Jump to content

Is Daenerys justified in wiping out House Lannister/Baratheon since they tried to do the same to House Targaryen?


Mario Seddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

If I was going to sacrifice someone I would like to now who they were. 

Look,Daenerys was naive and she payed for it.If you want to keep blaming her for her child's death instead of the grown ass woman that tricked her into it,it's up to you.

 

2 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Gods be good, this is starting to look like the Arya's Mental Illness thread. 

Don't worry,I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Look,Daenerys was naive and she payed for it.If you want to keep blaming her for her child's death instead of the grown ass woman that tricked her into it,it's up to you.

I blame Jorah more than anyone. He took her in the tent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

No matter how much you scream the answer is always the same. That is a question that Dany should had asked. Who is the innocent human being that has to be sacrificed for Drogo.

The whole khalasar and her life was falling appart and Jorah just told her that Drogo's men will feed her baby to dogs.Of course she jumped at the first opportunity to save her child.Since you keep repeating yourself and deflect questions our conversation will end here if you're ok with that.I'm not in for repeating myself until dawn to a brick wall.

Edited by Oana_Mika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oana_Mika said:

You said that war for taking back someone's place in the kingdom is wrong.That's why I wondered if the Starks will renounce Winterfell for that.

I didn't say that. I said that taking someone's land is not, in my eyes, a good enough justification for war. Ending slavery, or a madman's rule or any sort of unjust system is, at least in my opinion, a good reason to go to war. Dany murdering the slavers was a good thing to do, one of the better acts of the series (again, in my opinion). But Dany waging war on Westeros just because she feels entitled to rule because on her bloodline? That's plainly evil (imo).

And to answer your question:

The Starks (and any ruling lord) should renounce their lands, after all, they have no more right to it than any other man and ruling based on blood is an inherently unjust system (which if Dany where to end by war, I would support) and its imposible to separate from eugenic notions and supremacist ideals. That being said, I don't think the humans should leave Westeros to the COTF and find somewhere else, based on the same logic too, the land should have no owners, and the humans have been living in Westeros for thousands of years, no one has the right to kick them out. No one had the right to kick the COTF either, mind you, and they should be allowed to live in Westeros or wherever they please actually, but that doesn't mean they have to kick whoever already lives there. Think about the native rights movements in any former colony, none of them ask to get rid of the descendants of the colonizers, they want to share the land (and reparations too, usually, but that's another subject) you can't forbid natives from living in their native land, but the descendants of colonizers are natives too and have nowhere else to go. Or else, where would you send the Northerners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The App is secondary canon.  It's based upon Martin's notes, was produced with his approval, and relies upon his answers to over a hundred questions.

So, I think one should agree that MMD tricked Daenerys into thinking that the sacrifice of a horse would be sufficient to revive Drogo, when she intended to use Rhaego.  Then she tells her she knew what the price was (ie Rhaego) and gives her her justification (he will burn no cities).

It  doesn't do any justice to MMD as a character, to claim that the death of Rhaego was an accident. 

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I didn't say that. I said that taking someone's land is not, in my eyes, a good enough justification for war. Ending slavery, or a madman's rule or any sort of unjust system is, at least in my opinion, a good reason to go to war. Dany murdering the slavers was a good thing to do, one of the better acts of the series (again, in my opinion). But Dany waging war on Westeros just because she feels entitled to rule because on her bloodline? That's plainly evil (imo).

And to answer your question:

The Starks (and any ruling lord) should renounce their lands, after all, they have no more right to it than any other man and ruling based on blood is an inherently unjust system (which if Dany where to end by war, I would support) and its imposible to separate from eugenic notions and supremacist ideals. That being said, I don't think the humans should leave Westeros to the COTF and find somewhere else, based on the same logic too, the land should have no owners, and the humans have been living in Westeros for thousands of years, no one has the right to kick them out. No one had the right to kick the COTF either, mind you, and they should be allowed to live in Westeros or wherever they please actually, but that doesn't mean they have to kick whoever already lives there. Think about the native rights movements in any former colony, none of them ask to get rid of the descendants of the colonizers, they want to share the land (and reparations too, usually, but that's another subject) you can't forbid natives from living in their native land, but the descendants of colonizers are natives too and have nowhere else to go. Or else, where would you send the Northerners?

I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile modern morality (which would generally treat the only just cause for war to be self-defence or to end gross abuse of human rights) with in-universe morality, which holds that war is justified to avenge wrongs done to one's family, and to assert one's rights over land and thrones. 

Pretty much every leader is (in our terms) an oppressor, who holds power by the sword, rather than the consent of the governed. But, is it fair to judge them in that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

The whole khalasar and her life was falling appart and Jorah just told her that Drogo's men will feed her baby to dogs.Of course she jumped at the first opportunity to save her child.Since you keep repeating yourself and deflect questions our conversation will end here if you're ok with that.I'm not in for repeating myself until dawn to a brick wall.

I am supposed to feel sorry for the woman who was ok with sacrificing innocent people to bring back her husband in order for him  to continue killing and destroying whole villages in so she can have a shiny chair back? Not going to happen.

Edited by Lilac & Gooseberries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

The App is secondary canon.  It's based upon Martin's notes, was produced with his approval, and relies upon his answers to over a hundred questions.

So, I think one should agree that MMD tricked Daenerys into thinking that the sacrifice of a horse would be sufficient to revive Drogo, when she intended to use Rhaego.  Then she tells her she knew what the price was (ie Rhaego) and gives her her justification (he will burn no cities).

It  doesn't do any justice to MMD as a character, to claim that the death of Rhaego was an accident. 

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile modern morality (which would generally treat the only just cause for war to be self-defence or to end gross abuse of human rights) with in-universe morality, which holds that war is justified to avenge wrongs done to one's family, and to assert one's rights over land and thrones. 

Pretty much every leader is (in our terms) an oppressor, who holds power by the sword, rather than the consent of the governed. But, is it fair to judge them in that way?

Thank you for our input.You got ahead of my with the answer to @CamiloRP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Errr....yes, she did. In Astapor, when she was killing the masters she ordered them to spare children younger than twelve. Reread that chapter. 

"harm no child under 12" does not mean "kill everyone over 11".I think the Unsullied where clever enough to understand that no child should be hurt elsewise they would still be in Astapor figuring out everyone's age.

 

Edited by Oana_Mika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile modern morality (which would generally treat the only just cause for war to be self-defence or to end gross abuse of human rights) with in-universe morality, which holds that war is justified to avenge wrongs done to one's family, and to assert one's rights over land and thrones. 

Pretty much every leader is (in our terms) an oppressor, who holds power by the sword, rather than the consent of the governed. But, is it fair to judge them in that way?

oh, I agree with you fully, by their standards, Dany, Ned, hell, even Robert are pretty great guys, but given the question (if the Starks should give their land back to the COTF) I decided to answer based on my opinion rather than the story, as that question, I think, goes above the story. I do hope for Dany to realize conquering Westeros wont be a good thing to do, since she conquered Slaver's Bay without having any sense of a claim to it, and she's by far the best ruler the region ever had, and I think these themes are part of the story, so not just my personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oana_Mika said:

"harm no child under 12" does not mean "kill everyone over 11"

"Don't harm me" in this context, and medieval setting generally translates to "please don't kill me." However, it's a bit open for translation.... Stark stans will use it to justify disliking a character, Dany fans will say what you said. Depends, really. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

"harm no child under 12" does not mean "kill everyone over 11".I think the Unsullied where clever enough to understand that no child should be hurt elsewise they would still be in Astapor figuring out everyone's age.

 

In any event, this was a fight situation.  There were teenage soldiers and overseers at Astapor.  No one would be sparing the lives of Robb Stark, or Jon Snow, or Joffrey, or Podrick Payne in a fight, just because they were teenagers. Martin is simply adopting the medieval convention that young teenagers be treated as adults.  They serve in armies, can get married etc.

As an aside, I've always been struck by the way in which  teenagers who are slavers, overseers, and soldiers attract so much more sympathy from Dany's detractors than the thousands of teenage Unsullied or pre-teen "uncut boys" who were liberated.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

 

Thank you for our input.You got ahead of my with the answer to @CamiloRP.

Hey, you are the one who asked a question who had nothing to do with anything completely out of nowhere.

Some of those questions are posed by the story tho. Ygritte talks to Jon about how the land is everyone's land, that Westerosi just stole it by putting a Wall in the middle of it, and the solution we are reaching with the Freefolk? they are allowed in, but the people who stole their lands aren't kicked out, kind of exactly what I said, no?

The story also questions the morality of war for war's sake, we see how terrible war is for people, how people suffer and die in war, yet some wars are remembered better than others, Robert's Rebellion, for exampled, is looked upon more kindly than, let's say, the Dance of the Dragons, that is because Robert's cause was a just one, ending the rule of a tyrant, and the Dance was just about twats wanting to rule because they felt entitled to it, the WOT5K is similar to the Dance, and thus is looked down upon very poorly. Dany has no claim to Mereen, yet she battled, took it, and now is the best ruler Mereen ever had, her war is more than justified. But wanting to bring destruction to Westeros just based on her blood, isn't good or just, and the story poses this, I think Dany will come to that realization tho, she clearly cares for the people, and bringing more war to Westeros won't do any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...