person in context of their nature and their environment, not our nature and our environment. That is why our laws differentiate between premeditated crimes and crimes of passion. It's why our laws differentiate between sanity and insanity. Adult and child. Sober and inebriated. Healthy and sick. Resident and visitor. The context always matters in moral judgements.

Even though the case for this degree of sympathy holds up in theory, it doesn't hold up in practice. There are earthly limitations upon how much sympathy we can afford to extend to one another. For example, even though I may be able to sympathize with the idea that a psychopath raised by an abusive family in poverty had no chance at not becoming a serial killer, I still need to lock him away in order to stop him from killing people. I don't know a better way than that to protect human life. But if one day I manage to come up with a better way, then that would be preferable.

Notice that the degree of affordable sympathy tracks with the wealth and advancement of the society. The richer and more advanced we are, the more sympathy we can afford to extend to one another. This is why the people in Westeros perform executions and dismemberment for crimes that might only warrant imprisonment in the modern world. They can't afford to house and feed all the criminals, so they have no choice but to either set them free or execute them.

This is where the rubber meets the road. There is a degree to which we have a responsibility to extend the maximum amount of sympathy that we can afford to extend. That's roughly what the Democratic party argues for. And at the same time, there is a degree of sympathy that we can not afford to extend. We can't afford to dine prisoners on gourmet food and we can't afford to set serial killers free. If we pay a cost that we can't afford, we hurt the people we're trying to protect. That's roughly what the Republican party argues for.

When we're trying to navigate the landscape of right and wrong, we're dealing with the push and pull of those two forces. Sympathy for the external versus sympathy for the internal. How do we save more people without hurting the people we already have?

The civilizations in Slaver's Bay and in all the world of Planetos are not as advanced as the ones we live in. They live in a pre-enlightment, mythic era when people do not yet believe that they have a right to life and liberty, nor that they have a right to change the systems that govern them when those systems don't protect their right to life and liberty.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you're born to a slave master in Astapor and you happen to be more enlightened than everyone else. When you come of age, your father dies and you inherit his house and slaves. What do you do next?

You could sell everything and leave the city. That would at least move you out of the path of Daenerys's dragons by the time she comes around. But you haven't done anything to improve the world, and slavery is still happening in your home town. If Daenerys is justified to kill people for practicing slavery, then you're a bit of a coward who has abandoned his community to die rather than actually trying to improve it.

So you want to stick around and try to get your city to stop slavery. How are you gonna do it? Their entire economy is based on slave trade. You're going to have to build some kind of business that can produce value for the city that doesn't involve slavery. The climate isn't very good for farming, but you plant some trees anyway.

In the mean time, you try to treat your slaves well. You can't free them because then your household will lose its wealth. In destitution, you'll just become a slave yourself. But you can treat them better than all the other slave masters by feeding them the same food that you eat, allowing them to roam freely and promising that you will free them soon.

The other masters start to notice that you're a gentle and generous slave master, but it doesn't ring alarm bells for many of them but the particularly cruel masters.

You begin to petition your leaders for some minor slave rights. Maybe we should make it a rule that every slave should have at least two meals per day. Well, now you've drawn attention to yourself, and the other masters don't appreciate what you're suggesting. One meal a day is enough for household slaves.

If you keep this up, you're going to become an outcast, you're going to be assassinated by your peers, rebelled against by your emboldened slaves, or you're going to fall into financial ruin and become a slave yourself.

The point is that being a slave master is absolutely necessary in order for a citizen of Astapor to stay alive. It is not at all reasonable to expect them to collectively discard the practices that they depend upon to survive, and it isn't reasonable to expect some enlightened hero of Astapor to change the way his entire world functions by planting some seeds and handing out pamphlets that read "Slavery is obviously bad, friends. Let's stop doing it."

No amount of understanding you have will turn you away from genocide. This is what every tyrant in history has thought about their cause. They were absolutely certain that they could tell the good guys apart from the bad guys and that they didn't need to bother sympathizing with the bad guys.

I am not buying the poor little slaver narrative. The masters of Slaver's Bay are not just slave owners practicing slavery within the confines of their city. They are the hub (to use a wheel analogy) of an extensive slave trading empire that destroys the lives of people throughout Essos and as far away as Naath. They are slave traders who receive people stolen from their homes, process them and sell them on for profit so that they can extend their utterly moribund civilisation and live a life of complacent luxury. They are absolutely the bad guys.

I think the books are asking us to question whether doing bad things to bad people is justice or vengeance. Based on Tyrion's speech, the show runners  seem to be equating doing bad things to bad people as the slippery slope to Nazism.

[CrypticWeirwood]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

He still committed a capital crime. My point still stands.

He certainly did.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

11 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I think the books are asking us to question whether doing bad things to bad people is justice or vengeance

But when you have an audience that cheers at the horrible, suffering death of a child in front of his parents?

And I mean from Morgan Freeman to my mom?

If you want to preserve the dubious imagery of a 'white knight', you need some next level, unforgivable act, with tacked on nazi trope.

Considering Imo Aegon Targaryen punked out post Conquest and instead of a full on centralized power base, kept everything in the hands of the ruling families of the Seven Kingdoms - maybe to conserve resources for Dorne or out of lacking knowledge about his new territory?

The thought provoking notion that she might be right and the wheel to be broken was not the Iron Throne's yoke on the Seven, but it's failure to preside as a seat of power to a unified nation?

That would make her a despot, a tyrant, but still working towards a world where the minnows at the bottom of the ladder were more than just indentured servants to those who owned the land they lived in.

But that would contradict our view of many of our favorite characters.

The Starks are depicted as just and fair to their people, but they could choose not to be and it would be in their power and rights to treat those people however they see fit.

Can we say the same for Walder Frey? 

The people living in a lord's land were his to govern. They weren't property, but they had precious little freedom to be spoken of.

Even Varys, purported defender of the realm, believes the status quo is better to maintain. 

Jon is the male heir from a male line, raised in Westeros and in their ways, moe favourable to the same good old boys club in which nothing changes.

We certainly don't want some newcomer with 'ideas'.

So make her incinerate a surrendered population, fighters and human shields alike.

Now there is no conflict.

In our minds? He loved her, but he had to kill her to protect the people, his sisters!

It's so muh easier to believe and accept.

Like this there is no conflict, no untenable positions for the hero to choose from.

Change the world?

Why, if his family would be just fine and in power as it is?

Better for things to remain as they are.

[Chris Mormont]

I don't think anyone was trying to make anyone feel guilty for supporting Daenerys' "journey".  I think the point of the speech was that her actions were not an isolated incident, that in fact this is how she deals with people who oppose her. 

[beeeeeen]

16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

But she emerged with three dragons...leading to what she did as being merited. Insanity can only be called so if it fails. Otherwise it's something else. 

no it's insanity, whether it worked or not. She did it based on a dream, it's not a rational thing, also, magic was not really a thing of this world anymore, and what she knew about dragons was that they reproduced naturally, she had no good reason to think putting fossilized eggs into a pyre would make them hatch

[rustythesmith]

19 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I am not buying the poor little slaver narrative. The masters of Slaver's Bay are not just slave owners practicing slavery within the confines of their city. They are the hub (to use a wheel analogy) of an extensive slave trading empire that destroys the lives of people throughout Essos and as far away as Naath. They are slave traders who receive people stolen from their homes, process them and sell them on for profit so that they can extend their utterly moribund civilisation and live a life of complacent luxury. They are absolutely the bad guys.

I think the books are asking us to question whether doing bad things to bad people is justice or vengeance. Based on Tyrion's speech, the show runners  seem to be equating doing bad things to bad people as the slippery slope to Nazism.

You haven't answered any of the questions that moral relativism poses. What would you do if you were born into a slaving family in a slaving society such as Astapor or any of these cities that Dany has conquered? Until you can imagine a viable reason for why you yourself wouldn't be a slaver if you were born there, you have no justification for killing them. And neither does Dany.

The slavers are no more responsible for the slaves brought to their city than you are responsible for the blood diamonds brought to your finger or the blood oil brought to your car. If we're willing to trace causality to infinity, then everyone on earth is perpetuating horrible atrocities. There are plenty of people who would love to torture and kill you and I for the horrors we're perpetuating in our everyday lives. Thankfully for us, none of those people have dragons.

The justice or vengeance thing is pretty simple and it's defined for us in the books.

Are you taking pleasure in the task of justice? If yes, then it's revenge.
Is your goal to inflict pain? If yes, then it's revenge.

Doing either of these things will corrupt your conscience and set you on the slippery slope to Nazi-ism, to use your description. It's exactly the same message in the show.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Sorry, I find your repeated defense of slavery as morally neutral to be reprehensible. You keep putting out the idea, repeatedly, that one's attitude toward slavery is completely and totally the result of the circumstance in which life has placed you.

Hell no.

Life is a series of choices, and you can't avoid them, not even by refusing to choose: that's a choice, also. Those people chose to be slave owners every hour of every day of their lives.

Of course social pressures do exist. And I can excuse people who believe, in good faith, that they're better off following other people's examples than making their own decisions, and then do the best job they can of choosing the right people to follow. But most people are too smart to just be followers in that way, and once you're smart enough to recognize and analyze cause and effect, you are responsible for the foreseeable acts of your action.

BTW, I'm not confining the subject to this story. Once that's done, your proposition gets even worse, because Slavery's Bay practiced slavery of the very worst sort, where slave-owners were not merely allowed by law to render inhuman treatment to their slaves, but where inhuman treatment was even baked into basic, unchanging social constructs like the training of the Unsullied.

The slavers chose to slave.

[rustythesmith]

52 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Sorry, I find your repeated defense of slavery as morally neutral to be reprehensible. You keep putting out the idea, repeatedly, that one's attitude toward slavery is completely and totally the result of the circumstance in which life has placed you.

Hell no.

Life is a series of choices, and you can't avoid them, not even by refusing to choose: that's a choice, also. Those people chose to be slave owners every hour of every day of their lives.

Of course social pressures do exist. And I can excuse people who believe, in good faith, that they're better off following other people's examples than making their own decisions, and then do the best job they can of choosing the right people to follow. But most people are too smart to just be followers in that way, and once you're smart enough to recognize and analyze cause and effect, you are responsible for the foreseeable acts of your action.

BTW, I'm not confining the subject to this story. Once that's done, your proposition gets even worse, because Slavery's Bay practiced slavery of the very worst sort, where slave-owners were not merely allowed by law to render inhuman treatment to their slaves, but where inhuman treatment was even baked into basic, unchanging social constructs like the training of the Unsullied.

The slavers chose to slave.

You're not understanding the arguments I'm making. I'm not defending slavery and I haven't defended slavery at any point whatsoever in this conversation.

My argument is for moral or ethical relativity. It's the fundamental conceit of the entire book series that George Martin has written called A Song of Ice and Fire. Relativity is baked into the story in every way, especially regarding morality. Incorporating relativity into our interpretive toolkit is not only useful but paramount to understanding the themes, premises, lessons, mysteries and puzzles of the story.

The TV show operates with the same conceit. First you think Jaime is a villain and then after you learn more about Jaime you think he's not a villain. First you think Tyrion is a villain and then after you learn more about Tyrion  you think he is not a villain. This happens over and over again in varying degrees with various characters, most notably with Daenerys. First you think she's a hero and then you think she's a villain.

First you think the slavers are villains and you cheer when Dany burns them up. Then when Dany does the same thing to the innocents in Westeros, you realize Dany is the villain and that perhaps she shouldn't have burned the slavers.

Jon and Dany explicate the moral relativity thing in the very scene when Jon kills Dany.

Dany: A good world.
Jon: How do you know? How do you know it'll be good?
Dany: Because I know what is good. And so do you.
Jon: No I don't.
Dany: You do. You do, you've always known.
Jon: What about everyone else? All the other people who think they know what's good?
Dany: They don't get to choose.

Jon is literally asking the question that the fans are supposed to be asking themselves now every time Dany burned somebody alive, fed them to her dragons, nailed them up on crosses, locked them in a vault and so on. Those people all thought they were doing good. To butcher a quote George RR Martin, "Nobody gets out of bed in the morning and says what kind of evil can I do today?"

Dany is literally saying what every tyrant in history has said. I know what's good.

So what makes your idea of "good" and "bad" truer than somebody else's idea of "good" and "bad?" The answer is nothing. So morality has to be rooted in some value that we can all agree upon. I think if you pay close attention to the story, you'll find that value is the preservation of human life.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Just now, rustythesmith said:

You're not understanding the arguments I'm making. I'm not defending slavery and I haven't defended slavery at any point whatsoever in this conversation.

My argument is for moral or ethical relativity. It's the fundamental conceit of the entire book series that George Martin has written called A Song of Ice and Fire. Relativity is baked into the story in every way, especially regarding morality. Incorporating relativity into our interpretive toolkit is not only useful but paramount to understanding the themes, premises, lessons, mysteries and puzzles of the story.

The TV show operates with the same conceit. First you think Jaime is a villain and then after you learn more about Jaime you think he's not a villain. First you think Tyrion is a villain and then after you learn more about Tyrion  you think he is not a villain. This happens over and over again in varying degrees with various characters, most notably with Daenerys. First you think she's a hero and then you think she's a villain.

First you think the slavers are villains and you cheer when Dany burns them up. Then when Dany does the same thing to the innocents in Westeros, you realize Dany is the villain and that perhaps she shouldn't have burned the slavers.

Jon and Dany explicate the moral relativity thing in the very scene when Jon kills Dany.

Dany: A good world.
Jon: How do you know? How do you know it'll be good?
Dany: Because I know what is good. And so do you.
Jon: No I don't.
Dany: You do. You do, you've always known.
Jon: What about everyone else? All the other people who think they know what's good?
Dany: They don't get to choose.

Jon is literally asking the question that the fans are supposed to be asking themselves now every time Dany burned somebody alive, fed them to her dragons, nailed them up on crosses, locked them in a vault and so on. Those people all thought they were doing good. To butcher a quote George RR Martin, "Nobody gets out of bed in the morning and says what kind of evil can I do today?"

So what makes your idea of "good" and "bad" truer than somebody else's idea of "good" and "bad?" The answer is nothing. So morality has to be rooted in some value that we can all agree upon. And I think if you pay close attention to the story, you'll see that value is the preservation of human life.

I understand your argument just fine. You've made it over and over. I understand moral relativity, and even incorporated into  my answer. But you've taken it to an absurd extreme. Perhaps you aren't intentionally "defending slavery," but you are absolutely drawing a moral equivalence between slaves and slavers, whose choices, according to you, are morally equivalent because every person would make the same moral choices they make if in the same circumstance. 

Your examples from the show are nonsense. Even if it's true that some acts look bad when explained in fashion X and look good when explained in fashion Y, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that one can never make a reliable judgment about morality. Yes, there are plenty of slipper slopes and tough choices in life, but not everything is that way: if your mind, heart and eyes are open, there are solid moral judgments out there to be made, and it is our obligation to make them.

By the way, the idea that there is no such thing as moral truth, but only various points of view, is of great comfort to libertarians and such-like self-centered folk who like to pretend they have no moral obligation to the greater good. 

[Techmaester]

Dany understood a fundamental reality of her existence, practically speaking might makes right. Her absolutism and willingness to enforce herself made her either the height of morality or the worst tyrant depending upon if your views aligned or not with hers. I mean at the end of the day we only agree on what we do the way we do because of force established behind it. 

Slavery wasn't ended willingly in many places(and still goes on to varying degrees in the Middle East / North Africa - our Essos inspiration). It's kind of absurd to say preserving human life should be the principle society is built upon because it supposes that violent resistance to a fundamentally unjust system is inherently immoral because life will be lost. Life is always lost during times of mass change, it's not ideal but it is the price many people have payed and would do so again.  

[Davidlopan]

Arya's cold-blooded revenge killing of the Freys doubtless included those who were less complicit, possibly even innocent. But it still wouldn't have provided the narrative build-up for Arya suddenly going on a random killing spree in KL.

Arya is presented as a Nemesis figure, visiting retribution on the guilty, and the moral slant is very much in her favour. Same with Dany in Slaver's Bay. The attempt to awkwardly retcon her character in the last episodes of Season 8 was the crudest and most jarring dramatic move I've ever seen outside of soap

[rustythesmith]

2 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

I understand your argument just fine. You've made it over and over. I understand moral relativity, and even incorporated into  my answer. But you've taken it to an absurd extreme. Perhaps you aren't intentionally "defending slavery," but you are absolutely drawing a moral equivalence between slaves and slavers, whose choices, according to you, are morally equivalent because every person would make the same moral choices they make if in the same circumstance.

Your replies demonstrate that you don't understand it, because you keep accusing me of defending slavery or drawing equivalencies that I'm not drawing.

Quote

Your examples from the show are nonsense. Even if it's true that some acts look bad when explained in fashion X and look good when explained in fashion Y, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that one can never make a reliable judgment about morality. Yes, there are plenty of slipper slopes and tough choices in life, but not everything is that way: if your mind, heart and eyes are open, there are solid moral judgments out there to be made, and it is our obligation to make them.

Exhibit B. That isn't what I claimed at all.

People can still make sound moral judgements. Relativity only draws attention to our responsibility to extend our sympathy to everyone who will be affected by our judgements before we make the judgements. Dany frequently fails to assume that responsibility while Jon frequently succeeds to assume that responsibility.

The way you extend your sympathy is by trying to imagine yourself in the other person's circumstances. So what are the circumstances of the slavers? Well, most of them were born into this society. That's a circumstance that happens to have been completely out of their control, just as your place of birth was out of your control. Having been born here, they've inherited the beliefs, values and attitudes of everyone else who lives here. One of those beliefs is that slavery is a pretty normal thing to do.

It's a very sick society indeed where slavery is considered a normal thing to do. You could say it's a very sick society where abortion is considered a normal thing to do. But we do it anyway, don't we? 92% of abortions in the US are for unwanted pregnancies. Do you think I deserve to die because my society is sick? That's equivalent to the proposition that the slavers deserved to die.

You can perform the experiment with any value you want. It doesn't have to be abortion or slavery. The point is that nobody is necessarily justified to kill people simply for a difference in values. I think there are circumstances when it can be justified, but those are equally rooted in the human life value.

Quote

By the way, the idea that there is no such thing as moral truth, but only various points of view, is of great comfort to libertarians and such-like self-centered folk who like to pretend they have no moral obligation to the greater good.

The idea that morality is not objective or universal is a great comfort to George RR Martin, who wrote 5/7ths of an epic fantasy novel to demonstrate that morality is not objective or universal, which then inspired Game of Thrones.

You're clearly trying to label me in a category of things-you-don't-like. I'm not a libertarian but if it makes you happy you can continue pretending I'm a libertarian. Or a Bolton. Maybe ad rem.

[Hodor's Dragon]

What's a "responsibility to extend sympathy?" Who cares about my sympathy? I'm not talking about who I am or am not sympathetic to, I'm talking about right and wrong. I might still be sympathetic to people who are wrong, but they're frickin' wrong, and slavery is wrong, especially the slavery bay type.

And yes, your construct ABSOLUTELY morally equivocates slave-holders and slaves, as well as declaring slavery morally neutral, when you state that anybody who grew up a slave-holder would remain one as if it were absolute fact. Here's the logic:

1) If slavery is actually immoral, you are saying slaves and slave-holders are morally equivalent because they would all have that same immorality if they were born slave-holders.

2) If slavery is not immoral, you are saying slaves and slave-holders are morally equivalent because it does not matter from a moral standpoint whether they are slave-holders.

3) There is no 3, 1 and 2 cover the field. You have created a syllogism and its conclusion is that slaves and slave-holders are morally equivalent.

[rustythesmith]

1 hour ago, Techmaester said:

Dany understood a fundamental reality of her existence, practically speaking might makes right. Her absolutism and willingness to enforce herself made her either the height of morality or the worst tyrant depending upon if your views aligned or not with hers. I mean at the end of the day we only agree on what we do the way we do because of force established behind it.

If might makes right then you've just provided the justification for people to commit every crime imaginable against you and for you to commit every crime imaginable against them. If your definition of practicality is to maximize human suffering then I think you're on the right track.

Quote

Slavery wasn't ended willingly in many places(and still goes on to varying degrees in the Middle East / North Africa - our Essos inspiration). It's kind of absurd to say preserving human life should be the principle society is built upon because it supposes that violent resistance to a fundamentally unjust system is inherently immoral because life will be lost. Life is always lost during times of mass change, it's not ideal but it is the price many people have payed and would do so again. 

The preservation of human life is the only highest principle that can survive over evolutionary time. The societies that don't place it at the top die out because dying is an inevitable consequence of valuing something else higher than life.

That supposition isn't necessary. Violent resistance to a fundamentally unjust system can and has preserved more human life than acquiescence to an unjust system. There is an ethical case to be made for violent revolution. If your plan for revolution does not involve some way for the liberated to feed and house themselves after the liberation, then that case is not very strong.

[Techmaester]

31 minutes ago, rustythesmith said:

If might makes right then you've just provided the justification for people to commit every crime imaginable against you and for you to commit every crime imaginable against them. If your definition of practicality is to maximize human suffering then I think you're on the right track.

The preservation of human life is the only highest principle that can survive over evolutionary time. The societies that don't place it at the top die out because dying is an inevitable consequence of valuing something else higher than life.

That supposition isn't necessary. Violent resistance to a fundamentally unjust system can and has preserved more human life than acquiescence to an unjust system. There is an ethical case to be made for violent revolution. If your plan for revolution does not involve some way for the liberated to feed and house themselves after the liberation, then that case is not very strong.

Do you argue with the slaver on the moral basis of him trying to enslave you or do you kill him? 

I find the arguments here kind of funny as they even suppose that anyone cares to argue which doesn't reflect reality. I will repeat, protecting "life"(what does that even mean? On average? On individual level?) without any further ideals will allow the same kind of socities to exist as we saw existed in Essos but under different names. 

Maybe Danys logistics weren't perfect but it's absurd to say that she did wrong as it ignores what she was starting with. 

[digiFemme]

Another thing that makes it difficult is that the screenwriters changed so many things from the books...yet they retained other things as well. They completely whitewashed Tyrion and made him a lot nicer than he really is. Book Tyrion, by A Dance with Dragons, is just awful. Show Tyrion is a saint. Book Jaimie is less dumb and willing to forgive wrongdoings ‘in the name of love.’ Show Jaimie will continue to stand by Cersei until death. Pretty significant differences there. They are basically deciding what to adapt and what to leave behind. Who to whitewash and who to vilify. Can we really blame those who feel that Dany’s change in character was too abrupt? Take those instances of ‘foreshadowing’...couldn’t they easily have been disregarded as red herrings? I mean, if I had been one of the show writers, I could easily have written Dany to NOT go mad and point out that those ‘foreshadowing instances’ were planted there to ‘keep you guessing’ but that I ultimately decided to keep her good. Or say that those instances just showed she was capable* of going insane, not that she would*’

I don’t think people are against Dany going mad, only how they executed it. Even Cersei’s blowing up the sept of Baleor (while unjustifiable) had a better build up. She had just gone through a traumatic experience and which made anything related to the faith of the seven hateful to her. If they had handled Dany’s descent to madness half as well as they did Cersei’s destruction of the sept, perhaps there would be less complaining.