Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

15 hours ago, frenin said:

Mirri is a slave, not Drogo's wife, if Mirri was to be made Drogo's wife after this, the sure she should.

You didn't say because Dany was the wife she is responsible, you said because Dany is profiting off of the khalasar. Mirri is too. You are moving the goal posts. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

But you didn't. You are completely dismissing what influence Jorah's and Dany's words, she was the one telling the story and the most determined  to change Drogo's mindset.

No I'm not completely dismissing it. I've talked several times about what Jorah said but the fact remains that the only reason Jorah had the opportunity to say what he said is because of Roberts actions. Dany's words also meant nothing with out Roberts actions. Roberts actions gave Drogo the push required to attack Westeros. Remove Dany & Jorahs from the situation entirely for a moment & imagine all that happened was the attempt on Dany & Rhaegos life. Would Drogo want to attack Robert for this? Absolutely. Now remove Roberts actions from the situation, leaving only Dany & Jorahs words. Danys words were not convincing Drogo so would he have attacked on her words? Most likely not, because he hadn't. Would Drogo attack on Jorah & Danys words combined? No because Jorah would have no words without the attempt on Danys life. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

Weren't we talking about how Mirri saw, or should say things??

In some quotes we were but I don't understand how that question is relevant to the post you quoted of mine. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

It has very little  to do with normal of suffering, Mirri seems past  the breaking point, and yes there are moments in which our brain just numbs when the suffering is too much to bear. Now, we could see that Mirri is just talking out of her ass and even she could've realized that what she was saying wasn't true but her actions and words show a woman who no longer cares  about her fate or knows that her lot is hell and wants to be done with it the sooner the better.

I'm not talking about normal suffering, I'm talking about normal thinking, normal reactions, normal expectations of revenge. 

Again, I understand where Mirri is coming from & do not begrudge her revenge on those who have harmed her. I don't agree with all of her decisions though & think that some of her revenge is misguided. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

One of our disagreements here is that you don't really believe Mirri when she says she's a broken woman and more abuse would not break her more than she is now.  

I believe she may believe that but logic says less abuse is better than more. She may truly feel as if it would not matter if she suffered more abuse but if she were made to suffer that more abuse she would understand it does matter. I understand that it does matter & because of that think she is wrong in taking out her anger on Dany & an unborn child. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

What choice are people given  in arranged marriages?? 

 Aren't they married then??

They usually aren't given a choice, that's the point. Yes, they are married then, when did I say otherwise? 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

Dany and Cersei are interchangeable there, she did not choose Robert, she is abused by Robert as he pleases, and the abuse only isn't so repeated just because Robert is tired of her, any actions taken by her, Jaime or her father would mean their instant  death and shunning, and she's only  allowed to stay or leave as much as Robert wants and she sure as hell can't stay or leave as she wished.

Sure so Cersei cannot be blamed for Roberts actions anymore than Dany can be blamed for Drogos, regardless of her wishes. 

as @SeanF said though, Drogo has full authority to do away with Dany as he pleases. Robert does not have that, if he were to hang Cersei or try to sell her to someone there would be a rebellion. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

Her power, as much as Dany's, comes from the amount of sway she has over her husband and for the fact that Robert is capable of taking Ned's head as long as she stops nagging him. I could put Cat her as well, sure Ned is great and all and we know that Ned is no abuser, but Cat is forced to deal with Jon and there was no single compromise, could Cat just leave Winterfell because the pain and humiliation was too much?? And just as Dany, Cat ended up forgiving her hubby's "imperfections" and loving him with all her heart.

Dany' situation is the same westerosi noble women, sure they have a bit more of make up but still. Is Cersei a Queen or a Slave/Hostage?? Is Cersei's position, and with it her profits, the same Senelle's??

I've said, all the women in Westeros are hostages, or upjumped slaves. They have luxuries that most slaves do not have & in the case of the Westerosi noble women would have some means by which to keep from being sold or killed but those are things Dany does not have. She has no means by which to stop him from selling or killing her. 

I've said before & I'll say again, you are no less a slave because your master allows you freedoms other slaves don't get, or because your master is kinder to you than other masters may be. 

15 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm not talking about prison or death but about being hold accountable for it. And yes, if you talk express the dise of wanting back something stolen from you and try to convince someone to go to war, you should have some responsability for it.

I disagree. Words are wind & mean nothing. Actions are what count.

15 hours ago, frenin said:

Ofc Mirri is responsible for acting on her wishes, i said that many times already.

Yes, the difference is you believe Mirri is righteous in her vengeance while simultaneously thinking Dany is not. That screams of bias to me because of the many reasons we have already discussed. If one is righteous then so is the other, to an extent. Where I believe Mirri swayed from the righteous path is in targeting people that did not cause her harm. This is not something Dany did. 

16 hours ago, frenin said:

Sorry, shouldn't write while i'm going to college, especially if i don't control the language

No worries

16 hours ago, frenin said:

No, I said that i believe Mirri has a more righteous reason to avenge herself, she witnessed first hand what it happened and how it happened. If Mirri had a son and said son decided to attack the Dothraki 15 years  from now, i'd say the same i say about Dany, he's fighting for her mother's ghosts, not his own.

I see. I disagree, but I understand. 

16 hours ago, frenin said:

She isn't, she is Drogo's wife. Even if you want to call her that, the difference between an umpjumped slave and Mirri' situation is just sideral.

I gave you the quotes too, she influences Drogo's decision.

You didn't. You gave me a quote of Jorah speaking to Drogo. I gave you quotes showing Danys words did not persuade Drogo nor did they convince him. 

The difference between an upjumped slave & a slave is very little. The difference between Dany & Mirri is very small. It consists of Dany having luxuries that are not permitted to Mirri & Dany has the good fortune of being in the good graces of the Khal. (Something Mirri may have had also, had she saved Drogo) Being in the good graces of the Khal is pure luck & perseverance. Had Dany been a different person or had Khal Drogo not taken a liking to her she would be in no better position than Mirri. 

16 hours ago, frenin said:

t's Dany's war against the Baratheon morally right from your pov?? 

No, no war is never morally right IMO. 

16 hours ago, frenin said:

She got what she wanted, which was Drogo's agreement.

 

Well at first  you said she got what she wanted; a war. I pointed out she didn't get that now you have moved the goal posts to say what she wanted was an agreement. An agreement did her a whole lot of good in the end didn't it? 

[frenin]

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You didn't say because Dany was the wife she is responsible, you said because Dany is profiting off of the khalasar. Mirri is too. You are moving the goal posts. 

No, i'm not, i just thought it was obvious, Mirri is a slave... 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No I'm not completely dismissing it. I've talked several times about what Jorah said but the fact remains that the only reason Jorah had the opportunity to say what he said is because of Roberts actions. Dany's words also meant nothing with out Roberts actions. Roberts actions gave Drogo the push required to attack Westeros. Remove Dany & Jorahs from the situation entirely for a moment & imagine all that happened was the attempt on Dany & Rhaegos life. Would Drogo want to attack Robert for this? Absolutely. Now remove Roberts actions from the situation, leaving only Dany & Jorahs words. Danys words were not convincing Drogo so would he have attacked on her words? Most likely not, because he hadn't. Would Drogo attack on Jorah & Danys words combined? No because Jorah would have no words without the attempt on Danys life. 

Yes you're. I said several times as well that Robert's actions were crutial to force Drogo take the matters seriously, but the fact is that Dany had every intention, and eventually succeeded at it, of using Robert's attempt as ammo.  You can't just say that Dany's and Jorah's words had no sway when they are intended to have one, at most you can say is that they weren't the most important factor at play there, which i agree with. But they had every intention of influence Drogo's decision and they did it.

 

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

In some quotes we were but I don't understand how that question is relevant to the post you quoted of mine. 

I said that from Mirri's povs, Dany is Drogo's wife and she profits from her suffering, the fact that we as readers can tell the difference does not matter.

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not talking about normal suffering, I'm talking about normal thinking, normal reactions, normal expectations of revenge. 

Again, I understand where Mirri is coming from & do not begrudge her revenge on those who have harmed her. I don't agree with all of her decisions though & think that some of her revenge is misguided. 

I don't think her situation has anything to do with normality and even then, people react to that situation in very different ways.

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I believe she may believe that but logic says less abuse is better than more. She may truly feel as if it would not matter if she suffered more abuse but if she were made to suffer that more abuse she would understand it does matter. I understand that it does matter & because of that think she is wrong in taking out her anger on Dany & an unborn child. 

Again, logic has little to do with it, logic says that she should not have done a lot of things. Her situation has little to do with logic.

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

They usually aren't given a choice, that's the point. Yes, they are married then, when did I say otherwise? 

Your claim that if they don't have a choice but to marry, they can't be hold accountable for nothing. Why would or should it be different if they had a choice??

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure so Cersei cannot be blamed for Roberts actions anymore than Dany can be blamed for Drogos, regardless of her wishes. 

as @SeanF said though, Drogo has full authority to do away with Dany as he pleases. Robert does not have that, if he were to hang Cersei or try to sell her to someone there would be a rebellion. 

So Cersei shares no blame whatsoever in Lady's death and succesive Lannister's appointments??

Yes, i said that westerosi have a little more of make up, Robert can still beat the hell out of Cersei tho, she can force himself upon her or simply make her a silent sister, which is no worse than the Dosh Khaleen.

 

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I've said, all the women in Westeros are hostages, or upjumped slaves. They have luxuries that most slaves do not have & in the case of the Westerosi noble women would have some means by which to keep from being sold or killed but those are things Dany does not have. She has no means by which to stop him from selling or killing her. 

I've said before & I'll say again, you are no less a slave because your master allows you freedoms other slaves don't get, or because your master is kinder to you than other masters may be. 

And i've said that the difference between an umpjumped slave and a proper one are sideral, like Cersei and Jeyne Poole.

 

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I disagree. Words are wind & mean nothing. Actions are what count.

Words are wind, but some strong winds can become destructive hurricanes.

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You didn't. You gave me a quote of Jorah speaking to Drogo. I gave you quotes showing Danys words did not persuade Drogo nor did they convince him. 

The difference between an upjumped slave & a slave is very little. The difference between Dany & Mirri is very small. It consists of Dany having luxuries that are not permitted to Mirri & Dany has the good fortune of being in the good graces of the Khal. (Something Mirri may have had also, had she saved Drogo) Being in the good graces of the Khal is pure luck & perseverance. Had Dany been a different person or had Khal Drogo not taken a liking to her she would be in no better position than Mirri. 

I did, i gave you Dany's intention of using the attempt as a way to convince Drogo.

I already express myself in the slave bit, i absolutely disagree.

 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well at first  you said she got what she wanted; a war. I pointed out she didn't get that now you have moved the goal posts to say what she wanted was an agreement. An agreement did her a whole lot of good in the end didn't it? 

I did not move goalpost, Dany wanted war, she wanted Drogo to invade Westeros and she had Drogo's words to invade Westeros, she had war, not the war she wished, but the campaign against the lhazareen is to get to Westeros.

[Mon ami]

On 1/29/2020 at 1:53 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I wanted to start a new thread since the one we were speaking in was The Starks @sweetsunray @Nagini's Neville

 

 

 

So, a couple things: Dany doesn't tell Drogo ever that his "gang" should take it. While that is how she would gain the throne, it really isn't any different than Aegon the Conquerer, or any other rebel for that matter. He doesn't tell her in order to do this he has to pillage the Lhazareen & the Lhazareen were under attack by Khal Ogo's khalasar when Drogo & his arrived, so that they wouldn't have suffered that fate without Daenerys being involved (something we talked about earlier) is clearly false. There is no exchange between Dany & Drogo where he says I have to do this in order to get your throne & she says "fine I'll come along." We don't get the exchange about why Drogo chooses to pillage the Lamb people but it's pretty likely he didn't discuss the decision with Dany, as he never does. It certainly can be argued that she understands completely, especially after witnessing the massacre of the Lhazareen, what Drogo & his khalasar will unleash on Westeros & that is what I think she is to blame for. She really has no reason to know Drogo will attack the Lhazareen & I don't think it has anything to do with Drogo deciding he will take the IT. 

I don't think we can forget either, that Dany didn't just stop the rape of MMD but every woman they passed that was being raped. 

We can't really blame a thirteen year old girl for what the Dothraki do.  The Dothraki are the front end of the slave train.  They acquire the people to be sold to slavers.  What they did to the Lhazareen village is what they have been doing for centuries.  

MMD wasn't thinking soundly.  Removing Khal Drogo and his unborn son is not going to stop the Dothraki from doing business with slavers.  Better to let the stallion be born and she can work to help raise the boy with compassion.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

No, i'm not, i just thought it was obvious, Mirri is a slave

Yes Mirri is a slave but so is Daenerys, in almost every sense of the word. She was sold to a man, forced to marry him, forced to have sex with him, forced live with him & among his people, she had no freedom to leave, no choice in who she married, no choice as to when or if she had sex with him. 

What is the big difference between Mirri & Dany? Because Dany is Drogo's wife? Then you are blaming her for something she didn't choose & was forced to do. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Yes you're. I said several times as well that Robert's actions were crutial to force Drogo take the matters seriously, but the fact is that Dany had every intention, and eventually succeeded at it, of using Robert's attempt as ammo.  You can't just say that Dany's and Jorah's words had no sway when they are intended to have one, at most you can say is that they weren't the most important factor at play there, which i agree with. But they had every intention of influence Drogo's decision and they did it

Ok show me where in the text Dany's words had any sway over Drogos decision to wage war on Westeros. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

said that from Mirri's povs, Dany is Drogo's wife and she profits from her suffering, the fact that we as readers can tell the difference does not matter

If what we take from the story doesn't matter, what are we discussing anything for? 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

don't think her situation has anything to do with normality and even then, people react to that situation in very different ways

 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Again, logic has little to do with it, logic says that she should not have done a lot of things. Her situation has little to do with logic

My point exactly. She acted illogical, irrational, & unjustified. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Your claim that if they don't have a choice but to marry, they can't be hold accountable for nothing. Why would or should it be different if they had a choice??

No, my claim is the crime or actions of the husband are not the wives. The wives are responsible for their own crimes & actions, such as they are allowed to make them but they are not guilty by association merely for being married to the man or profiting from his exploits especially when they were forced to marry them.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

So Cersei shares no blame whatsoever in Lady's death and succesive Lannister's appointments??

Cersei shares some blame for Lady because it was her words that convinced Robert to command Lady's death. Had Cersei not succeeded in convincing Robert & then later someone else convinced him, then no, Cersei would not be to blame. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

And i've said that the difference between an umpjumped slave and a proper one are sideral, like Cersei and Jeyne Poole.

I apologize because I think I'm not fully understanding that term. It's not an English term & I'm not positive what you mean by it. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Words are wind, but some strong winds can become destructive hurricanes

Sure but the choice still remains with the person in charge. Dany was unable to convince Drogo. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

did, i gave you Dany's intention of using the attempt as a way to convince Drogo

No, the plea with Jorah to help make Drogo see was made before the attempt on her life. We have no text proving or even implying she had any intention on "using" the attempt as a way to convince Drogo. Even if that were true she did not cause the attempt. She would have nothing to "use" if not for Robert's actions. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

did not move goalpost, Dany wanted war, she wanted Drogo to invade Westeros and she had Drogo's words to invade Westeros, she had war, not the war she wished, but the campaign against the lhazareen is to get to Westeros

So because Dany wanted war on Westeros & got an attack on the Lhazareen, she got what she wanted? Not hardly. 

[Darth Sidious]

On 2/18/2020 at 9:59 AM, frenin said:

The girl who showed her compassion  was the reason her life was ruined, to Mirri Dany is just a prettier version  of the savage Dothraki. And what future is that?? Chained forever to Dany?? Why should she see that as a bright future?? Can't we say the same to everyone??  Dany showed her compassion , that much is true, but a living hell is no less  hell if you low the degrees a bit. If Mirri isn't entitled to seek revenge why Dany is?? At least Mirri witnessed first hand what was done to her.

If Dany is justified to kill Mirri, Mirri is as justified to seek her vengeance.

The Dothraki khalasars were doing what they've been doing long before they met the Targaryens.  Raiding and capturing is what they do.  Mirri was indeed entitled to seek revenge on Khal Drogo but she was not entitled to seek revenge against Rhaego and Daenerys.  

[frenin]

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes Mirri is a slave but so is Daenerys, in almost every sense of the word. She was sold to a man, forced to marry him, forced to have sex with him, forced live with him & among his people, she had no freedom to leave, no choice in who she married, no choice as to when or if she had sex with him. 

What is the big difference between Mirri & Dany? Because Dany is Drogo's wife? Then you are blaming her for something she didn't choose & was forced to do. 

As i said before Dany's lot is no different than the westerosi and i think that it's pretty clear than the difference between the noble women and servants and peasant women is huge.

I'm not blaming her for nothing, i'm saying that they aren't equals or even relatable.

 

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 Ok show me where in the text Dany's words had any sway over Drogos decision to wage war on Westeros. 

When Dany told him what had happened at the market, all laughter stopped, and Khal Drogo grew very quiet.
 "This poisoner was the first," Ser Jorah Mormont warned him, "but he will not be the last. Men will risk much for a lordship

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If what we take from the story doesn't matter, what are we discussing anything for? 

I thought Mirri.

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

My point exactly. She acted illogical, irrational, & unjustified. 

her personal situation was all that and i think she was pretty justified.  You keep saying that she's an unreliable narrator when she says she does not care anymore about being abused after she was reduced to nothing, i think you're wrong. 

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, my claim is the crime or actions of the husband are not the wives. The wives are responsible for their own crimes & actions, such as they are allowed to make them but they are not guilty by association merely for being married to the man or profiting from his exploits especially when they were forced to marry them.

And my claim is that said pov is completely irrelevant for the victim, he only sees people profiting for his suffering and as such he judge them all the same.

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Cersei shares some blame for Lady because it was her words that convinced Robert to command Lady's death. Had Cersei not succeeded in convincing Robert & then later someone else convinced him, then no, Cersei would not be to blame. 

But had Cersei influenced Robert to do it after an eventuall falling out with Ned, would she not share any blame??

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure but the choice still remains with the person in charge. Dany was unable to convince Drogo. 

She did however, she tried and tried, she planted the idea in Drogo's mind and once Drogo had a very real reason to consider it, she used Jorah to reason with him.

The choice ofc still remains with the person in charge but people can be influenced for better or for good. And those who influence people in charge have a part of responsability then.

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So because Dany wanted war on Westeros & got an attack on the Lhazareen, she got what she wanted? Not hardly. 

She got war, which is what she wanted. She just didn't get to go to Westeros, but the attack on the lhazareen was for Westeros.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 minutes ago, frenin said:

As i said before Dany's lot is no different than the westerosi and i think that it's pretty clear than the difference between the noble women and servants and peasant women is huge

I'm not talking about noble women & peasants. I'm asking you to tell me what is so different between Mirri & Dany's positions? If they are huge, there shouldn't be much trouble citing the differences. 

3 minutes ago, frenin said:

When Dany told him what had happened at the market, all laughter stopped, and Khal Drogo grew very quiet.

This is Dany telling him about what happened in the market. There is no persuasion here, she isn't asking anything about Westeros. I asked for you to show me, in the text, where Dany's words have any sway over Drogos going to Westeros. Or in otherwords, any point where she asks him & he agrees, or when she asks him & he at least doesn't refuse. 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

This poisoner was the first," Ser Jorah Mormont warned him, "but he will not be the last. Men will risk much for a lordship

These are Jorah's words & I've already admitted they had some place in Drogo's decision, but his words would not have been anything without Robert's actions. 

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

thought Mirri.

I mean, are we not discussing what we take from the story irt Mirri & Dany's interactions? 

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

her personal situation was all that and i think she was pretty justified.  You keep saying that she's an unreliable narrator when she says she does not care anymore about being abused after she was reduced to nothing, i think you're wrong

We will just have to agree to disagree about how justified she was but I'm saying she likely believes that any further abuse wouldn't matter, so she isn't lying. But if she was subjected to that abuse she would figure out real quick that she was mistaken. 

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

She did however, she tried and tried, she planted the idea in Drogo's mind and once Drogo had a very real reason to consider it, she used Jorah to reason with him.

No, Viserys was the first to mention it so that would have been where Drogo first heard of it. Dany talked about it further, yes. But she asked Jorah to reason with him before the wineseller incident & Jorah never even agrees. 

It isn't until Robert sends the assassin that Jorah has any ground to stand on to sway Drogo & even then, he says nothing of Westeros. He only says Robert will send more assassins. Drogo was going to wage war on Robert with or without Jorah or Dany's words because he cannot let that go unanswered. 

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

The choice ofc still remains with the person in charge but people can be influenced for better or for good. And those who influence people in charge have a part of responsability then

I think the person that does the deed holds the blame. Drogo was in charge, Drogo made the command, Drogo & the Dothraki that followed the command hold the blame. 

14 minutes ago, frenin said:

And my claim is that said pov is completely irrelevant for the victim, he only sees people profiting for his suffering and as such he judge them all the same

I know & I understand why she may feel that way, I just disagree with it. 

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

She got war, which is what she wanted. She just didn't get to go to Westeros, but the attack on the lhazareen was for Westeros

But she wanted war with Westeros, more specifically she wanted the IT. She hasn't gotten a war with Westeros nor has she gotten the IT. That's like you wishing for a date with Sansa & getting a date with Brienne & me saying, well you got what you wanted; you got a date. 

 

[Rondo]

On 1/29/2020 at 1:53 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I wanted to start a new thread since the one we were speaking in was The Starks @sweetsunray @Nagini's Neville

 

 

 

So, a couple things: Dany doesn't tell Drogo ever that his "gang" should take it. While that is how she would gain the throne, it really isn't any different than Aegon the Conquerer, or any other rebel for that matter. He doesn't tell her in order to do this he has to pillage the Lhazareen & the Lhazareen were under attack by Khal Ogo's khalasar when Drogo & his arrived, so that they wouldn't have suffered that fate without Daenerys being involved (something we talked about earlier) is clearly false. There is no exchange between Dany & Drogo where he says I have to do this in order to get your throne & she says "fine I'll come along." We don't get the exchange about why Drogo chooses to pillage the Lamb people but it's pretty likely he didn't discuss the decision with Dany, as he never does. It certainly can be argued that she understands completely, especially after witnessing the massacre of the Lhazareen, what Drogo & his khalasar will unleash on Westeros & that is what I think she is to blame for. She really has no reason to know Drogo will attack the Lhazareen & I don't think it has anything to do with Drogo deciding he will take the IT. 

I don't think we can forget either, that Dany didn't just stop the rape of MMD but every woman they passed that was being raped. 

That village was doomed even before the assassin tried to murder Queen Daenerys Targaryen.  The Khals don't need a reason.  That was business as usual for them.  Credit Daenerys for attempting to stop the brutality against the women after realizing what was going on.  Contrast this to Catelyn, an adult who knew all too well the number of villages that will be destroyed by the Lannisters if she took Tyrion under arrest.  Then you have Jon Snow, who started a war with the Boltons that would risk the safety of everybody in the kingdom, all for his sister.  And let's face it, Bran and Arya are not as worthy as a Targaryen princess.  Not even if you put them together.  One is the Targaryen princess, the heir to Westeros.  Bran and Arya are just the children of the past lord of winterfell.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

29 minutes ago, Jean-Louis Schiffer said:

That village was doomed even before the assassin tried to murder Queen Daenerys Targaryen.  The Khals don't need a reason.  That was business as usual for them.  Credit Daenerys for attempting to stop the brutality against the women after realizing what was going on.

Agreed. 

29 minutes ago, Jean-Louis Schiffer said:

Contrast this to Catelyn, an adult who knew all too well the number of villages that will be destroyed by the Lannisters if she took Tyrion under arrest.

No, the blame for that lies with the Lannisters. Catelyn can be blamed for wrongfully arresting Tyrion, but not for the actions of the Lannisters. 

30 minutes ago, Jean-Louis Schiffer said:

Then you have Jon Snow, who started a war with the Boltons that would risk the safety of everybody in the kingdom, all for his sister

So many wrongs here I don't know where to start. 

1. Jon Snow did not start a war with the Bolton's. There has been no war with the Bolton's. Jon Snow gathered a wildling army & announced his intention to march on WF to answer Ramsays threatening letter, but he was stabbed before he marched anywhere, let alone waged any war. 

2. His actions did not endanger anyone outside of the Wildlings & Ramsay & his armies lives. 

3. It had naught to do with his sister. He gladly took an opportunity presented to him, probably in part because he doesn't like the idea of his sister at the hands of Ramsay but it was Ramsay who threatened Jon & the NW, Jon who was going to answer that threat. Nothing to do with Arya. If he was going to wage war "all because of his sister" he would have done so when he first heard of his "sister" being married to Ramsay. 

35 minutes ago, Jean-Louis Schiffer said:

And let's face it, Bran and Arya are not as worthy as a Targaryen princess.  Not even if you put them together.  One is the Targaryen princess, the heir to Westeros.  Bran and Arya are just the children of the past lord of winterfell. 

And again... No. 

[frenin]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not talking about noble women & peasants. I'm asking you to tell me what is so different between Mirri & Dany's positions? If they are huge, there shouldn't be much trouble citing the differences. 

Status, wealth and privileges. We should know more of the Dothraki laws to know more about them but at the first sight, it seems ludicrous saying that they're in the same position. 

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is Dany telling him about what happened in the market. There is no persuasion here, she isn't asking anything about Westeros. I asked for you to show me, in the text, where Dany's words have any sway over Drogos going to Westeros. Or in otherwords, any point where she asks him & he agrees, or when she asks him & he at least doesn't refuse. 

And don't you think Dany would use the tale to sway him?? Giving that she had every intention of doing so?? 

About the latter, there is none, i already told you so.

 

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

These are Jorah's words & I've already admitted they had some place in Drogo's decision, but his words would not have been anything without Robert's actions. 

Not i said otherwise, i said that Dany influenced Drogo, not that she was the main influence behind Drogo's decision. Even when Drogo's idea of planting his son of his grandfather's throne doesn't appear of a vacuum either.

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But if she was subjected to that abuse she would figure out real quick that she was mistaken. 

Or not.

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, Viserys was the first to mention it so that would have been where Drogo first heard of it. Dany talked about it further, yes. But she asked Jorah to reason with him before the wineseller incident & Jorah never even agrees. 

It isn't until Robert sends the assassin that Jorah has any ground to stand on to sway Drogo & even then, he says nothing of Westeros. He only says Robert will send more assassins. Drogo was going to wage war on Robert with or without Jorah or Dany's words because he cannot let that go unanswered. 

But Drogo pays no attention to Viserys and he only promises him an army, he does not commit himself to anything, it's Dany the one that repeatedly tries him to do so.

No, Jorah only has to propmt him into attack Robert, which is what Dany wants.

 

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think the person that does the deed holds the blame. Drogo was in charge, Drogo made the command, Drogo & the Dothraki that followed the command hold the blame. 

So, LF has no guilt whatsoever in Jon Arryn's murder or the rift between the Starks and Lannisters??

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But she wanted war with Westeros, more specifically she wanted the IT. She hasn't gotten a war with Westeros nor has she gotten the IT. That's like you wishing for a date with Sansa & getting a date with Brienne & me saying, well you got what you wanted; you got a date. 

 

Nope, it would be like me  wanting a date with Sansa, a date with Sansa being established and me cbeing unable to go because my mom was sick, i certainly didn't get to see Sansa but... didn't Sansa accept to date me??

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

51 minutes ago, frenin said:

But Drogo pays no attention to Viserys and he only promises him an army, he does not commit himself to anything, it's Dany the one that repeatedly tries him to do so.

This is the same exact thing he does to Daenerys. He doesn't even promise her an army, he pays no attention to her, & does not commit himself to anything. As a matter of fact he refuses her. 

52 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, Jorah only has to propmt him into attack Robert, which is what Dany wants.

Just because she wants it doesn't mean she is the one that convinced him or is the one who is responsible for it. 

52 minutes ago, frenin said:

So, LF has no guilt whatsoever in Jon Arryn's murder or the rift between the Starks and Lannisters??

LF helped do the deed, so yes he holds some guilt. Dany didn't command it to be done or participate in doing it. 

 

[Tyrion1991]

On 1/29/2020 at 6:53 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I wanted to start a new thread since the one we were speaking in was The Starks @sweetsunray @Nagini's Neville

 

 

 

So, a couple things: Dany doesn't tell Drogo ever that his "gang" should take it. While that is how she would gain the throne, it really isn't any different than Aegon the Conquerer, or any other rebel for that matter. He doesn't tell her in order to do this he has to pillage the Lhazareen & the Lhazareen were under attack by Khal Ogo's khalasar when Drogo & his arrived, so that they wouldn't have suffered that fate without Daenerys being involved (something we talked about earlier) is clearly false. There is no exchange between Dany & Drogo where he says I have to do this in order to get your throne & she says "fine I'll come along." We don't get the exchange about why Drogo chooses to pillage the Lamb people but it's pretty likely he didn't discuss the decision with Dany, as he never does. It certainly can be argued that she understands completely, especially after witnessing the massacre of the Lhazareen, what Drogo & his khalasar will unleash on Westeros & that is what I think she is to blame for. She really has no reason to know Drogo will attack the Lhazareen & I don't think it has anything to do with Drogo deciding he will take the IT. 

I don't think we can forget either, that Dany didn't just stop the rape of MMD but every woman they passed that was being raped. 

 

I think the whole scenario is intended by the author to point the finger of moral accusation at Daenerys. Miri is implicating her as complicit in the violence against her people. Which is a vehicle for George to be making a meta criticism on how the little people would get trampled by her big heroes journey. This begins an association in the readers mind (which Varys directly makes in the Small Council meeting) that Danys quest is going to kill enormous numbers of people and so morally can never be justified. Without going into “how are we going to stop the others without her” I am not sure what real defence is provided in the text. It’s actually a very one sided argument. I don’t think George is being nuanced here. Dany is continuously depicted as a Pandora figure who is thoughtlessly unleashing war and all the ills of the world. The message is clear from George; don’t open the box. 

I think George is a man of his times. This book series is the Vietnam War playing dress up. This comes down to a deeply anti war message that is hostile towards the idea of using violence to settle the worlds problems. More specifically i think he has a problem with violence for a idealistic cause (Dany) which he differentiates from self defence or maintaining the status quo (Starks). If rational calm people simply sat down and set their passions aside then all of the worlds problems would go away. Regardless of whether its year 820 or 2020. I think he’s being deadly serious when the Qaarthen merchant makes a lengthy criticism of Danys assault on slavery and I think in Winds he really is going to make the point that the unjust peace in ADWD was far better than the war which will result. 

However I think there’s a double standard in differentiating between Danys quest and the Stark quest.  Why is Rob bringing war into the Riverlands not criticised in the same light? How exactly is it different? He’s bringing war into the world in the name of a cause and to right perceived wrongs. If this is a realistic feudal society then every Lord in Westeros is committing atrocities on a daily basis against their own people, so how is upholding the status quo good exactly in that context? Before the war actually starts we really don’t see any real problems, it’s only once the war starts that we see injustice and cruelty. This plants the idea in the readers heads that war itself is the problem and society will look after itself if let alone. Again, regardless of whether it’s 820 or 2020. 

 

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

I think the whole scenario is intended by the author to point the finger of moral accusation at Daenerys. Miri is implicating her as complicit in the violence against her people. Which is a vehicle for George to be making a meta criticism on how the little people would get trampled by her big heroes journey. This begins an association in the readers mind (which Varys directly makes in the Small Council meeting) that Danys quest is going to kill enormous numbers of people and so morally can never be justified. Without going into “how are we going to stop the others without her” I am not sure what real defence is provided in the text. It’s actually a very one sided argument. I don’t think George is being nuanced here. Dany is continuously depicted as a Pandora figure who is thoughtlessly unleashing war and all the ills of the world. The message is clear from George; don’t open the box. 

I think George is a man of his times. This book series is the Vietnam War playing dress up. This comes down to a deeply anti war message that is hostile towards the idea of using violence to settle the worlds problems. More specifically i think he has a problem with violence for a idealistic cause (Dany) which he differentiates from self defence or maintaining the status quo (Starks). If rational calm people simply sat down and set their passions aside then all of the worlds problems would go away. Regardless of whether its year 820 or 2020. I think he’s being deadly serious when the Qaarthen merchant makes a lengthy criticism of Danys assault on slavery and I think in Winds he really is going to make the point that the unjust peace in ADWD was far better than the war which will result. 

However I think there’s a double standard in differentiating between Danys quest and the Stark quest.  Why is Rob bringing war into the Riverlands not criticised in the same light? How exactly is it different? He’s bringing war into the world in the name of a cause and to right perceived wrongs. If this is a realistic feudal society then every Lord in Westeros is committing atrocities on a daily basis against their own people, so how is upholding the status quo good exactly in that context? Before the war actually starts we really don’t see any real problems, it’s only once the war starts that we see injustice and cruelty. This plants the idea in the readers heads that war itself is the problem and society will look after itself if let alone. Again, regardless of whether it’s 820 or 2020. 

 

If indeed, Xaro Xhoan Doxas is speaking for George, that it is necessary for some people to be slaves if society is to prosper, and if he really is preaching the "pacifism of the privileged", then he'll deserve every bit of criticism that will come in his direction.  Xaro's views are deeply problematic.  That would be an extremely reactionary message to be putting forward.  IMHO, revolution is required right across the slave states of the East.  

If Dany took Jorah's advice, and fled for the free cities, the little people would still be trampled.  She'd be abandoning the remaining women and children of the Khalasar, and she'd be living a life of ease and comfort in a slave-owning society, by her own free choice, and therefore complicit in the wrongdoing of that society.

And, yes, it would be hugely hypocritical, as well as reactionary, to make the argument that civilian casualties are justified in order to defend a great lord's honour, to avenge wrongs done to his family, and to uphold an unjust  status quo, but not to fight injustice.  It would be strange for a writer with ostensibly left of centre views to advance such a proposition.

[Tyrion1991]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If indeed, Xaro Xhoan Doxas is speaking for George, that it is necessary for some people to be slaves if society is to prosper, and if he really is preaching the "pacifism of the privileged", then he'll deserve every bit of criticism that will come in his direction.  Xaro's views are deeply problematic.  That would be an extremely reactionary message to be putting forward.  IMHO, revolution is required right across the slave states of the East.  

If Dany took Jorah's advice, and fled for the free cities, the little people would still be trampled.  She'd be abandoning the remaining women and children of the Khalasar, and she'd be living a life of ease and comfort in a slave-owning society, by her own free choice, and therefore complicit in the wrongdoing of that society.

And, yes, it would be hugely hypocritical, as well as reactionary, to make the argument that civilian casualties are justified in order to defend a great lord's honour, to avenge wrongs done to his family, and to uphold an unjust  status quo, but not to fight injustice.

 

The talk with Xaro is done to show how Dany has rushed into this and hasn’t given much thought her war. The insinuation is that slavery should be handled in a different way. By rational, dispassionate technocrats and not some hot headed idealist with a black and white sense of morality who’s just going to be a fool and get everyone killed. It’s because the war is so spectacularly violent that it makes any peace appear preferable. Without the flip side of Danys change in Winds it’s hard to comment. But I am anticipating full Genghis Khan here. We aren’t given numbers for how many people die as a consequence of the Essos slave trade beyond a handful of examples but we are regularly told and reminded how many die as a result of Danys wars; which number in the hundreds of thousands already at this point. This is not a balanced narrative. 

Dany could live in Braavos or chose not to own slaves. George is regularly giving Dany a way out for a reason. It’s to show that Dany is proactively choosing to get involved in these violent struggles and power plays. Whereas the Starks are compelled by necessity to partake in then from a position of idyllic isolation. Basically a Dany should have stayed in Drogos tent and not dreamt of a distant throne.

He never criticised the Starks on those terms. Stark honour, justice and independence are presented uncritically and without irony.

[SeanF]

28 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The talk with Xaro is done to show how Dany has rushed into this and hasn’t given much thought her war. The insinuation is that slavery should be handled in a different way. By rational, dispassionate technocrats and not some hot headed idealist with a black and white sense of morality who’s just going to be a fool and get everyone killed. It’s because the war is so spectacularly violent that it makes any peace appear preferable. Without the flip side of Danys change in Winds it’s hard to comment. But I am anticipating full Genghis Khan here. We aren’t given numbers for how many people die as a consequence of the Essos slave trade beyond a handful of examples but we are regularly told and reminded how many die as a result of Danys wars; which number in the hundreds of thousands already at this point. This is not a balanced narrative. 

Dany could live in Braavos or chose not to own slaves. George is regularly giving Dany a way out for a reason. It’s to show that Dany is proactively choosing to get involved in these violent struggles and power plays. Whereas the Starks are compelled by necessity to partake in then from a position of idyllic isolation. Basically a Dany should have stayed in Drogos tent and not dreamt of a distant throne.

He never criticised the Starks on those terms. Stark honour, justice and independence are presented uncritically and without irony.

I'm not so sure about that.  We know that 25,000 children were murdered to produce 8,000 Unsullied. Over the course of a decade, you'd probably be looking at about 50,000 child murders, just in one city.  That's not including the children who are murdered and raped for entertainment.  We see plenty of evidence of systemic cruelty being practised against slaves, and that's a feature of the system not a bug.  The slaves outnumber the free people by 3 or 4 to one.  You have to keep them in a state of abject terror.  And, the slavers are fuelling wars right across the continent and piracy on the high seas, in order to maintain the supply of slaves.

I don't think that the slave owners are the voice of reason, here.  And, I don't think Martin is making that point.  I see Slavers Bay as Martin's Mordor.  The fact that the slave owners respond viciously towards Daenerys and her "uppity" freedmen does not invalidate her campaign.  I see it as a morally just war, imperfectly executed.  By way of comparison in real life, I'd point to 18th century Haiti, a place that was utter hell for the slave majority.  Their ultimate rebellion was very bloody, but I don't think they were wrong to rebel, nor should they be expected to wait around until their masters decided to reform.

Dany could just shrug and do nothing, but that would not be a moral course of action.  "Let not anyone pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part or forms no opinion.  Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men look on and do nothing."

[frenin]

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is the same exact thing he does to Daenerys. He doesn't even promise her an army, he pays no attention to her, & does not commit himself to anything. As a matter of fact he refuses her. 

But Dany is the one asking him to march against Westeros for Rhaego's sake and when Drogo finally marches...  He wants to sit Rhaego in his grandfather's throne...

 

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Just because she wants it doesn't mean she is the one that convinced him or is the one who is responsible for it. 

No, but if she takes steps to influence him why should we understand that she's not influencing him at all, nor  is she trying to influence him?? If we see Jorah trying to influence Drogo why should we believe he is doing nothing??

 

 

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

LF helped do the deed, so yes he holds some guilt. Dany didn't command it to be done or participate in doing it. 

 

No, she just wanted a war that she was well aware it has to be funded somehow and she was aware of the Dothraki MO.

 

 

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The talk with Xaro is done to show how Dany has rushed into this and hasn’t given much thought her war. The insinuation is that slavery should be handled in a different way. By rational, dispassionate technocrats and not some hot headed idealist with a black and white sense of morality who’s just going to be a fool and get everyone killed. It’s because the war is so spectacularly violent that it makes any peace appear preferable. Without the flip side of Danys change in Winds it’s hard to comment. But I am anticipating full Genghis Khan here. We aren’t given numbers for how many people die as a consequence of the Essos slave trade beyond a handful of examples but we are regularly told and reminded how many die as a result of Danys wars; which number in the hundreds of thousands already at this point. This is not a balanced narrative. 

She is giving thought to the war though. When she starts her journey she is young & naive & doesn't know the ways of war nor does she give much thought to it. Her not being in Westeros yet is evidence that she is taking her time, thinking things through, trying to right wrongs. 

All wars are spectacularly violent & peace is always preferable so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. 

Also the bolded isn't really true. As SeanF pointed out

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Dany could live in Braavos or chose not to own slaves. George is regularly giving Dany a way out for a reason. It’s to show that Dany is proactively choosing to get involved in these violent struggles and power plays.

She absolutely has a way out & could walk away. George is indeed giving us this for a reason but it isn't to show how Dany is a warmonger or prefers violence. She couldn't walk away after seeing the Unsullied. That's the point. Her conscious would not let her. To avoid all of this altogether, had she never witnessed it would be one thing. But to have her witness it, have the power to stop it, & then walk away - how would that be the better course of action or the morally righteous path? 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Basically a Dany should have stayed in Drogos tent and not dreamt of a distant throne.

This is absurd. I'm not sure if you are saying this is what George is trying to tell us (in which case I 100% disagree) or if this is your opinion but either way it wasn't possible. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

He never criticised the Starks on those terms. Stark honour, justice and independence are presented uncritically and without irony.

 

12 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

However I think there’s a double standard in differentiating between Danys quest and the Stark quest.  Why is Rob bringing war into the Riverlands not criticised in the same light? How exactly is it different? He’s bringing war into the world in the name of a cause and to right perceived wrongs. If this is a realistic feudal society then every Lord in Westeros is committing atrocities on a daily basis against their own people, so how is upholding the status quo good exactly in that context? Before the war actually starts we really don’t see any real problems, it’s only once the war starts that we see injustice and cruelty. This plants the idea in the readers heads that war itself is the problem and society will look after itself if let alone. Again, regardless of whether it’s 820 or 2020. 

With all due respect, I think you have an obsession, friend. Every thread you comment on circles back to this "issue" in your mind. At any rate, this is a thread meant to discuss Daenerys, not the Starks. Of course you are free to comment what you wish, but I for one won't be responding to any of this. I would love to discuss Daenerys with you but not in an effort to show this supposed biased George shows for the Starks. I think it's been pretty well established, through out the forum that most of us don't see things this way - doesn't make us right, but it does mean you are kind of beating a dead horse to continue to turn everything back to this. 

 

[frenin]

Well, saying that Martin wants us to agree with slavery, in anyway possible, it's incredibly wrong in so many levels that i won't even bother to discuss it.

Dany's war against slavery is the only one worth fighting. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tyrion1991]

22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

She is giving thought to the war though. When she starts her journey she is young & naive & doesn't know the ways of war nor does she give much thought to it. Her not being in Westeros yet is evidence that she is taking her time, thinking things through, trying to right wrongs. 

All wars are spectacularly violent & peace is always preferable so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. 

Also the bolded isn't really true. As SeanF pointed out

She absolutely has a way out & could walk away. George is indeed giving us this for a reason but it isn't to show how Dany is a warmonger or prefers violence. She couldn't walk away after seeing the Unsullied. That's the point. Her conscious would not let her. To avoid all of this altogether, had she never witnessed it would be one thing. But to have her witness it, have the power to stop it, & then walk away - how would that be the better course of action or the morally righteous path? 

This is absurd. I'm not sure if you are saying this is what George is trying to tell us (in which case I 100% disagree) or if this is your opinion but either way it wasn't possible. 

 

With all due respect, I think you have an obsession, friend. Every thread you comment on circles back to this "issue" in your mind. At any rate, this is a thread meant to discuss Daenerys, not the Starks. Of course you are free to comment what you wish, but I for one won't be responding to any of this. I would love to discuss Daenerys with you but not in an effort to show this supposed biased George shows for the Starks. I think it's been pretty well established, through out the forum that most of us don't see things this way - doesn't make us right, but it does mean you are kind of beating a dead horse to continue to turn everything back to this. 

 

 

Spoiler

I don’t see how this can’t be George’s view given how the show ended. He must have told the show makers enough of the ending and even in broad strokes or a different context it only points one way. I don’t subscribe to the notion that it’ll be somehow a vastly different story if he’s writing it. That was his ending told poorly.

It is is relevant to talk about the Starks because, their way of doing things is being put on a pedestal and depicted as the balanced or rational way of doing things. We are asked to contrast them. Dany is being depicted as an extreme. In the books he had not firmly nailed his colours to the mast. So it was easy to rationalise away whenever the text raises a question over Dany, or you could assume that he won’t go there because it would be a contrived and vacuous point to make. It’s not my view of Dany at all and I think it’s a horrendously out of touch direction to  take the character in. 

If you want to critique the “power fantasy” archetype or the road to hell being paved with good intentions it does not make sense to do that through a female character. It’s too easy for guys to distance it from themselves and say “bitches be crazy”. Especially if you have a sorcerer Lord character assume absolute power and be the real deal. 

 

[SeanF]

18 hours ago, frenin said:

Well, saying that Martin wants us to agree with slavery, in anyway possible, it's incredibly wrong in so many levels that i won't even bother to discuss it.

Dany's war against slavery is the only one worth fighting. 

I think the worry is not so much that Martin wants us to agree with slavery (he doesn't) but to conclude that fighting against slavery (or other evils) only makes things worse for everyone.

I don't think that's the correct interpretation of the story, but I can see why some readers would view the story in that light.