Opinions on the dragons?

[Dracul's Daughter]

3 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Why the life of the hypothetical Unsullied victim is more important than the life of the child?

If Dany would have let potential agressors below 16 to attack the Unsullied,then her idea to free slaves would be more likely to fail.She wanted to be sure that every possible threat to her cause is dealt with.That's why under 12 is safer.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Killing Edric Storm or Trystane or Daenerys would not be made any better or worse had they turned 16.  

Do you mean that there is no problem that if they were killed? 

13 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

You still haven't told me how your masters reinsertion plan would get started without a single drop of blood.

 If you had read what I wrote carefully you would had seen. If you have to kill people then kill the adults and then re-educate the children. If after they come of age they chose to break the law punish them. Create a law for them to break because so far being a slaver wasn't illegal.  Create the law, slavery is illegal, and then kill those who break it.

9 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

If Dany would have let potential agressors below 16 to attack the Unsullied,then her idea to free slaves would be more likely to fail.She wanted to be sure that every possible threat to her cause is dealt with.That's why under 12 is safer.

You think that by killing the head of the family her rule was safe? Really? A younger sibling, a grieving mother, a grieving relative will not seek revenge because? Dany herself is a proof about how killing the head of the family doesn’t mean that the family will accept her enemy’s rule.

[Dracul's Daughter]

1 minute ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

You think that by killing the head of the family her rule was safe? Really? A younger sibling, a grieving mother, a grieving relative will not seek revenge because?

 

3 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

If you have to kill people then kill the adults and then re-educate the children.

Which is it then : kill the adults or not kill them? Make up your mind.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

1 minute ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

Which is it then : kill the adults or not kill them? Make up your mind.

What haven't you understood? Dany had ordered the death of the head of the families. That doesn't mean that other adults, or children, will not be left alive. If you have to be 100% safe you have to kill the whole family because those who are left alive will seek revenge.

[Dracul's Daughter]

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

What haven't you understood? Dany had ordered the death of the head of the families. That doesn't mean that other adults, or children, will not be left alive. If you have to be 100% safe you have to kill the whole family because those who are left alive will seek revenge.

But I thought you were against killing children.Isn't that good that she let them live?

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

Just now, Dracul's Daughter said:

But I thought you were against killing children.Isn't that good that she let them live?

Then her rule wasn't safe and she killed them for nothing. You said that by killing them her rule was safe, while forgetting that the fact that she has a campaing planning to attack Westeros because she was allowed to survive. 

[Dracul's Daughter]

@Lilac & GooseberriesDany was 14 when she became pregnant.That was Ned's aversion to kill her.The baby she had in her womb.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

4 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

@Lilac & GooseberriesDany was 14 when she became pregnant.That was Ned's aversion to kill her.The baby she had in her womb.

So you claim that Ned didn’t care about Dany but about the fetus? Was Cersei right to plan Trystane’s death?

 

[Dracul's Daughter]

24 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Then her rule wasn't safe and she killed them for nothing. You said that by killing them her rule was safe, while forgetting that the fact that she has a campaing planning to attack Westeros because she was allowed to survive. 

I said that she stricked at the masters,soldires and every slaver and not harmed the children that could have fit into those categories.You said that she could have raised the bar at 16 not 12 years old because they were not adults and I explained why she chose under 12 rather then under 16.A boy below 16 many not be consider an adult but he can fight thus he can attack and giving the fact how young the boys were trained there is probably that some of the masters soldiers would have less then 16.

[El Guapo]

Sacking Astapor was Dany's finest moments in my opinion. That place was a hellhole where thousands upon thousands of innocent children were killed by the great masters as they "trained" there are unsullied soldiers over the years.  Someone once calculated years ago  and I forget the exact number but it was something like 40,000 children/babies had to die in order to train the 13,000 unsullied that Dany "bought". Not to mention all the dead puppies!  So good riddance as far as I am concerned.

[Dracul's Daughter]

22 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

So you claim that Ned didn’t care about Dany but about the fetus? Was Cersei right to plan Trystane’s death?

 

I got back and re read the scene :

"Robert, I beg of you," Ned pleaded, "hear what you are saying. You are talking of murdering a child." 

"The whore is pregnant!" The king's fist slammed down on the council table loud as a thunderclap. "I warned you this would happen, Ned. Back in the barrowlands, I warned you, but you did not care to hear it. Well, you'll hear it now. I want them dead, mother and child both, and that fool Viserys as well. Is that plain enough for you? I want them dead." 

Giving Robert's line yes,he was talking about Daenerys being the child that Robert wanted to kill,not only her baby.So he did cared for her.

And no,Cersei wasn't right in planning Trystane's death.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

15 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

I said that she stricked at the masters,soldires and every slaver and not harmed the children that could have fit into those categories.You said that she could have raised the bar at 16 not 12 years old because they were not adults and I explaind why she chose under 12 rather then under 16.A boy below 16 many not be consider an adult but he can fight thus he can attackand giving the fact how young the boys were trained there is probably that some of the masters soldiers would have less then 16.

I am asking you what would stop the families of those 12 years old of seeking revenge? 

3 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

I got back and re read the scene :

"Robert, I beg of you," Ned pleaded, "hear what you are saying. You are talking of murdering a child." 

"The whore is pregnant!" The king's fist slammed down on the council table loud as a thunderclap. "I warned you this would happen, Ned. Back in the barrowlands, I warned you, but you did not care to hear it. Well, you'll hear it now. I want them dead, mother and child both, and that fool Viserys as well. Is that plain enough for you? I want them dead." 

Giving Robert's line yes,he was talking about Daenerys being the child that Robert wanted to kill,not only her baby.

And no,Cersei wasn't right in planning Trystane's death.

Why wasn't ok for Cersei to order Trystane's death? He was a potential danger after all and he was old enough to fight. 

[Dracul's Daughter]

11 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I am asking you what would stop the families of those 12 years old of seeking revenge? 

Why wasn't ok for Cersei to order Trystane's death? He was a potential danger after all and he was old enough to fight. 

Nothing but the fact that Cleon enslaved the former masters and Yunkai finished them all at the end no one was left there alive.

It's wasn't ok for Cersei because Trystane didn't represent any danger to her and because he wasn't involved in any meaning,way or possibility in a direct war with her.Dany had to kill those soldiers,masters and slavers in order to stop the production of the Unsullied and to make a breach in the slave economy.Without Unsullied the master are more vulnerable.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

15 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

Nothing but the fact that Cleon enslaved the former masters and Yunkai finished them all at the end no one was left there alive.

Killing the masters doesn’t mean killing all of their families. That means that all it takes is a grieving relative again that is exactly Dany’s case, the last member of the family that seeks revenge. If you have to be as safe as you can Rains of Castamere is the only option. 

15 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

It's wasn't ok for Cersei because Trystane didn't represent any danger to her and because he wasn't involved in any meaning,way or possibility in a direct war with her.Dany had to kill those soldiers,masters and slavers in order to stop the production of the Unsullied and put and to make a breach in the slave economy.Withouth Unsullied the master are more vulnerable.

Those 12 years old hadn’t turned against Dany either, they have inherited a position that was never illegal and they might had be danger to her rule in the future. She decided to bring the war to them and punnish them for the crimes of their ancestors and what might happen in the future.  How is that not evil and why is it so bad for someone not to chose sides between two evils?

 

It's almost 8 am here and I need at least a 3 hour-long sleep per day. I will go now and I will answer to everything else later.

[Dracul's Daughter]

3 hours ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Killing the masters doesn’t mean killing all of their families. That means that all it takes is a grieving relative again that is exactly Dany’s case, the last member of the family that seeks revenge. If you have to be as safe as you can Rains of Castamere is the only option. 

Those 12 years old hadn’t turned against Dany either, they have inherited a position that was never illegal and they might had be danger to her rule in the future. She decided to bring the war to them and punnish them for the crimes of their ancestors and what might happen in the future.  How is that not evil and why is it so bad for someone not to chose sides between two evils?

 

I always saw her command as avoiding to kill children but you still keep hammering about those poor 12 years boys killed.Between 11 and 12 is not much difference.Those Unsullied I'm sure they weren't asking ID's and birth dates.Children are childred.They can be distinguished from those who are adults.The order was clear : spare the children.

It's bad not to choose sides between two evils because you miss the opportunity of something a little better.Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty if you want to make something good.If Dany has to kill a lot more masters to make a free Slaver's Bay so be it.And just so you understand me : I do not aprove of killing children.I am arguing that with Dany's order not all of them were spared.

Btw,we didn't stick with the OP's question.

 

[Dracul's Daughter]

20 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

It's almost 8 am here and I need at least a 3 hour-long sleep per day. I will go now and I will answer to everything else later.

No problem.I also need some sleep.9 am here

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

Sacking Astapor was Dany's finest moments in my opinion. That place was a hellhole where thousands upon thousands of innocent children were killed by the great masters as they "trained" there are unsullied soldiers over the years.  Someone once calculated years ago  and I forget the exact number but it was something like 40,000 children/babies had to die in order to train the 13,000 unsullied that Dany "bought". Not to mention all the dead puppies!  So good riddance as far as I am concerned.

Her mistake was not to leave some Unsullied behind as a security force, to protect the new council.  Cleon exploited the freed slaves’ desire for revenge, in order to seize power.  Then, the masters fought back with extreme savagery.

[SeanF]

22 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now this topic has been tangentially discussed quite a lot these past few days, so what are your opinions about the dragons? Are they dangerous WMDs that need to be put down, or signs of greatness filled with live and vigor? Or more likely somewhere in between. If so, where exactly in between?

Personally I don't have a concrete opinion, as I think GRRM wrote himself quite badly into a corner on this one, where on one side the parallels to the US and nukes are obvious, but on the other hand the dragons will be essential in fighting the Long Night. And much like GRRM himself, I do not know the answer to this particular conundrum. So, what is your opinion on the dragon?

Going back to the O/P, I think it’s both.  Dragons can be destructive, but they can be necessary.  I think they have to play some part in the defeat of the Others, simply by virtue of being Chekhov’s gun.  

There’s also the view, in universe, that when dragons died, the climate grew colder, which would result in reduced crop yields.

[Daeron the Daring]

@Lilac & Gooseberries, so by your standards (I mean 'evil is evil') a simple lie told is just as evil (or bad, because the opposite of good is still bad, not evil) as a murder with cold blood? If not, then you have chosen a side. A faction. A whatever.

I mean, many religions see every sin as equal to each other, but that's still not how human society ever worked. That's why a murderer deserves more than a thief. And that's why a murderer who even tortured or raped his victim deserves more than someone who killed someone else with a gunshot. Do you think they both deserve the same fate? If not, then you've chosen between bad and worse. Also, why should they stay in prison? I mean, evil is evil, so they don't deserve any worse than someone who lied once. You, with your radical ideals sentence everyone (and I mean every living human being in Planetos) to the worst fate you imagined for someone, simply because evil is evil. Even for the ones that are the dearest to you. Or are they perfect individuals?

Also, I don't get why you're coming up with the 16 year-old Westerosi standard. Nor Daenerys grow up in Westeros, nor Slaver's bay is Westeros. It's a totally different place, with different standards and culture, where 12 year old boys can have a whip on their hand. Also, why is it worse to kill children than anyone else? I mean, evil is evil, nothing is different, if you stick to what you wrote down several times by now. And you also don't see benefit in the death of some masters because you began posting here with a hater's mind. It's that simple. If I don't want to see something, I close my eyes, but that's called ignorance, not something not being there.

Also, a pacifist between violence and less violence would choose the less violence, because it's the more pacifist. It matters if thousands or millions die.

Also, @Dracul's Daughter, I warn you about arguing with Lilac & Gooseberries. I've been arguing with him/her several times in these matters, and it always ended the same way. Refusing to give an answer or explanation, once his arguments began to fail. Tho I think you've already seen that happening.

Sad, how people are still unable to get rid of their personal preferences when they're arguing about something.

[Daeron the Daring]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Going back to the O/P, I think it’s both.  Dragons can be destructive, but they can be necessary.  I think they have to play some part in the defeat of the Others, simply by virtue of being Chekhov’s gun.  

There’s also the view, in universe, that when dragons died, the climate grew colder, which would result in reduced crop yields.

Agreed. Nothing is eternal good or bad. We've seen the benefits and the disadvantages of dragons already. No point of discussion, honestly, unless someone does not want to claim that dragons are pure and eternal good or bad.