Opinions on the dragons?

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yeah, exactly. We're here debating semantics of how many children were actually killed, and how they were recognized, but the fact of the matter remains that Dany ordered the deaths of all children over the age of 12. Whether that was carried out or not doesn't matter, she did order it regardless.

Joffrey was 13.  Robb wished for his head, and Stannis would have executed him without compunction. Everyone but his mother cheered when he was poisoned.  This is a world where teenagers bear arms, wield whips, geld boys, and give orders, and where adulthood (if not full majority) begins at a much earlier age than in the modern West. 

This is a world where men are drooling over Sansa’s and Dany’s hot 12 year old bodies.

[Dracul's Daughter]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Joffrey was 13.  Robb wished for his head, and Stannis would have executed him without compunction. Everyone but his mother cheered when he was poisoned.  This is a world where teenagers bear arms, wield whips, geld boys, and give orders, and where adulthood (if not full majority) begins at a much earlier age than in the modern West.

This is a world where men are drooling over Sansa’s and Dany’s hot 12 year old bodies.

Also,if Robb started a war for his father and he was 15-16 years old,Jon became Lord Commader and Dany sacked Astapor at 15 why would she think a boy around her age would not fight?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

Also,if Robb started a war for his father and he was 15-16 years old,Jon became Lord Commader and Dany sacked Astapor at 15 why would she think a boy around her age would not fight?

An awful lot of it is due to Martin’s decision to have his child protagonists begin their stories at an early age.  Despite being all under 16, they are treated in many ways as adults, and expected to carry adult responsibilities.

[Dracul's Daughter]

Just now, SeanF said:

An awful lot of it is due to Martin’s decision to have his child protagonists begin their stories at an early age.  Despite being all under 16, they are treated in many ways as adults, and expected to carry adult responsibilities.

It's kinda hard to really imagine them at the age that Martin actually gave them.Specially Arya.

[Dracul's Daughter]

11 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

This is a world where men are drooling over Sansa’s and Dany’s hot 12 year old bodies.

This is a world where girls are treated as women as soon as they get their period (usually around 13 years old).Why boys would be treated as men later,from 16 above?Dany at 14 is already pregnant.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

48 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Joffrey was 13.  Robb wished for his head, and Stannis would have executed him without compunction. Everyone but his mother cheered when he was poisoned.  This is a world where teenagers bear arms, wield whips, geld boys, and give orders, and where adulthood (if not full majority) begins at a much earlier age than in the modern West. 

Thing is, Joffrey was a sadistic piece of shit. He was the exception rather than the rule. Did Dany personally knew all the Astapori 13 year olds?

[Dracul's Daughter]

12 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Thing is, Joffrey was a sadistic piece of shit. He was the exception rather than the rule. Did Dany personally knew all the Astapori 13 year olds?

No,but she figured out that if she at 14 became a mother and sacked Astapor at 15 a boy around that age would fight back.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

 

1 hour ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

I still stand by my argument that she did not murdered children as is not a precise way to guess a boy's age.Thus 12 and 13 years old were also spared since I repeat : IT'S NOT SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 11,12 AND 13 YEARS BOYS. And if Robb,Jon and her are more or less the same age and rule,they are not kids anymore,are they? Thus only ones from 16 years old and above are adults is false.It would be a huge difference between a boy who has 15 years,15 and 10 months or a 16 years old one?I guess not really.In a Mediaval world,the adulthood comes earlier no?

And I will still stand by opinion that they were children since in Westerosi society the adulthood is at 16. That is why before 16 Aegon III and Jaehaerys I needed Regents. They were Kings and they couldn’t make their own decisions until the age of 16. But you still haven’t answered me how the killing of the head of the family eliminates a future danger?

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think the issue so much is age as circumstance.  Trystane has done nothing to merit being killed by Cersei.  Killing wives and daughters of enemies is typically frowned on in this world, in the case of Daenerys. Edric has done nothing to justify his death.  But that would be so, whether each one was 14, 16, or 20. 

To take another example, what makes the murder of Robb Stark wrong is not that he is 15, but that it is done by his vassal, in his own home.

But if someone is seizing a stronghold, almost certainly there will be boys aged 12+ holding weapons, and almost certainly, they will get killed.  

Dany got married in order for Drogo's help to attack Westeros. If the fact that someone doesn't make their own decisions means nothing then there is no reason why she shouldn’t die for conspiring against Robert. If we pre punish crimes that might happen in the future then we open a new can of worms. This concept was very interenstngly examined in Minority Report.

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

But there's no such thing as chosing neither, chosing neither is chosing things to remain the same, so in this situation you would be chosing between slavery and no slavery and you would chose slavery.

That is your opinion, mine is that I chose not to kill children who knew nothing better. The answer is to change the society not to kill the future of society. Those children will have grieving families left behind and sooner or later they will look for revenge. If the difference is having dead children in my conscious or have their blood on my hands I chose the former.

 

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

1 minute ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

No,but she figured out that if she at 14 became a mother and sacked Astapor at 15 a boy around that age would fight back.

Fight back nukes and trained assassins? How exactly?

[Dracul's Daughter]

15 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

And I will still stand by opinion that they were children since in Westerosi society the adulthood is at 16. That is why before 16 Aegon III and Jaehaerys I needed Regents. They were Kings and they couldn’t make their own decisions until the age of 16. But you still haven’t answered me how the killing of the head of the family eliminates a future danger?

And if adulthood is not considered for boys until 16 why is Jon a Lord Commander?

Killing the head of a family that thrived on slavery does not eliminate a future danger to her but to the slaves she freed.Eliminates the possibility that more unsullied to be made,more babies to be killed and more puppies strangled.That's what you missunderstood.I was talking about stopping a threat to making unsullied,not a threat to her.

[Dracul's Daughter]

11 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Fight back nukes and trained assassins? How exactly?

Firstly,her dragons were merely as large as dogs at that point.Secondly,do you really think they would have just stood there without having or searching for a way to fight back?Thirdly,a boy more or less at her age would not want reeducation,would want retribution.

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Thing is, Joffrey was a sadistic piece of shit. He was the exception rather than the rule. Did Dany personally knew all the Astapori 13 year olds?

We’re not talking about killing every Astapori teen.  Most teens in Astapor are slaves.  We’re talking about killing discrete groups in the Plaza of Pride, slavers, soldiers, masters, overseers, some of whom are teens, in a military action.  Any Westerosi commander will kill teens when he takes a stronghold.

Pod is a nice guy, but Stannis’ men would still have cut him down, had they stormed Kings Landing.  

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

10 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

And if adulthood is not considered for boys until 16 why Jon si Lord Commander?

Killing the head of a family that thrived on slavery does not eliminate a future danger to her but to the slaves she freed.Eliminates the posibility that more unsullied to be made,mote babies to be killed and more puppies stangled.That's what you missunderstood.I was talking about stopping a threat to making unsullied,not a threat to her.

Jon was 16 to 17 when he became the Lord Commander not 12. That is why Jaehaerys I and Aegonn III had Regents and Aegon's first order when he could make his own orders was to fire them all.

Killing a 12 years old doesn't eliminate any threat at all because someone else will take the power and then what? Kill the next one and the next one and the next one? When will end? When there are no more family members to kill?

6 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

Firstly,her dragons were merely as large as dogs at that point.Secondly,do you really think they have just stood there without having or searching for a way to fight back?Thirdly,a boy more or less at her age would not wat reeducation,would want retribution.

Small or  large they were still nukes. You still haven't answered me. Do you think the families of the children that were killed will accept that she killed them and they will move on or they will seek revenge? 

[CamiloRP]

13 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

That is your opinion, mine is that I chose not to kill children who knew nothing better. The answer is to change the society not to kill the future of society. Those children will have grieving families left behind and sooner or later they will look for revenge. If the difference is having dead children in my conscious or have their blood on my hands I chose the former.

I'm not excusing the murder of children, the death of Hazzea or the torture of the wine merchant's daughters. But you can't equate Dany to the masters. By doing so you are equating no slavery and a few deaths in war with systemic slavery and systemic murder. And again, if you are placed in a position in which you have to chose between keeping things as they are or acting and changing them, and you decide to do neither, you are keeping things as they are, so, you would be choosing to keep the slavery system.

[Dracul's Daughter]

10 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Jon was 16 to 17 when he became the Lord Commander not 12. That is why Jaehaerys I and Aegonn III had Regents and Aegon's first order when he could make his own orders was to fire them all.

Killing a 12 years old doesn't eliminate any threat at all because someone else will take the power and then what? Kill the next one and the next one and the next one? When will end? When there are no more family members to kill?

Small or  large they were still nukes. You still haven't answered me. Do you think the families of the children that were killed will accept that she killed them and they will move on or they will seek revenge? 

They may seek revenge but it would have been very unlikely to get it.The slaves overruned slavers in number and the majority the latters left alive were women and children.And Jon was 15 not 16 to 17.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Pod is a nice guy, but Stannis’ men would still have cut him down, had they stormed Kings Landing.  

Pod was an armed combatant.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Any Westerosi commander will kill teens when he takes a stronghold.

Yes, but the only other Westerosi leader to deliberately order the slaughter of civilians is Tywin.

Not a very flattering compassion.

Look, I'm not saying the Sack, was wrong, neither that she shouldn't have killed every single master, because she should have, but the age limit and the vagueness of her instructions are uncaring at best, malicious at worst.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

1 minute ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

They may seek revenge but it would have been very unlikely to get it.The slaves overruned slavers in number and the majority the latters left alive were women and children.And Jon was 14 not 16 to 17.

Jon was born in 283 and became the Lord Commander in 300. 300-283=17.

It was unlikely that the Dornish will take back Dorne after the Conquest of Dorne but it did happened. Being unlikely means nothing the danger in order to eliminate the danger you will have to go full Tywin on them.

[Dracul's Daughter]

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Jon was born in 283 and became the Lord Commander in 300. 300-283=17.

It was unlikely that the Dornish will take back Dorne after the Conquest of Dorne but it did happened. Being unlikely means nothing the danger in order to eliminate the danger you will have to go full Tywin on them.

I eddited my answer.He was 15 when he was chosen as Lord Commander.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Pod was an armed combatant.

Yes, but the only other Westerosi leader to deliberately order the slaughter of civilians is Tywin.

Not a very flattering compassion.

Look, I'm not saying the Sack, was wrong, neither that she shouldn't have killed every single master, because she should have, but the age limit and the vagueness of her instructions are uncaring at best, malicious at worst.

The soldiers and overseers were armed.  Granted, we don’t know if the slavers and masters were armed.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

Just now, Dracul's Daughter said:

I eddited my answer.He was 15 when he was chosen as Lord Commander.

300-283=17.