So did Dany have that little girl tortured?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Very funny. However just because someone is an unfeeling scumbag, doesn't mean you have the right to brutally execute them. They must have been involved for it to be okay to execute them.

In ballpark terms, what proportion of the Meereenese nobility do you think were either opposed to, or unaware of, the murder of 163 children?

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In ballpark terms, what proportion of the Meereenese nobility do you think were either opposed to, or unaware of, the murder of 163 children?

Some, at least. Those afraid of retaliation for that, and those not wanting to waste valuable assets at the very least. And while you might say only some of them were innocent, probably a minority, with the vast majority being in favor, it doesn't matter. It's a legal principle as old as time (or to put it more accurately, as long as Rome), better to let several guilty persons walk free than to wrongfully convict one innocent person. That's why nowadays the threshold for conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt".

In Latin it's called In Dubio Pro Reo I think.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

My contention is that killing random people for something that they may or may not had done based solely on their family and their social status is wrong.

No doubt, the childrens' parents would agree.  I've always found it strange how the crucifixion of the children seems to get handwaved by people who get upset for the Great Masters.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

No doubt, the childrens' parents would agree.  I've always found it strange how the crucifixion of the children seems to get handwaved by people who get upset for the Great Masters.

Simple. Because those guys are the villains, there aren't any expectations from them. Dany is supposed to be the hero, of course we expect things from her.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Some, at least. Those afraid of retaliation for that, and those not wanting to waste valuable assets at the very least. And while you might say only some of them were innocent, probably a minority, with the vast majority being in favor, it doesn't matter. It's a legal principle as old as time (or to put it more accurately, as long as Rome), better to let several guilty persons walk free than to wrongfully convict one innocent person. That's why nowadays the threshold for conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt".

In Latin it's called In Dubio Pro Reo I think.

That doesn't sound like the Roman Empire I've read about.  6,000 crucified slaves say "hello," along with Sejanus' children, the victims of Sulla and the Triumvirate etc.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

No doubt, the childrens' parents would agree.  I've always found it strange how the crucifixion of the children seems to get handwaved by people who get upset for the Great Masters.

I have never seen anyone to make excuses for those who killed the children. Nonetheless the hero committing mass murders with no trial or any questioning isn’t acceptable either.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, SeanF said:

That doesn't sound like the Roman Empire I've read about.  6,000 crucified slaves say "hello."

You do know those were all rebels, right? Also, while not legally wrong, what Crassus did was pretty reviled by most Romans, who considered swift executions or sending them to the mines to have been a far juster punishment. Also Rome was basically under martial law then, the senate having passed the Senatus Consultum Ultimum

Also, also, the Roman legal system was for citizens and free men.

Not excusing anything, just pointing out how the two are compatible.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Nonetheless the hero committing mass murders with no trial or any questioning isn’t acceptable either.

Exactly. Remember the point GRRM keeps yapping about. Revenge begets revenge begets revenge, with none coming out the better man. It's a process that only ends at justice or forgiveness, none of which Dany provides.

[El Guapo]

1 minute ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I have never seen anyone to make excuses for those who killed the children. Nonetheless the hero committing mass murders with no trial or any questioning isn’t acceptable either.

In this world that Martin created it is quite acceptable really. It is actually the norm.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Daeron the Daring said:

Why would they arrest 8 year old children? You imagine they were just hangin out anywhere and the children were arrested because they're the daughters of that man? Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Not for the Shavepate, no

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You do know those were all rebels, right? Also, while not legally wrong, what Crassus did was pretty reviled by most Romans, who considered swift executions or sending them to the mines to have been a far juster punishment. Also Rome was basically under martial law then, the senate having passed the Senatus Consultum Ultimum

Also, also, the Roman legal system was for citizens and free men.

Not excusing anything, just pointing out how the two are compatible.

Crassus was voted an Ovation.

And, the victims of the proscriptions were citizens.  Roman law might look fine in principle, but it was a paper shield for the vast majority.

The idea that anybody in A Game of Thrones type world would be holding individual trials for members of a class that committed an atrocity is for the birds.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not for the Shavepate, no

Talk bullshit, then.  

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

Just now, El Guapo said:

In this world that Martin created it is quite acceptable really. It is actually the norm.

From my personal standpoint it’s up to the reader to excuse mass murders or not. I don’t like villains and to quote Andrzej Sapkowsk

Quote

Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

And, the victims of the proscriptions were citizens.  Roman law might look fine in principle, but it was a paper shield for the vast majority.

Again, you're giving the most extreme examples. Yes proscriptions were awful, but they only happened two times during the whole Republican Era. And they were certainly not the norm. Caesar never even dreamt of using them, which makes Brutus and co assassinating's him leading to prescriptions all the funnier.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The idea that anybody in A Game of Thrones type world would be holding individual trials for members of a class that committed an atrocity is for the birds.

Ahem, Cregan Stark might have a word with you

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I have never seen anyone to make excuses for those who killed the children. Nonetheless the hero committing mass murders with no trial or any questioning isn’t acceptable either.

Would the parents of the children consider it to be "mass murder?"  I very much doubt it.    We are talking about a very narrow section of the adult male population, in a society where the vast majority are slaves.  You're treating Slavers Bay as if it is 21st century Europe, when medieval North Africa would be a far closer comparison.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Again, you're giving the most extreme examples. Yes proscriptions were awful, but they only happened two times during the whole Republican Era. And they were certainly not the norm. Caesar never even dreamt of using them, which makes Brutus and co assassinating's him leading to prescriptions all the funnier.

Ahem, Cregan Stark might have a word with you

In fact, no.  The followers of the Gracchi and Saturninus were summarily executed too.  The Emperors were pretty keen on summary punishment when it suited them, too.

Cregan imposed collective punishment, over the course of one day.  It was execution or take the black.  Corlys Velaryon got off simply because he had powerful allies.  There was nothing judicious about this. 

[El Guapo]

8 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

From my personal standpoint it’s up to the reader to excuse mass murders or not. I don’t like villains and to quote Andrzej Sapkowsk

 

You can judge any character how you want to but to expect one character to adhere to some 21st century justice systems that literally doesn't exist anywhere in this world that Martin created seems kind of silly to me.  Not to mention based on your standards the majority of the people in this story must be villains including the old King in the North Robb Stark. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In fact, no.  The followers of the Gracchi and Saturninus were summarily executed too.  The Emperors were pretty keen on summary punishment when it suited them, too.

Weren't we talking about the republic here?

And you're giving me examples when the romans didn't stick to their morals, and yeah fair enough, but the fact of the matter is that principles like In Dubio Pro Reo were followed way more often than not. How do you think Cicero became a famous lawyer otherwise?

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Would the parents of the children consider it to be "mass murder?"  I very much doubt it.    We are talking about a very narrow section of the adult male population, in a society where the vast majority are slaves.  You're treating Slavers Bay as if it is 21st century Europe, when medieval North Africa would be a far closer comparison.

I don’t want to start a pointless back and forward with the same things over and over again. From my personal standpoint mass murder with no trial is villainous and it’s up to the reader to excuse it or not. I don’t like villains and to quote Andrzej Sapkowski

Quote

Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, El Guapo said:

Not to mention based on your standards the majority of the people in this story must be villains including the old King in the North Robb Stark. 

I mean he kinda is a bit. He continues the war out of sheer pride, vengeance and arrogance, when after the Blackwater it was clearly time to bend the bloody knee. Accepting the title of King in the North was equally as stupid. No way the North could hold the RIverlands against whoever won out in the South. So Robb might not have been ill intentioned, but many of his actions did cause suffering for no reason what so ever,