the Dany hate thread

[Jon Targaryen]

Dany does initiate sex with her handmaid later on.

[Daemrion]

You may feel that Dany's decision to profit from certain of her citizens' free choice to sell themselves into slavery - even though she does nothing to encourage that choice, and, in fact, the tax serves to actively discourage it - is inconsistent with a general disapproval of slavery. He clearly does not (and, I might add, Dany doesn't either, as her disgust with slavery in general is really pretty clear).

Don't actions speak louder than words?

She may talk and think about slavery is being bad, but when it gets her gold to help in conquering Westeros it suddenly seems to not matter at all. So to claim that she is anti-slavery is a bit disingenuous.

And even if she actually does not like slavery, she doesn't mind benefiting from it. I think that's a bit well, morally corrupt.

Page 430 ASOS Paperback Volume 2. She doesn't even have a second thought. As soon as Missandei points out that Astapor used to take one tenth part of the price, It's suddenly, it will get her gold, sliver, coins or ivory so I'll take it too.

Furthermore, The Lord Dragon said this: (bolds mine)

When she comes upon the realization that there are those who voluntarily prefer being enslaved to freedom, she allows them to do this and taxes it. There is nothing morally wrong with that at all.

I was definitely taking issue with the "there is nothing morally wrong with it at all." That statement does imply that there's nothing wrong with voluntary slavery in TLD's opinion. Whether or not that's just a misstatement or his actual view I don't know. But it did beg the question. And it does bring the moral outrage.

Slavery in general is evil, because it is taking the free will, dignity, and individuality of a person. A person choosing slavery is giving up their free will of their own free will. Nothing has been taken from them.

The whole idea of one human being 'owning' another is so morally repugnant in any situation, that it's absolutely disgusting.

And furthermore, she knows that if they want to change their mind later, they can't because they are owned by someone and a chattel.

ccoa,

And yet you love and defend Jaime Lannister, who participated in the rape and destruction of the Riverlands with absolutely no moral justification. Or is it okay because that's all offscreen

Nailing people alive is entirely Dany's decision because she claims to be Queen (pg 425 ASOS Vol 2 Paperback UK). Since she's so eager to claim the power of being Queen, she should claim the moral responsibility that comes with it.

When have I defended Jaime in his rape and destruction of the Riverlands?

I think he failed Aegon and Rhaenys and Elia at Kings Landing. I think he was bad for not bursting Aerys secret because he was angry/sullen at Ned's eyes. I also think that Elia and the children do weigh on his conscience - it's been shown on-screen.

Furthermore, Jaime is accountable to other people in the story who give him orders that he has to follow. Dany because she says she's Queen is not subject and therefore has to be held to moral accountability.

She has no excuse of saying she was ordered to do so by someone evil or bad.

[Stratonice]

I'm getting really tired of the "sexist"-argument in these debates. It shows up in threads regarding almost every female character as soon as anyone dislikes them (with the possible exception of Cersei, can't remember seeing it with reference to her, but come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised it doesn't turn up more frequently in "I hate Edmure Tully"-threads). Especially when it's just thrown out there without specific references or arguments. It seems like a cheap way of not having to take other peoples opinions seriously.

I don't much like Dany's chapters, mainly because her entire story (so far) is completely disconnected from the rest of the series. She doesn't interact with any of the other major characters, she knows nothing of what's happening in Westeros and no one there knows much about her. Everytime I get to one of her chapters it feels like a "break" from the "real" story. So far, nothing she's seen or thought or done has had any kind of impact what so ever on the rest of the story wich makes her chapters kind of boring simply for being so disconnected from everything else. This is about to change, so we'll see how that will influence my opinion of her chapters.

As for the character Dany (rather than the POV), I have the same problem with her that I have with almost every tennagehero in, more or less, everything I've ever read (count Jon and Theon in this category as well). The fact that she's young doesn't make the fact that she doesn't think things through properly before she acts any less annoying.

My only problem with her intention to re-conquer Westeros is the fact that she believes that she's the only living Targaryen and that she's barren (whether either of these assumptions actually turn out to be true is beside the point). If she's the only now living Targaryen and she can't produce any more, what does she think will happen to the Realm once she's dead? And so far she hasen't given this so much as one single thought.

For the rest, she has a better claim to the Iron Throne than anyone else and to those who said that Stannis would be the legal heir to the Targaryen throne ahead of Dany because Dany as a Targ-female is completely excluded from the line of succession, that doesn't add up since the Targ-blood he has is 1) much further back in time but 2) more importantly he has it through the female line. If Targaryen females are completely excluded from the line of succession then Stannis (and Robert before him) has no claim what so ever to the Targaryen throne since it was a female Targaryen who added the Targ-blood to the Baratheon family.

[ccoa]

Don't actions speak louder than words?

She may talk and think about slavery is being bad, but when it gets her gold to help in conquering Westeros it suddenly seems to not matter at all. So to claim that she is anti-slavery is a bit disingenuous.

Doesn't matter at all? She won't allow anyone to sell anyone else. If she were really in it for the gold, as you claim, she would be encouraging people to sell themselves, wives, children, siblings, etc. You seem to be stuck on this title of slavery.

1. The people are, of their own free will, choosing slavery.

2. It is far closer to being a servant than a slave, for they are paid for their service and then have all their needs met. That's more than most true servants! A "true" servant will often not receive any pay in Westeros (and presumably the Eastern lands as well), the room and board being considered compensation enough.

3. They can buy themselves out of slavery or be freed and take a paid position at a later time.

4. They will be better off as slaves. In Meereen, they are in constant danger of their lives, of dying of starvation, of being killed by former slaves. As a slave, they will be safe, they will have a genteel occupation as a scribe, tutor, etc, they will have comfortable rooms and plenty to eat.

Where exactly is the moral outrage here?

If you can't see that what she's taxing is as different as night from day from what was happening there before, I can only conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

This decision is actually one of the reasons I have hope for Dany. Before, everything was either good or bad, the mark of a child. All slavery was bad. Now, she realizes that there are shades of grey, at least in this one thing. She is maturing. She has learned that under certain circumstances, slavery can be acceptable. Only children believe that the world is made up of absolutes.

The whole idea of one human being 'owning' another is so morally repugnant in any situation, that it's absolutely disgusting.

And furthermore, she knows that if they want to change their mind later, they can't because they are owned by someone and a chattel.

Once again, they choose that state. No one forced it upon them. And how is it really any different than peasants in Westeros, hmmm? Their lords own them and can do whatever they like to them. Do you really think the peasants living on the Clegane lands are any better off or have any more rights?

Plus, since they pocketed the money from their own sale, they can buy themselves out of slavery if they change their mind down the road. That's more opportunity than any peasant or slave forced into slavery.

People choose to do things all the time that they can't always back out of later. That's life. The government has no business stepping in and saying they can't.

When have I defended Jaime in his rape and destruction of the Riverlands?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of defending and liking one character who has performed atrocities, then claiming to hate another for a similar act and seeing no redeeming qualities in one who has also performed an atrocity. There isn't a single character in the books that hasn't done something morally wrong, and many of them have done things "repugnant by our modern standards."

Furthermore, Jaime is accountable to other people in the story who give him orders that he has to follow. Dany because she says she's Queen is not subject and therefore has to be held to moral accountability.

She has no excuse of saying she was ordered to do so by someone evil or bad.

Bullshit. Jaime had the choice to refuse to have anything to do with it. As a member of the Kingsguard, he is no longer anyone but the King's to command, he can tell his father (if it was his father's idea, and not his own) to go stuff himself. He is morally responsible for his own actions. Same goes for any other decision - he can always choose to do the right thing.

Are you objecting to killing slavers, or to the way they were killed? These are people who participated in things like the slave fighting pits, the training of the Unsullied, the horrible murder of 163 children. One hundred sixty-three. It was rough justice, but it was far more justice than any of those abused people had any right to expect.

If the serial murderers of 163 children were given the electric chair or gas chamber (both horrible deaths, BTW), modern people would be celebrating in the streets. You can't even pull the modern viewpoint on this one.

[Errant Bard]

ccoa, I understand what you say about free will, and that people should have the right to sell themselves, kill themselves or more generally dispose of their life how they see fit.

However, when you talk about people selling themselves into slavery, you're talking about people buying and owning slaves, there cannot be one without the other. Do you think it is right for someone to own someone else?

Moreover why have slaves when all you want is servants? Servants or peons exist, so the ones wanting slaves want them for what you cannot do with regular servants, essentially, they are scum, and condoning slavery even a little bit encourages them.

Also, noone is saying being a Clegane peon is better, but "it could be worse" has never been a strong argument. We are talking about someone who is supposed to be good, not a female psycho killer. Suprising to see that you put Dany on the same moral level than Gregor Clegane, though

[L'Sana]

About the slavery issue...it's been a long time since I have reread that chapter so forgive me if I get a few of the details wrong, but here is how I remember it.

When Dany first hears about what's happening, she is horrified. It's only after she hears that people want to sell themselves into slavery that she reconsiders. Remember, at this point she hasn't made her decision to stay in Mereen yet, so she has to think about what will happen to these people once she is gone:

Option A: They come with her on a long, dangerous journey overland to the Free Cities and maybe on to Westeros, where they will face a war. Uncertain, probably deadly future.

Option B: They stay in Mereen. For the former masters, this would be suicide. Even for the slaves, it will be difficult. The core of Mereen's economy has just been gutted. Dany will take large amounts of food to feed her army and freemen, so they will need to get crops planted soon or starve. Sooner or later, it seems likely that the slavery system will be reestablished, like it was in Astapor, and who knows who will be on top when it is. Again, very uncertain future.

Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that some people would choose Option C: A comfortable, if unfree, life in the Free Cities? And if that's their choice, does Dany have any right to prevent them from choosing it when she can't offer anything better? She decides that she doesn't, so she allows it. Once she decides to allow it, she treats it like any other transaction and taxes it.

Is it morally questionable? Yes. Is it anywhere near the same league as Jaime throwing Bran out a window or Theon's murder of the miller's family? No. I would say it isn't even the most morally questionable thing that Dany has done.

[ccoa]

However, when you talk about people selling themselves into slavery, you're talking about people buying and owning slaves, there cannot be one without the other. Do you think it is right for someone to own someone else?

Morality is entirely shades of gray. Is it right to steal? Sometimes, do you need what you're stealing to live? Is it right to kill? Sometimes, will you save your own life or another's? Everything is about the circumstances. If a person has freely chosen slavery, then I do not believe that it is morally wrong for a person to either sell themselves, nor for another person to own them. That is what I mean by absolutes - there is always a circumstance, no matter how improbable, that can make an action "okay." Good and evil are not only in the eye of the beholder, but all about the circumstances.

Doing or even knowing what is morally right is never an easy task. One must look at the circumstances and determine for oneself.

Moreover why have slaves when all you want is servants? Servants or peons exist, so the ones wanting slaves want them for what you cannot do with regular servants, essentially, they are scum, and condoning slavery even a little bit encourages them.

Unpaid servitude and slavery, where is the difference? Would it be somehow better if they were called servants instead? They would still be unpaid, still have little to no options in their life, and still have their very lives owned by their masters.

Dany is accepting that she can't eliminate slavery, no matter how much she loathes it. Her attempts to do so has caused massive amounts of suffering and made little to no impact on the slave trade itself. What would you have her do? Conquer every single city in the world? How could she hold such a vast empire together? How could she eliminate slavery and oppression in every corner of the globe? What will she do about slavery under a different name, such as some of the common folk of Westeros?

There are going to be slaves. Slavery even still exists in our modern world, though we turn a blind eye to it. Given that, how is it encouraging them to allow people who want to be slaves to be slaves? How would it impact them in the least if that tiny trickle of willing slaves dried up? Even if she somehow manages to stop all slavery, everywhere, there are still going to be "scum" out there. And they have unpaid servitude and many other avenues to express themselves through.

For that matter, how is taxing the act encouraging it? One would think you'd be condemning that she allows it at all - taxing it is an expected act of government. Governments tax tobacco products. Does that encourage smoking in any way, shape, or form?

Also, noone is saying being a Clegane peon is better, but "it could be worse" has never been a strong argument. We are talking about someone who is supposed to be good, not a female psycho killer. Suprising to see that you put Dany on the same moral level than Gregor Clegane, though

Uh, I never said it could be worse. I was pointing out that their situation is less like slavery than the common folk "belonging" to some of the more callous lords in Westeros. It doesn't even have to be Clegane - most lords are not as nice to their people as Ned Stark. Remember the lord showing up in court to protest the slaughter of his smallfolk? What did he want? Not justice for them. More smallfolk. As if they were cattle to be bought and sold and traded.

And I was comparing Gregor to slavers, not to Dany, incidentally. I don't particularly like Dany that much, but she's not a monster and she's not morally bankrupt as people would like to imply.

Dany does initiate sex with her handmaid later on.

When was this?

[The Lord Dragon]

Although I'm certain that my help isn't needed for the defense, I'll say this anyway; Daemrion wasn't mis-interperting Lord Dragon's points on slavery, rather pointing out that LD's got a contradiction in his point. If one accepts part of slavery morally, that easily extends to accepting, reluctantly or not, all of slavery morally. That's a well-established tenent of philosphy, accepting part of the whole will lead to accepting the whole.

Anyway, I have to say, I love threads like this. People rant about their opinions as though they're facts, and then get into highly reasonable debates in which most people try to use semantics and manipulation to to suggest 'I'm right and you're wrong.' In my defense; there's nothing wrong with this, nor am I targeting anyone in particular. I just find it amusing.

As for Dany myself, I'm not all that fond of her. I never have been.

Your defense of his argument is just as unintelligent as his is. To argue that accepting part of A will necessarily lead to accpting all of A is just stupid and has no intellectual validity at all. If you have read that in a philosophy book then throw it our because it is garbage!

If you had said that accpting part of Ahas a strong tendency to lead to accpting all of A, then I would at least give it some thought but what you wrote is simply unintelligent.

[The Lord Dragon]

Dany does initiate sex with her handmaid later on.

Please cite.

[Crazydog7]

As much of a Dany hater as I can sometimes be guys we just need to let this thread die. All of this arguments have been hashed out before. Its not likely to change untill ADWD comes out. Its been 7 years since any serious plot development from the Dany side.

[The Lord Dragon]

Quoting Daerion:

As early as pg 108 in AGOT it seems as if she enjoys her wedding night sex. We get the impression that he loved her. By page 230 (which is like her next chapter) she's finding pleasure in her 'bad marriage'. So it's not as bad as other marriages that we have seen intimately - eg. Aerys/Rhaella, Robert/Cersei. It's not as good as Ned/Cat, but it doesn't seem to be written as the worst thing in the world.

The potential is there. And considering that she already does it with her handmaidens who for all intents and purposes are under her control...

This argument just seems sexist to me. The fact that she enjoys sex with her husband is somehow bad? The fact that she still wants sex after her husband has died is bad? The fact that she has lesbian sex once shows she is somehow taking advantage of her handmaidens? You know that last one is certainly wrong since Dany did not initiate the sex and afterwards was clear that she would not do it again. You keep manipulating what actually happened into false scenarios to support your arguments. That's pretty low.

So are you really asserting that there is nothing inherently morally wrong with slavery?

Another poster already called you out for this. Let me add. You are either an idiot are a willful manipulator who is attempting to falsely change my argument to make yourself look better. There is no rational way you can reach the conclusion from my comments that "there is nothing inherently morally wrong with slavery". So either you are really dumb, or you are lacking in the character to have a real debate without resorting to these cheap tricks. I will not put up with it and will keep calling you on it every time.

In any case, you can't really say she doesn't know that these people are actually selling themselves into slavery.

I never said that?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

You can't genuinely claim that she is not supporting the slavery system through her actions. Those who support the system may not be as bad as those who actually do it, but in my book they are still bad.

OK, that's a valid argument but I think that those two actions are so far apart that it is wrong to lump them together. I don't smoke or drink, yet I have no problem with my government taxing them. Does that mean that I am as "bad" as a drunk driver who kills someone? There are degrees to every moral issue and I think these two extremes, being a slaver and taxing a slaver are extremely far apart.

Furthermore, she profits from it and thinks yes, conquering Westeros needs gold. I will get gold from this tax. If she used the gold to institute change - such as helping the free become self-sufficient then that might be praiseworthy. But her first thought is use these taxes for my conquest.

Dany did not decide hey, I need gold, lets allow slavery so I can tax it and get gold. She was briefed on the situation with some former slaves wanting to sell themselves into slavery and made the decision to allow it and tax it and realized that those taxes can help her main goal. Its ok if you think that is a little morally questionable.

I however agree with another poster who said that it shows her maturity in realizing that everything is not black and white and that if she can't stop this, then she could at least use it for taxes. That's being practical in my mind because you can't force people to be free if they don't want to stay free. It may not even be appropriate to use the term slavery for this since they are getting paid at least one lump sum.

So what, in the 21st century we sentence paedophiles to be magically turned into children and then raped? Does our justice system sanction the rape of rapists, strangling of stranglers, torturing of torturers?

I am in law school, so I will tell you that there is a huge difference between justice and the law. In some cases the punishments we meet out to people are much worse than the acts they committed. A person was sentenced to life in prison for stealing videotapes from blockbuster. For a $10 tape he went to jail for life. That is much worse than an eye for an eye. You obviously don't know much about modern justice system. China executes bureaucrats who take bribes, in the US, we often reelect them to public office and call their bribes campaign contributions.

This misrepresents what justice in Christianity is about. Justice in the Christian faith belongs to God.

Please! We are talking about societies. Name me a Christian society that tells people who break the law, its ok my brother, we won't punish you we will leave it in the hands of God. You go home and think about what you have done.

Secondly, most legal systems have moved on from that sort of thinking. We do have things called jails and trials and juries. There are also concepts in criminal law thinking such as rehabilitation. And even where we think about retribution as a function of the criminal law we don't inflict the same thing.

Again, I point to the manner of death. The manner of death is horrible, and the way she treated the bodies afterwards. Hanging the dead bodies in public does hark back lynching and mob justice does it not?

In my experience in law school and studying these issues, most Americans are not interested in rehabilitation and American jails do not make rehabilitation a part of their mission as a general rule, so you are simply wrong about that and I speak as someone who wishes that we had more rehabilitation.

Personally speaking people deserve what they gave to others, if they don't receive it because we are too kind to give it to them, it doen't mean that it is injustice to give someone the same punishment they meeted out to others. I simply disgaree with you here.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that everyone here has read the books multiple times. Doesn't mean that I've absorbed every detail in the book. (That's why I love the Details, Details, Details threads that we have had...)

And it did seem in your zeal to praise her you did seem to miss the part where she profits from the slave trade. Your post sounded like a piece of Dany propaganda...which was inaccurate.

I didn't miss that part, it simply does not take away from the fact that she is genuinely anti-slavery. She isn't playing politics are trying to please anyone, she realizes that it is wrong and takes action to end. Like I said, that was my favorite scene in the series when the Unsullied turned on the slave masters of Astapor.

I know. They do, but for Dany they happen all too quickly. In the space of two chapters she loses Drogo and whoosh she has dragons.

Hate Dany, Love Brienne. Go figure.

She has such few chapters that things do seem to happen quickly for her, but to me they make sense and read well.

Sorry if I was harsh earlier in the post, but I hate it when people misrepresent my posts so they can argue against something that I didn't even argue.

[Errant Bard]

there is always a circumstance, no matter how improbable, that can make an action "okay."

Yes, I concur, but realistically speaking, what are the chances, where Dany is, that slave owners could be the benevolent masters they weren't prior to her arrival? Close to none, right? In doing what she does, she just gives up on trying to break the status quo and reforming the system, instead of pushing, at a cost, for society to adjust to the absence of slaves.

Unpaid servitude and slavery, where is the difference? Would it be somehow better if they were called servants instead? They would still be unpaid, still have little to no options in their life, and still have their very lives owned by their masters.

I think the difference is that if the slave tries to do something with his life of his own accord, he's chased by his master, tortured and killed for the example, all this lawfully. It's not only semantics here, even if the law is weak, it still exists, and slaves just abandon their rights as humans before it.

What would you have her do? Conquer every single city in the world? How could she hold such a vast empire together? How could she eliminate slavery and oppression in every corner of the globe? What will she do about slavery under a different name, such as some of the common folk of Westeros?

In fact, yes, I want her to conquer the world and promote a form of government based on two chambers, one for the lords, of for the common people.

What do you want her to do, accept slavery and move on? Society can be changed, as can be seen by the number of slaves in the streets these days. Someone, one day, started trying, didn't quit and succeeded.

Governments tax tobacco products. Does that encourage smoking in any way, shape, or form?

More than prohibiting it would, yes.

I was just teasing with the Clegane comparison, I admit, I knew you didn't mean that. It's just that it sounded very much like "if it's ok there, it's ok here".

And I was comparing Gregor to slavers, not to Dany, incidentally. I don't particularly like Dany that much, but she's not a monster and she's not morally bankrupt as people would like to imply.

She isn't, and I think we come to the same point from opposite sides, it's just that as the discussion gets heated, the arguments get more absolute.

Personally I feel that the most heat Dany gets is in reaction to the posts painting her as perfect, as "haters" feel that indeed, she isn't perfect, but gray, even if it's light gray. Me, I guess I wish she was more imperfect, but that a problem with her archetype.

[Jaak]

I think the difference is that if the slave tries to do something with his life of his own accord, he's chased by his master, tortured and killed for the example, all this lawfully. It's not only semantics here, even if the law is weak, it still exists, and slaves just abandon their rights as humans before it.

If a brother of Night Watch tries to do something with his life on his own accord, he is killed (even if sometimes not tortured) by any Westerosi lord who encounters him. This applies to volunteers, those sent to Wall for genuine crimes as hardened criminals and those sent there for crimes they are obviously innocent of. Eddard Stark with his honour would have beheaded Benjen if Benjen deserted; and if Aerys had sent Rickard to Wall instead of cooking him, Eddard would have beheaded Rickard for desertion, too (of course, if Rickard did desert).

[Enguerrand]

I'm getting really tired of the "sexist"-argument in these debates. It shows up in threads regarding almost every female character as soon as anyone dislikes them (with the possible exception of Cersei, can't remember seeing it with reference to her, but come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised it doesn't turn up more frequently in "I hate Edmure Tully"-threads). Especially when it's just thrown out there without specific references or arguments.

Well what is your explanation for the vitriol that Catelyn, Sansa and Dany receives?

I certainly don’t think they are above criticism, but the amount and the level they get in proportion to other characters, many of them with far more power and general meaness, is simply absurd.

It almost funny how posters twists themselves inside out to interpret each of their thoughts and actions in the worst possible light.

And I have NEVER seen a thread titled “I hate Edmure Tullyâ€. I can remember dozens such threads each for Sansa and Dany and twice as much for Catelyn.

If she's the only now living Targaryen and she can't produce any more, what does she think will happen to the Realm once she's dead? And so far she hasen't given this so much as one single thought.

Maybe because it’s nonsensical? Of course she has a heir somewhere, just like Rob’s turned out to be in the Vale.

She may talk and think about slavery is being bad, but when it gets her gold to help in conquering Westeros it suddenly seems to not matter at all. So to claim that she is anti-slavery is a bit disingenuous.

And even if she actually does not like slavery, she doesn't mind benefiting from it. I think that's a bit well, morally corrupt.

I think it’s kind of funny how inconsequential your criticism of her are. You have lambasted her for imposing her cultural values destroying the slave economy creating widespread misery and recession, but when she make allowances for this you hit her for supporting the slave trade. You just don’t want to like her.

The whole idea of one human being 'owning' another is so morally repugnant in any situation, that it's absolutely disgusting.

It’s all about context. Most people of today think of slavery as the plantage work in America, and that wasn’t very nice, but it has worked in many other ways. Some of the richest and most powerful men in history has been slaves. In Egypt the slave soldiers were the de facto rulers of the country. And in a feudal society the serfs, while not technically slaves, could easily be mistaken for such.

When have I defended Jaime in his rape and destruction of the Riverlands?

I don’t mean this as a slight, but I honestly wonder if you suffer from amnesia?

That is why I say she had it easy. Martin made it easy for her to get power. Not easy on the scale of Jon "you're LC of the NW now, congrats", but easier than Ned, Robb, Arya, Sansa or Tyrion ever had.

I disagree, A teenage conqueror is implausible, You could say that Alexander the great or Napoleonin had it easy, was lucky, in retrospect , extraordinary things needs extraordinary circumstances. But that is also why they make good stories.

When was this?

In ASOS.

Later, when the time came for sleep, Dany took Irri into bed with her, for the first time since the ship. But even as she shuddered in release and wound her fingers through her handmaid’s thick black hair, she pretended it was Drogo holding her . . . only somehow his face kept turning into Daario’s. If I want Daario I need only say so.

[L'Sana]

Well what is your explanation for the vitriol that Catelyn, Sansa and Dany receives?

I certainly don’t think they are above criticism, but the amount and the level they get in proportion to other characters, many of them with far more power and general meaness, is simply absurd.

It almost funny how posters twists themselves inside out to interpret each of their thoughts and actions in the worst possible light.

And I have NEVER seen a thread titled “I hate Edmure Tullyâ€. I can remember dozens such threads each for Sansa and Dany and twice as much for Catelyn.

I imagine that the reason that there has never been an "I hate Edmure Tully" thread is that it would be almost as pointless as a "I hate Falyse Stokeworth" thread: the character just isn't there enough to be able to spend an entire thread talking about the reasons you don't like him. Though there have been quite a few Battle of Stone Mill debates, which get damn close to Edmure Tully hate, for the most part, hate threads seem more directed towards PoV characters.

It is a fair point, though, that most of the "hate" seems to be devoted to female characters. Has there ever been an "I hate Jon" thread? It seems to me that the reasons for hating him are very similar to the ones for hating Dany.

[ccoa]

Yes, I concur, but realistically speaking, what are the chances, where Dany is, that slave owners could be the benevolent masters they weren't prior to her arrival? Close to none, right? In doing what she does, she just gives up on trying to break the status quo and reforming the system, instead of pushing, at a cost, for society to adjust to the absence of slaves.

We don't actually know how the average slave is treated where these people are going. Clearly, the people who want to sell themselves believe they'll be treated well, and considering they have an insider's view on the system, I would believe them. It would make sense that a "trained" slave would be treated as a valuable resource.

I don't believe she's given up, I believe she's accepted that she can't do everything, at least not right now. Acting too hastily and without thinking is what destroyed Astapor. You can't change the world, or even one city, overnight. Or even in a few months, or years.

I think the difference is that if the slave tries to do something with his life of his own accord, he's chased by his master, tortured and killed for the example, all this lawfully. It's not only semantics here, even if the law is weak, it still exists, and slaves just abandon their rights as humans before it.

I wouldn't bet on it. Arya, as Nan, didn't seem to believe she'd be allowed to leave Harrenhall whenever she felt like it. Instead, Roose Bolton intended to leave her there with the people who hated her, including the woman who threatened to put her in stocks and rape her with a splintery broom handle the minute her protection was gone.

Now some lords might let you go your own way (and where would you go, other than to die, with nothing to your name?), and some might not. But it would be completely luck of the draw.

In fact, yes, I want her to conquer the world and promote a form of government based on two chambers, one for the lords, of for the common people.

What do you want her to do, accept slavery and move on? Society can be changed, as can be seen by the number of slaves in the streets these days. Someone, one day, started trying, didn't quit and succeeded.

No. I want her to consider realistically how to change the world, and how much can be done and how fast. To take it slow and use that intelligence and cunning to change the world, not childish idealism and brutality.

And there are slaves in the streets these days. You just don't always know when you're looking at them. There's a very common sexual fetish that culminates in literally selling oneself into slavery (real slavery, not play restraints and Velcro collars). Not to mention slavery of a darker sort in many third world countries...

More than prohibiting it would, yes.

Oh? When I was a teenager, it was easier to get drugs than alcohol or cigarettes. Prohibiting them doesn't seem to make them any less prevalent. Prohibiting tobacco might or might not reduce the amount of it used (I tend to think not, it might in fact increase tobacco use), and it would cut off a large chunk of revenue for the government.

I really don't see how removing the tax would do anything but encourage more tobacco use, since it would be cheaper. And it's the tax that seems to be the sticking point for Daemrion.

I was just teasing with the Clegane comparison, I admit, I knew you didn't mean that. It's just that it sounded very much like "if it's ok there, it's ok here".

Sorry for being prickly about it. I hate my arguments being misconstrued that way. :/

Personally I feel that the most heat Dany gets is in reaction to the posts painting her as perfect, as "haters" feel that indeed, she isn't perfect, but gray, even if it's light gray. Me, I guess I wish she was more imperfect, but that a problem with her archetype.

That makes quite a bit of sense.

There was a Edmure hate thread, sort of. What's so bad about Edmure?

[The OTHER other]

Oh? When I was a teenager, it was easier to get drugs than alcohol or cigarettes. Prohibiting them doesn't seem to make them any less prevalent. Prohibiting tobacco might or might not reduce the amount of it used (I tend to think not, it might in fact increase tobacco use), and it would cut off a large chunk of revenue for the government.

I really don't see how removing the tax would do anything but encourage more tobacco use, since it would be cheaper. And it's the tax that seems to be the sticking point for Daemrion.

There was a Edmure hate thread, sort of. What's so bad about Edmure?

--------------

You are making the point you seem to want to refute.

-------------

I think Edmure gets little few hate threads because he seems so clearly a feckless and pathetic character--annoying to be around but such a minor player.

Now watch as he gets chapters and chapters from his POV in the next book.

[Dacey]

I was definitely taking issue with the "there is nothing morally wrong with it at all." That statement does imply that there's nothing wrong with voluntary slavery in TLD's opinion.

If someone said they thought Jon had done nothing morally wrong by killing Qhorin, would you reply “Are you really saying there’s nothing wrong with the taking of innocent human life?†If they said Jaime did nothing wrong when he killed Aerys, would you reply “Are you really saying there’s nothing wrong with murder, treason and oathbreaking?†If they said Ned had done nothing wrong when he gave a false confession, would you reply “Are you really saying there’s nothing wrong with lying under oath, protecting murderers, and supporting an illegal government?â€

All of those would be, at best, silly responses. You can argue that Jon, Jaime and Ned were wrong to do those things, but it would be stupid to try to do that by ignoring the context of those characters’ acts. Jon kills Qhorin because the alternative is disobeying orders, getting them both killed anyway, and being unable to get any information back to the Watch. Jaime kills Aerys because the alternative is letting him commit mass murder. Ned lies because the alternative would get Sansa killed. When people defend those characters, you know perfectly well they’re not saying they think lies and murder are morally acceptable in general; they’re saying that those acts were justified in those particular situations. This is why I’m saying you’re being disingenuous: you accuse LD of saying there’s nothing wrong with slavery when, in fact, he only said that there’s nothing wrong with what Dany did in her particular situation, and I think you know the difference.

You also generally seem to be ignoring the context of Dany’s actions. You accuse her of supporting slavery without bringing up any of the context – it’s because of her own actions that these people are now in a situation they consider worse than slavery; she’s worried a repeat of the coup in Astapor; people only do this if they have skills that protect them from the worst abuses of slavery; she forbids the traditional sale of wives and children; and although she profits from the sales, she does nothing to encourage them, and in fact the tax serves to discourage them. It’d be one thing if you acknowledged these factors and explained why you think they don’t matter, but you didn’t even mention the major fact that Dany only permits voluntary slavery until someone else brought it up. (Your last post also seems to imply that her desire for profit was what motivated her to allow the slave trade, which is completely false – the tax is not mentioned until after she’s made the decision.)

And you call her a Cersei-clonebot when she executes the Mereenese leaders, without acknowledging the obvious differences from anything Cersei does – Dany is seeking justice on behalf of complete strangers, while Cersei never has any concern for other human beings besides Jaime and her kids; Cersei orders the torture or death of anyone she doesn’t like, or even random people if she’ll benefit from it, while Dany is punishing people who have had over a hundred children murdered in an attempt protect their right to own slaves; and Dany repeatedly feels guilty and wonders if she did the right thing, while Cersei routinely does monstrous things without any sign of conscience. Even if she really is like Cersei, it’s absurd to just call her a Cersei clone without acknowledging the obvious differences.

That’s not to say you can’t make a valid argument that Dany wasn’t justified in allowing people to sell themselves into slavery, or in the way she executed the Great Masters, or even that at her worst she’s morally indistinguishable from Cersei. It’s just that your arguments have ignored so much of the context surrounding her actions that they’re hard to take seriously.

Here, I’ll help: if you think Dany was wrong about the slave sales, tell us what exactly she should have done in that situation. No fair saying she shouldn’t have conquered Mereen in the first place, that’s not the discussion here (and would it be right to let the slave trade go on undiminished just to keep her own hands clean?). Are you really saying even though Dany destroyed those people’s old lives, she has a right to tell them they can’t make their own decision about how to make the best of the situation, because their decision is one she finds distasteful? If her actions condemned them to lives of squalor and they can’t escape, and she takes away even their freedom to choose a different kind of bondage, doesn’t that also make her morally closer to a slaver? If you'd try to improve their lives until they're better than even really nice slave positions, how would you do it, and are you sure it'd work, and do you really think you'd have a right to stop them from making their own choices now just based on your hope that your plan will work better? Or should she allow voluntary slave sales but refuse to tax them, even though the tax discourages the purchase of slaves by driving up prices, and takes money out of the purses of slave-buyers – money they’d otherwise likely use to buy more slaves? Or should she tax it but not use the money, even though those sold are just as enslaved whether she profits or not?

[Demonic Weasel]

Your defense of his argument is just as unintelligent as his is. To argue that accepting part of A will necessarily lead to accpting all of A is just stupid and has no intellectual validity at all. If you have read that in a philosophy book then throw it our because it is garbage!

If you had said that accpting part of Ahas a strong tendency to lead to accpting all of A, then I would at least give it some thought but what you wrote is simply unintelligent.

So... in other words your own knee-jerk response to non-offensive posts that are offering an interpertation of other posts that you have made is to be insulting about it?

And anyway, you're right. I worded that poorly. Your wording is better. I give you that one.

[Daemrion]

This argument just seems sexist to me. The fact that she enjoys sex with her husband is somehow bad? The fact that she still wants sex after her husband has died is bad? The fact that she has lesbian sex once shows she is somehow taking advantage of her handmaidens? You know that last one is certainly wrong since Dany did not initiate the sex and afterwards was clear that she would not do it again. You keep manipulating what actually happened into false scenarios to support your arguments. That's pretty low.

Now who's low.

I don't like Robert for whoring around, and also for 'raping' Cersei. I promise you it's not sexist at all.

Another poster already called you out for this. Let me add. You are either an idiot are a willful manipulator who is attempting to falsely change my argument to make yourself look better. There is no rational way you can reach the conclusion from my comments that "there is nothing inherently morally wrong with slavery". So either you are really dumb, or you are lacking in the character to have a real debate without resorting to these cheap tricks. I will not put up with it and will keep calling you on it every time.

In any case, you were the one that asserted that there is nothing morally wrong with Dany supporting the slavery system.

OK, that's a valid argument but I think that those two actions are so far apart that it is wrong to lump them together. I don't smoke or drink, yet I have no problem with my government taxing them. Does that mean that I am as "bad" as a drunk driver who kills someone? There are degrees to every moral issue and I think these two extremes, being a slaver and taxing a slaver are extremely far apart.

Remember you're not the government of the USA. She is both a person and the government at the same time. Because she claims she's Queen.

And as for the tax. If the government taxes something, besides discouraging it (which may be true), it also says that the government implicitly okays the activity as legal.

So she is supporting slavery.

I am in law school, so I will tell you that there is a huge difference between justice and the law. In some cases the punishments we meet out to people are much worse than the acts they committed. A person was sentenced to life in prison for stealing videotapes from blockbuster. For a $10 tape he went to jail for life. That is much worse than an eye for an eye. You obviously don't know much about modern justice system. China executes bureaucrats who take bribes, in the US, we often reelect them to public office and call their bribes campaign contributions.

I'm about to graduate law school, I've finished all my subjects including a whole year of criminal law.

A person sentenced to life in prison for stealing videotapes. Did he manage to kill someone while doing it? Give the case link if you please.

Please! We are talking about societies. Name me a Christian society that tells people who break the law, its ok my brother, we won't punish you we will leave it in the hands of God. You go home and think about what you have done.

Isn't there the whole thing about the seal of the confessional, or privilege?

In my experience in law school and studying these issues, most Americans are not interested in rehabilitation and American jails do not make rehabilitation a part of their mission as a general rule, so you are simply wrong about that and I speak as someone who wishes that we had more rehabilitation.

True. I want more rehabilitation too. But I think we've moved past the straight eye for an eye justice. Even though retribution definitely the main game in criminal justice, that said, we don't do anything barbaric like that.

Personally speaking people deserve what they gave to others, if they don't receive it because we are too kind to give it to them, it doen't mean that it is injustice to give someone the same punishment they meeted out to others. I simply disgaree with you here.

That's cool.

I didn't miss that part, it simply does not take away from the fact that she is genuinely anti-slavery. She isn't playing politics are trying to please anyone, she realizes that it is wrong and takes action to end. Like I said, that was my favorite scene in the series when the Unsullied turned on the slave masters of Astapor.

Mmm...I still think she can't really say she's anti-slavery when she's benefiting from it. It does rather seem hypocritical of her to do so.

Enguerrand,

I don’t mean this as a slight, but I honestly wonder if you suffer from amnesia?

It's been a while since there's been debate about the War of the Five Kings. It must have slipped my mind.

Dacey,

You also generally seem to be ignoring the context of Dany’s actions. You accuse her of supporting slavery without bringing up any of the context – it’s because of her own actions that these people are now in a situation they consider worse than slavery; she’s worried a repeat of the coup in Astapor; people only do this if they have skills that protect them from the worst abuses of slavery; she forbids the traditional sale of wives and children; and although she profits from the sales, she does nothing to encourage them, and in fact the tax serves to discourage them. It’d be one thing if you acknowledged these factors and explained why you think they don’t matter, but you didn’t even mention the major fact that Dany only permits voluntary slavery until someone else brought it up. (Your last post also seems to imply that her desire for profit was what motivated her to allow the slave trade, which is completely false – the tax is not mentioned until after she’s made the decision.)

Look, I won't give a long winding answer bar slavery is inherently wrong in all circumstances in my opinion. I would have thought that humanity in the 21st century would support this view.

That’s not to say you can’t make a valid argument that Dany wasn’t justified in allowing people to sell themselves into slavery, or in the way she executed the Great Masters, or even that at her worst she’s morally indistinguishable from Cersei. It’s just that your arguments have ignored so much of the context surrounding her actions that they’re hard to take seriously.

Do we even need the context for such things?

I don't think things like 9/11 need context. Some things are just plain wrong. Like nailing 163 people to death, like slavery.

As for what Dany should have done. Not tax would be a good start, or even if she taxed instead of thinking of using it for her grand conquest, use the money for the people. For education, for helping the people to be free of slavery.

ccoa,

3. They can buy themselves out of slavery or be freed and take a paid position at a later time.

Really? Do you have a source for that in text?

Are you objecting to killing slavers, or to the way they were killed?

The way they were killed.

As for Jaime, he is no matter what still responsible to others. Dany says that she is not. Of course Jaime can choose, but there are legal consequences. Dany can choose but for her there aren't legal consequences.