The Targ fire RESISTANCE debate...

[WildBlood]

Do you have any reason to claim that when dragons in ASoIaF breathe fire, that the fire goes in 'all directions'? Because I'm fairly certain we have never seen this happen and the examples of fire-breathing we have seen have been of fire projecting unidirectionally from the dragon's mouth. Or are you imagining the dragons flailing their heads wildly and rapidly to achieve this 'all direction' effect?- another thing that we have never seen occur.

Yea, it seems to me that the dragon flame we have seen in the books was almost liquid like. Almost like spraying a hose, very concentrated and controlled I thought.

[Stannis Lives]

Do you have any reason to claim that when dragons in ASoIaF breathe fire, that the fire goes in 'all directions'? Because I'm fairly certain we have never seen this happen and the examples of fire-breathing we have seen have been of fire projecting unidirectionally from the dragon's mouth. Or are you imagining the dragons flailing their heads wildly and rapidly to achieve this 'all direction' effect?- another thing that we have never seen occur.

Yeah. The dragons head moves. It doesn't stay pointed straight ahead. The dragon would be spraying fire in all directions and simultaneously flying at good speeds. Recipe for disaster.

[Stannis Lives]

That isn't the sole logical inference of that statement though, it's the one you've chosen to make.

Correct. It's ambiguous. That was my point.

[WhiteWalder]

Well put

Thx. :cheers: This forum is the last place I thought I would ever reference a NASCAR driver. :dunce:

[danm_999]

Correct. It's ambiguous. That was my point.

But you haven't treated it as such, you've used it as evidence of a point by assigning it a fixed translation (or what you believe the quote actually means), specifically that some Targaryens are immune to fire sometimes. You can't say the quote is both ambiguous, and has a fixed meaning which proves your general point.

You've also claimed in post #331 that it accomplishes the opposite of stating Targaryens are fire resistance, when the quote does not deal with the issue of fire resistance at all, but immunity.

[Ygrain]

resistant

adj

1.

characterized by or showing resistance; resisting

2.

a.

impervious

to the action of corrosive substances, heat, etc

a highly resistant surface

b.

(

in combination

)

a heat-resistant surface

immune

adj.

1.

Not subject to an obligation imposed on others; exempt:

immune from taxation; immune from criminal prosecution.

2.

Not affected

by a given influence; unresponsive:

immune to persuasion.

3.

(usually postpositive; foll by to)

unsusceptible (to) or secure (against)

immune to inflation

impervious

adj.

1.

Incapable of being penetrated:

a material impervious to water.

2.

Incapable of being affected

:

impervious to fear.

Is it just me, or are these, in fact, basically synonyms used for different collocations?

[Ygrain]

Yeah. The dragons head moves. It doesn't stay pointed straight ahead. The dragon would be spraying fire in all directions and simultaneously flying at good speeds. Recipe for disaster.

Provide textual support that a dragon doesn't spray fire in one particular direction when it wants to roast something, such as we see Drogon dracarysing the slaver, or burning people in the pit below him. Given the precise maneuvering that birds of prey are fully able to perform at high speeds, I definitely expect from a dragon no less.

[WildBlood]

Yeah. The dragons head moves. It doesn't stay pointed straight ahead. The dragon would be spraying fire in all directions and simultaneously flying at good speeds. Recipe for disaster.

Wait... So the dragons head is essentially like one of those spinning sprinklers people buy for their kids? I doubt you could use a dragon to fight AT ALL if this was the case. And the text proves otherwise...

[WhiteWalder]

resistant

adj

• 
  
  
  1.
  characterized by or showing resistance; resisting
  
  
  2.
  a.
  impervious
  to the action of corrosive substances, heat, etc
  a highly resistant surface
  
  
  
  b.
  (
  in combination
  )
  a heat-resistant surface
  
  immune
  adj.
  
  
  1.
  Not subject to an obligation imposed on others; exempt:
  immune from taxation; immune from criminal prosecution.
  
  
  2.
  Not affected
  by a given influence; unresponsive:
  immune to persuasion.
  
  
  3.
  (usually postpositive; foll by to)
  unsusceptible (to) or secure (against)
  immune to inflation
  
  
  impervious
  adj.
  
  
  1.
  Incapable of being penetrated:
  a material impervious to water.
  
  
  2.
  Incapable of being affected
  :
  impervious to fear.
  
  
  Is it just me, or are these, in fact, basically synonyms used for different collocations?
  

I think most people understand the difference in resistant and immune. Resistant only hinders or slows down. I am not trying to match partial sentences from a 2nd or 3rd internet definition.

[J. Stargaryen]

Yeah. The dragons head moves. It doesn't stay pointed straight ahead. The dragon would be spraying fire in all directions and simultaneously flying at good speeds. Recipe for disaster.

You can't just claim this as a fact though. That you do is a major flaw in your presentation. Isn't it just as likely that part of what it takes to be a dragon rider is that you can control the dragon to a certain extent?

Whose idea do you think it was for Balerion to perform a high speed dive to get behind the walls of Harrenhal? If it wasn't Aegon's, then what was he doing there? If Balerion is capable of making these in the moment strategic decisions without Aegon, then what is the need for the dragon rider in the first place? Instead, Aegon might as well just give Balerion orders and send the dragon on its way. Thus, the riders are controlling the dragons. In which case, it is my understanding that control would involve not having the dragon burn the rider.

Since the answer is already implied in the act itself -- dragon riding = dragon controlling -- there's no need to assume a more complicated answer.

[Stannis Lives]

But you haven't treated it as such, you've used it as evidence of a point by assigning it a fixed translation (or what you believe the quote actually means), specifically that some Targaryens are immune to fire sometimes. You can't say the quote is both ambiguous, and has a fixed meaning which proves your general point.

You've also claimed in post #331 that it accomplishes the opposite of stating Targaryens are fire resistance, when the quote does not deal with the issue of fire resistance at all, but immunity.

See below. This was my specific point.

1. GRRM has never stated that Targs are not fire resistant. The quote in my OP that is constantly referenced in fact accomplishes the opposite. It makes it more ambiguous, not less. I thought there would be a definitive quote from GRRM but nobody has been able to provide it. I do realize they aren't immune to fire.

[aceluby]

That isn't the sole logical inference of that statement though, it's the one you've chosen to make.

Using that logic the statement 'Not all Martin's write ASOIAF' would mean 'GRRM did not write ASOIAF', since 'Not all targs are immune to fire' means 'Dany Targ is not immune to fire'. Your argument does not make logical sense.

[Stannis Lives]

Wait... So the dragons head is essentially like one of those spinning sprinklers people buy for their kids? I doubt you could use a dragon to fight AT ALL if this was the case. And the text proves otherwise...

The dragons head is just that. A dragon's head. He can point it wherever he wants with or without complete disregard for the rider on his back. He is fire resistant. He can shoot fire to the right, bank left and roast the rider without even feeling it. If the rider doesn't have some sort of magical connection with the dragon, this would happen often. Even getting close to flames that hot enough to melt stone would kill you.

[danm_999]

See below. This was my specific point.

You're not answering the question, I already know the point you made in post #331, that's why I raised issue with it.

How can you simultaneously claim the quote has a specific translation that supports your argument, but simultaneously claim it's so ambiguous it cannot support anybody elses argument. And how can you say the quote proves anything about Targaryen fire resistance when it solely deals with the issue of fire immunity?

[danm_999]

Using that logic the statement 'Not all Martin's write ASOIAF' would mean 'GRRM did not write ASOIAF', since 'Not all targs are immune to fire' means 'Dany Targ is not immune to fire'. Your argument does not make logical sense.

Err, I didn't say it did mean that. In fact, I made no personal inference about what that quote means.

You, like Stannis Lives, have chosen to imply one possible meaning from a quote and treated it as the sole interpretation.

[Stannis Lives]

You're not answering the question, I already know the point you made in post #331, that's why I raised issue with it.

How can you simultaneously claim the quote has a specific translation that supports your argument, but simultaneously claim it's so ambiguous it cannot support anybody elses argument. And how can you say the quote proves anything about Targaryen fire resistance when it solely deals with the issue of fire immunity?

Sorry. That's not my argument. My argument is that IT IS AMBIGUOUS. I am not arguing that that statement means targs are fire resistant. I am using it to show that they may be and that GRRM never said that they aren't. He also never stated they are. It's ambiguous.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

Q: Are all the Targaryans immune to fire?

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire.

How indeed.

I think you have a reading comprehension issue in that the poster explicitly stated that he didn't believe that any Targs are IMMUNE to fire, but at least some MIGHT be Resistant to fire, as if they were wearing a NASCAR fire suit, which would only protect the person or minimize the effects of fire for a short period of time.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yeah. The dragons head moves. It doesn't stay pointed straight ahead. The dragon would be spraying fire in all directions and simultaneously flying at good speeds. Recipe for disaster.

This is not an answer to my question, you've offered no evidence of fire projecting in all directions from the dragon's mouth. You've just stated that the dragon's head moves (has anyone ever disputed this?) and then reasserted your baseless claim that it would spray in all directions. You need to provide evidence, something more than assertion, that dragons become roving spheres of flame when they breathe fire.

[Stannis Lives]

This is not an answer to my question, you've offered no evidence of fire projecting in all directions from the dragon's mouth. You've just stated that the dragon's head moves (has anyone ever disputed this?) and then reasserted your baseless claim that it would spray in all directions.

I'm confused. The fire would spray in whichever direction the dragon pointed its head. Therefore it would spray in all directions. My point is that it isnt a flamethrower or a machine. It is a living dragon that points its head and sprays fire wherever it wants.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm confused. The fire would spray in whichever direction the dragon pointed its head. Therefore it would spray in all directions. My point is that it isnt a flamethrower or a machine. It is a living dragon that points its head and sprays fire wherever it wants.

So you're going with the 'dragons flail their heads wildly when breathing fire, spraying in all directions aimlessly' thesis. Have we ever seen this happen in the books?