Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 8/6/2019 at 3:13 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's been a while since I've read the books so are you talking about the people Daenerys agrees to "question sharply"? Because that's hardly proof children were tortured. 

Let me spell it out for you: no matter how many times you say it or how bad you want it to be true, Daenerys cannot be held responsible for a disease that killed people. This is pretty basic common sense but since you are not only not grasping it but decided to take it a step further and imply you have to take it slow for me since I just can't seem to get it let me be more explicit: Unless Daenerys willingly & knowingly spread a communicable disease on purpose, she cannot be at fault for a disease that comes to a city that may or may not arrived with her host ESPECIALLY when she never had said disease. This is absolutely ridiculous. If one child gives another a cold at school is the first child an evil little thing to be blamed for the seconds cold? That's the equivalent of what you are saying. 

Daenerys handed the business man and his daughters over to a man who is advocating for Daenerys to kill the children she has hostage and is known for being harsh. Tell me what interpretation you get when Daenerys tells such a man to question them sharply?  Daenerys massacre of Astapor combined with a lack of knowledge and care for the people she now had control over caused the bloody flux. FYI, after you massacre a city it’d be wise to see it repaired and cleaned up instead of just going through, taking what you want and then leaving and calling the city “free”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Starkz said:

The bloody flux is a direct result of war. It’s noted several times through the trilogy and lore that war leads to disease and most notably the bloody flux. Daenerys does not know how to lead or care for a host and as a direct result of the lack of care disease happens. Barristan himself notes how the bloody flux has been the bane of the greatest armies as the army wasn’t properly cared for.

Are you holding every aSoIaF-leader responsible for what bacteria people who follow them around might get exposed to? I don't.

Edited by Sigella
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Daenerys handed the business man and his daughters over to a man who is advocating for Daenerys to kill the children she has hostage and is known for being harsh. Tell me what interpretation you get when Daenerys tells such a man to question them sharply?  Daenerys massacre of Astapor combined with a lack of knowledge and care for the people she now had control over caused the bloody flux. FYI, after you massacre a city it’d be wise to see it repaired and cleaned up instead of just going through, taking what you want and then leaving and calling the city “free”.

Question harshly could mean any number of things that are harsh in nature. 

"Massacre" of Astapor. I would call it more a liberation of Astapor but ok. Repairing the city would have done nothing to avoid the disease & neither would cleaning up the rubble. 

There is absolutely nothing she could have done other than what she did. This is exactly why people get so frustrated on here. Because it doesn't matter what someone else says or how illogical the argument is when someone dislikes a character they attribute the most ridiculous things to them. 

There isn't any possible way Daenerys can be responsible for the bloody flux. Period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sigella, @Lyanna<3Rhaegar, @Hugorfonics

One last point and then I'm moving on:

It seems to me that your arguments rest on this principal:

Slavery = Bad, therefore anything the brings an end to slavery is good. But this is a false dichotomy that has been rejected over and over again by virtually every religion and moral philosophy in history. Two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when you inflict your wrong under an assumption of collective guilt -- that one person is responsible for the crimes committed by another.

To say that the common freedmen of Astapor deserved to die horrible deaths to pay for the atrocities of the Good Masters is like saying the people who were butchered in King's Landing got what they deserved because of the atrocities of the Mad King. By this logic, Tywin is a sainted hero because he brought justice to all the people in King's Landing who benefited under a mad, tyrannical leader.

What was the common butcher, baker or candlestick maker in Astapor supposed to do about slavery and the actions of the Good Masters in order to avoid Dany's wrath?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Question harshly could mean any number of things that are harsh in nature. 

"Massacre" of Astapor. I would call it more a liberation of Astapor but ok. Repairing the city would have done nothing to avoid the disease & neither would cleaning up the rubble. 

There is absolutely nothing she could have done other than what she did. This is exactly why people get so frustrated on here. Because it doesn't matter what someone else says or how illogical the argument is when someone dislikes a character they attribute the most ridiculous things to them. 

There isn't any possible way Daenerys can be responsible for the bloody flux. Period. 

Proper hygiene, caring for the city she massacred, staying and cleaning up the city? First reports of the bloody flux came after Daenerys host left Astapor. Saying she’s not responsible is idiotic. It was a direct result of her warfare at Astapor and lack of experience when it comes to the aftermath of battles. Daenerys should have cleaned up and cared for the city if she truly cared but she came, took, killed and then left. Furthermore she left an even more inexperienced council to rule Astapor and never came to their aid. There’s a reason Astapor is decimated now beyond repair. Daenerys is responsible for what has happened to Astapor how can you say she’s not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

@Sigella, @Lyanna<3Rhaegar, @Hugorfonics

One last point and then I'm moving on:

It seems to me that your arguments rest on this principal:

Slavery = Bad, therefore anything the brings an end to slavery is good. But this is a false dichotomy that has been rejected over and over again by virtually every religion and moral philosophy in history. Two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when you inflict your wrong under an assumption of collective guilt -- that one person is responsible for the crimes committed by another.

To say that the common freedmen of Astapor deserved to die horrible deaths to pay for the atrocities of the Good Masters is like saying the people who were butchered in King's Landing got what they deserved because of the atrocities of the Mad King. By this logic, Tywin is a sainted hero because he brought justice to all the people in King's Landing who benefited under a mad, tyrannical leader.

What was the common butcher, baker or candlestick maker in Astapor supposed to do about slavery and the actions of the Good Masters in order to avoid Dany's wrath?

 

I will go again as a farewell gift:

1 Common freedmen didn't wear tokars, and was therefore exempted, so your argument is false. Textual evidence can be found upthread.

2 Do you blame the Allied forces presidents/leaders for what their soldiers did to german civilians after destroying their country? By your policy Churchill and the american president should've been hanged in Nürnberg as well, if you hadn't noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Slavery = Bad, therefore anything the brings an end to slavery is good. But this is a false dichotomy that has been rejected over and over again by virtually every religion and moral philosophy in history. Two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when you inflict your wrong under an assumption of collective guilt -- that one person is responsible for the crimes committed by another.

Slavery does = bad but anything that brings an end to slavery does not necessarily = good. But it may = necessary. 

 

11 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

To say that the common freedmen of Astapor deserved to die horrible deaths to pay for the atrocities of the Good Masters is like saying the people who were butchered in King's Landing got what they deserved because of the atrocities of the Mad King. By this logic, Tywin is a sainted hero because he brought justice to all the people in King's Landing who benefited under a mad, tyrannical leader.

I haven't seen anyone say this - I certainly haven't said it. 

 

We are clearly not going to come to common ground here but as always, I enjoyed chatting with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Starkz said:

Proper hygiene, caring for the city she massacred, staying and cleaning up the city? First reports of the bloody flux came after Daenerys host left Astapor. Saying she’s not responsible is idiotic. It was a direct result of her warfare at Astapor and lack of experience when it comes to the aftermath of battles. Daenerys should have cleaned up and cared for the city if she truly cared but she came, took, killed and then left. Furthermore she left an even more inexperienced council to rule Astapor and never came to their aid. There’s a reason Astapor is decimated now beyond repair. Daenerys is responsible for what has happened to Astapor how can you say she’s not?  

Poor hygiene may help cause the flux but surely you aren't suggesting Daenerys should have taught these people how to bathe themselves? 

So what if the first reports of the flux came after Dany & Co left? You do understand how a disease works no? Typically people don't pass on a contagious disease on purpose. War has nothing to do with it. Some of the conditions resulting from war may contribute to it: cramped living spaces etc. But Daenerys being responsible for the war does not mean she is responsible for any diseases that follow. 

She may be responsible for decimating it beyond repair & possibly leaving incompetent rulers but she IS NOT to blame for the dang flux. I seriously can't even believe I'm still arguing this. 

Decimated beyond repair does not = bloody flux

Not caring enough does not = bloody flux

Warfare does not = bloody flux

None of the things you call her out for cause the bloody flux. 

Except possibly poor hygiene but I'm not sure how someone's poor hygiene is her fault. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Poor hygiene may help cause the flux but surely you aren't suggesting Daenerys should have taught these people how to bathe themselves? 

So what if the first reports of the flux came after Dany & Co left? You do understand how a disease works no? Typically people don't pass on a contagious disease on purpose. War has nothing to do with it. Some of the conditions resulting from war may contribute to it: cramped living spaces etc. But Daenerys being responsible for the war does not mean she is responsible for any diseases that follow. 

She may be responsible for decimating it beyond repair & possibly leaving incompetent rulers but she IS NOT to blame for the dang flux. I seriously can't even believe I'm still arguing this. 

Decimated beyond repair does not = bloody flux

Not caring enough does not = bloody flux

Warfare does not = bloody flux

None of the things you call her out for cause the bloody flux. 

Except possibly poor hygiene but I'm not sure how someone's poor hygiene is her fault. 

 

Decimation, poor hygiene, warfare, incompetent rulers, lack of care all together formed the bloody flux. Are you trying to tell me if Dany didn’t kill people in Astapor the bloody flux still would have happened? I’ll say yet again, a direct paraphrase from Barristan chapters is the bloody flux has been the greatest bane of armies. Armies = warfare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Starkz said:

Decimation, poor hygiene, warfare, incompetent rulers, lack of care all together formed the bloody flux. Are you trying to tell me if Dany didn’t kill people in Astapor the bloody flux still would have happened? I’ll say yet again, a direct paraphrase from Barristan chapters is the bloody flux has been the greatest bane of armies. Armies = warfare. 

Yes that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. The flux being the greatest bane of armies does not mean war = flux. 

Explain to me what role decimation specifically played in causing the flux. 

Explain to me how incompetent ruling led to the flux. 

How does warfare cause the flux? 

How does not caring cause the flux?

 

Edited by Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 11:42 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So, if I'm understanding your argument you are saying Arya wasn't evil prior to the insurance man incident but was evil directly upon the incident? That doesn't make much sense does it? People don't "turn" evil in a few seconds or minutes. Typically they start out different & it grows from there until it is finally acted upon. 

I never said losing control & snapping was an excuse or that it takes away his guilt. Are we arguing who should be punished or who is evil? You appear to be arguing something I'm not in disagreement with. 

Dave's evilness is not negated because he has caused no harm. Was Jeffrey Dahmer not evil until he killed someone? That's ridiculous. Jeffrey Dahmer & Dave are always going to be who they are whether they acted out their fantasies or not. People don't just wake up evil one day. It's always there, it just takes a while to show it's ugly face sometimes. 

People are judged and punished (or rewarded) as a consequence of behavior.  How many people have brief thoughts of doing harm to a rival?  This is true even more when the stakes are high.  Wishing the rival might crash her auto is a common thought.  At least briefly in most people.  

Arya was composing her list and mentally going through murder.  Her thoughts are not brief.  They are premeditated obsession.  She even prayed.  It is sick and should earn her an extended stay in a hospital for the behaviorally disturbed.  She wasn't evil though.  Just sick.  The murder had not happened.  All of that changed when she killed a man who was not a threat to her life nor was the man threatening anyone's life.  She can't call on a selfdefense plea to get out of it.  She killed the man in order to pass an exam from the university of murderers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it the more I think that Ramsay probably does have it in him to have at a least a kind of twisted compassion. His over-top embracing of the Bolton's bloody legacy to me is an obvious case of over compensations for perceived inadequacy and a desperate desire for acceptance. He tells people that his father slept with his mother because he fell in love with her at first sight. He tells people that his father sent him Reek out of love for him. He wants his father to view him as a true success to his House, their legacy, and to love him as a son. How does Ramsay perceive love to be? Well he at least has some understanding of the outward appearance of it. With that in mind, did anyone show him genuine love? His own mother resented him but there was one person who went out of their way to meet him, someone who specifically wanted a brother at his side.

Did Ramsay kill Domeric in the mad hope that he'd someday gain Domeric's inheritance? It's possible but I don't think it is at all certain. He gets pretty angry when he hears that Lady Dustin is telling people that he murdered his brother. Does anyone in the Dreadfort say it to his face or is that about as lethal as calling him "Lord Snow"?

Needless to say I subscribe to theory that it was probably Ramsay's mother or Reek, or just an actual illness, that killed Domeric Bolton. My point being that if Domeric showed Ramsay at least a hint of a respect and familial love, then Ramsay might actually have been moved to reciprocate. Doesn't mean that his cruel, violent, and sadistic nature wouldn't have cause him to self-sabotage any bond he might have formed with his half-brother, but he is one some level capable of feeling these things. Of wanting them even if his screwed up brain can't quite understand them. I DO think Joffrey was always going to grow up to be a sociopath of sorts, but I also believe that kind of thing happens in degrees and it is clear that Joffrey idolized and desired the approval, and even love, of his father.

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

×