|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 14 2019 22:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I don't understand why people have so many problems with Dany (badly executed and overly genocidal) but still somewhat to be expected turn to violence against the people that took everything from her.
But everyone's ok with Jon Snow being so shit of a leader and king that he can't even control the soldiers next to him from rape and pillaging. Like he has so little influence on them that they ignore his orders? They could be hanged for that, but they're like meh it's just Jon who cares he ain't gonna do shit. It's so so so bad.
There is also that. As to my previous statement ‘he’s only one man he can only do so much’, that I don’t mind it not being him to kill the NK, or him being unable to stop his ancestry filtering out, this could have fit that as well.
Have him barracking the men immediately around him who back down, but have the wider mob’s bloodlust be something he can’t contain on sight. You still get the horrors of war stuff without having the most inspirational leader of men in Westeros suddenly not being able to get people to even reluctantly obey him.
|
On May 14 2019 22:43 M2 wrote:
I think that Arya will reconsider Gendry;s offer at the end
Arya never struck me as someone who would ever become a lady, even after witnessing the devastation she did and having her revenge fantasies fulfilled. I feel she might end up journeying off to Essos again because of her independence.
|
Everyone on Arya's list is dead.
I agree that she'd go back to Bravos and probably become a fully-fledged faceless man.
|
I don't know if she will go back to Bravos. She is loyal to her family over hot Jesus and his wall of faces. Maybe she sets up shop someplace in the north and does her own thing.
|
Just watched it and I really liked this episode.
It was straight out of a Michael Bay movie, but with talented actors and not a totally cringeworthy plot. Ofc a 60" TV with 5.1 surround helped a bit :D
Looked like this episode took about 80% of the whole season budget.
Liked:
Dany finally going mad
Jonny not knowing what to do/ in the middle between a rock and a hard place
Ser Davos, the real hero
Qyburn dieing a sudden, violent, surprising death
Varys' end
Okayish:
Cleganebowl
End of Jamie and Cersei
Jamie and Tyrion. Tyrion especially. He just doesn't seem as clever as he is supposed to be. Over and over again
Disliked:
Everything with Arya in it. Horrible. Just horrible. She and her story are probably what Michael Bays next movie is about
|
The more I think about the episode, the more it feels like there was a late script rewrite or change.
Starting with the foreshadowing, we have plenty of reason to believe Dany is capable of doing something terrible, and that she's in a distressed state that may lead her into madness. That's all established firmly, if not particularly well. But we also have other foreshadowing, we know she doesn't want to rule over a kingdom of ashes, we know that Cersei is pulling people into the red keep (an otherwise mostly useless plot point). Then of course you have the Mareen and Yunkai parallels where Dany is expecting the city to just fall into love with her, and she assumes Cersei is a tyrant like the masters (she isn't really, for all we can tell she's a somewhat incompetent and uncaring ruler).
But we want to "subvert expectations" and maybe it's too obvious she burns the Red Keep down. But the show already subverts that expectation, the characters talk Dany out of burning the Red Keep on the condition of surrender, and the enemies surrender. Our expectation is suddenly set to "she's not going to do it". Any further action by Dany here is already subverting our expecation.
So all that establishes a good framework for burning the Red Keep, and how that's still a 'twist', but it doesn't lead it really to my statement that it feels like a rewritten plot point for her to burn the whole city down. I come to that conclusion based on the actions during the episode.
* Dany's character doesn't change. Slaughtering the 1000s of people in the Red Keep is still an atrocity.
* There are no characters in the path of the dragon fire that wasn't in the Red Keep. Arya gets some time out of the Red Keep, but there's no specific plot point about her location. Everything that happened to her could have happened in the Red Keep or after she gets out of it (the Dothraki killing people in the streets). Everyone else in the path of dragon fire: Cersei, Jaime, The Hound, and the Mountain has their story take place entirely in the Red Keep.
* The other characters, Jon, Greyworm and Tyrion, are safely out of the way of Dragon Fire. Their plot does not hinge on them being anywhere close to the dragon fire. Jon pulls his troops back, but that is a believable point anyways based on the Unsullied and the slaughter occurring in the Red Keep.
* The bells and Dany's motivations are much clearer if she only burns the Red Keep, we had established she expected the people to flood out and adore her (or revolt) and that didn't happen. She said if she can't rule by love she would do it by fear, and that's exactly what burning the Red Keep does. Comparatively burning all of King's Landing down doesn't let her rule at all. Even if she believes she's unable to rule because of Jon, I mean she has a dragon is Jon really an obstacle? The big emphasis on the Bells pays off much more if we understand it not only as her committing an atrocity post-surrender, but it also can put a focus on her expectations not being met and a final betrayal (this time from the people). In the way as written she's betraying the people, not the other way around.
Literally 90% of the shots can be the same in either case, you only have to change Arya's (she needs to be in the Red Keep) and the CGI shots of the dragon burning the city.
Anyways I have a really hard time putting a reason on her burning down the entire city over the Red Keep with the only real reasoning seems to be it fills an hour and a half of action better. Storywise the path seems much clearer, and better structured, if she only burns the Red Keep and 'merely' slaughters tens of thousands of innocent people. It just really feels like it was something tacked in to fill the time and spectacle when the story was otherwise written for her to just burn the Red Keep.
it's a shame because I think the last episode would be a lot more intriguing if she only burned the Red Keep. It's a crime against humanity still, but there's room for redemption or with her motivations to not completely alienate everyone except the Unsullied/Dothraki. Notably we as the viewer may feel ok or good if they bring up the idea of her going back to Mareen and ruling there. That would put the story in a much more interesting place, but now it's pretty black and white, there is no defending Dany or staying by her side.
|
On May 14 2019 22:28 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 22:22 TaKeTV wrote:
The people claiming Dany going mad was a suprise and a twist. Have you been watching the same show? What the hell. It had foreshadowing but, to that degree of mayhem? If Dany just made a beeline for the Red Keep, blew it up, igniting some wildfire that killed a ton of innocents, I’m absolutely fine with that, her bloodlust and impulsivity could get a lot of people killed without her turning into a genocidal maniac. Actively siccing her dragon on fleeing women and children I mean come on, it’s too much of a flip that isn’t earned. Why is she burning the whole city instead of just her enemy. An enemy who it’s already been said doesn’t give a shit about her subjects and is using them as human shields, so there’s not even the ‘I’ll teach you a lesson by burning your beloved subjects’ angle Like the Night King being killed and his army being stopped didn’t surprise me, Dany going mad queen didn’t, but how it was executed and how silly it was absolutely did. Also great job on the Iron Couch, was going to go to my first Homestory this year but couldn’t get leave off work 
I am with you. I think foreshadowing was okay - there are a lot of lines hinting how mad and cruel dany actually is, even against innocents. I think its a lot about pacing and build up rather than it being unreasonable. If they build this up over 2 seasons I could see it being understandable but they wanted or needed the quick turnaround and I am with you, it was a bit too much.
|
On May 14 2019 22:50 karazax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 21:56 Adreme wrote:On May 14 2019 21:29 karazax wrote:On May 14 2019 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I can totally see Arya killing Daenerys and be the one that stops both “fire” and “ice”.
Daenerys going full Anakin is a great turn of event and makes a lot of sense narration wise. At the end, ironically, the plottings of the seven kingdoms, with the intrigues, wars and betrayals were a much lesser evil than both the white walker and Daenerys. I don't mind Daenerys going full mad queen. What I mind is how little build up there was. We never saw her going slightly mad. Over the span of about half an episode she went from "not mad at all" to "burn them all!!!! *mouthfroth*" after 7 seasons in which she was trying her hardest to find the balance between just ruler and tyrant. I mean... she spent god knows how long in Meereen "learning how to rule" then eventually travelled north to fight against the dead because it was the "right thing to do". She was shown as struggling with the balance between taking and holding power, and showing mercy and forgiveness. She was never shown as having problems with going batshit insane (that was her brother, and her father). Is it possible she descends into madness? Absolutely. Did they show that descent? No. So all we got is Varys "fearing" her madness into her going stark staring bonkers and burning a city full of innocents. When she took flight despite the city surrendering I was expecting she would fly to the red keep and torch the castle (and Cersei). I even kinda expected that to light up the wildfyre caches all over the city, leading to the same effect. But it made zero sense for her to start her flight by laying waste to the city full of: 1. innocent civilians 2. soldiers who surrendered 3. her own men Exactly. Instead, it presents us with Varys suggesting that she’s suddenly inherited her father and brother’s mental illness, with no prior symptoms. Remember Dany locked up all of her dragons for months because one of them accidentally killed ONE child while hunting for food. You can't even call what she did blood lust when she stopped burning things for several minutes and just sat there perched on Drogon and then started attacking after the surrender was official. The only purpose of that being to show that she is evil now, nothing grey about this action. Surprises are only good if they are earned. Anybody can make up a plot twist that makes no sense and call it "surprising". Not that Dany going mad was really a surprise giving all of Varys heavy handed concerns. It's just that his concerns had no actual evidence at that point to support having them. Being retroactively correct doesn't mean they were well founded at the time. I mean no evidence other than the fact that her penchant for bloodlust had been growing over course of the show. At the start it was just that she punished the guilty. Then she openly had to be talked out of burning cities to the ground while in Essos. Then we come to Westeros and she is burning people for not wanting to bend the knee (because that will clearly inspire the loyalty needed to rule). Being merciless to enemies is hardly comparable to randomly killing innocents. Especially when protecting innocents has been one of her primary concerns since season 1. Every past and present leader on the show from every faction has done something that could be considered merciless to enemies, including Jon hanging a 10 year old. Nobody thinks these were signs they might be going mad.
When she was going to burn those cities in season 6 they were not all her enemies. Yes she allowed herself to be talked out, but she went from seeking vengeance against those who wronged her, to seeking it for those who wronged others, to seeking it on the areas where her enemies live and burning those who rightfully oppose her.
|
Dany’s first response to a lot of things has been violence. It was Jorah and others that talked her down, saying “maybe more violence isn’t the solution to this violent problem.” In response to finding out that over a hundred slave children had been crucified, she decided to crucify the same number of masters. Not the masters that crucified the children or the guards who followed through the orders, just the same number of masters. And she called that justice. That isn’t justice. That is just cruelty.
The simple answer to why Dany went through with burning Kings Landing is that she saw the people of kings landing as her enemy because they supported the people who overthrew her family all these years. She didn’t see them as innocent, or she justified it to herself that way.
|
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it
|
On May 14 2019 23:50 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 22:50 karazax wrote:On May 14 2019 21:56 Adreme wrote:On May 14 2019 21:29 karazax wrote:On May 14 2019 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I can totally see Arya killing Daenerys and be the one that stops both “fire” and “ice”.
Daenerys going full Anakin is a great turn of event and makes a lot of sense narration wise. At the end, ironically, the plottings of the seven kingdoms, with the intrigues, wars and betrayals were a much lesser evil than both the white walker and Daenerys. I don't mind Daenerys going full mad queen. What I mind is how little build up there was. We never saw her going slightly mad. Over the span of about half an episode she went from "not mad at all" to "burn them all!!!! *mouthfroth*" after 7 seasons in which she was trying her hardest to find the balance between just ruler and tyrant. I mean... she spent god knows how long in Meereen "learning how to rule" then eventually travelled north to fight against the dead because it was the "right thing to do". She was shown as struggling with the balance between taking and holding power, and showing mercy and forgiveness. She was never shown as having problems with going batshit insane (that was her brother, and her father). Is it possible she descends into madness? Absolutely. Did they show that descent? No. So all we got is Varys "fearing" her madness into her going stark staring bonkers and burning a city full of innocents. When she took flight despite the city surrendering I was expecting she would fly to the red keep and torch the castle (and Cersei). I even kinda expected that to light up the wildfyre caches all over the city, leading to the same effect. But it made zero sense for her to start her flight by laying waste to the city full of: 1. innocent civilians 2. soldiers who surrendered 3. her own men Exactly. Instead, it presents us with Varys suggesting that she’s suddenly inherited her father and brother’s mental illness, with no prior symptoms. Remember Dany locked up all of her dragons for months because one of them accidentally killed ONE child while hunting for food. You can't even call what she did blood lust when she stopped burning things for several minutes and just sat there perched on Drogon and then started attacking after the surrender was official. The only purpose of that being to show that she is evil now, nothing grey about this action. Surprises are only good if they are earned. Anybody can make up a plot twist that makes no sense and call it "surprising". Not that Dany going mad was really a surprise giving all of Varys heavy handed concerns. It's just that his concerns had no actual evidence at that point to support having them. Being retroactively correct doesn't mean they were well founded at the time. I mean no evidence other than the fact that her penchant for bloodlust had been growing over course of the show. At the start it was just that she punished the guilty. Then she openly had to be talked out of burning cities to the ground while in Essos. Then we come to Westeros and she is burning people for not wanting to bend the knee (because that will clearly inspire the loyalty needed to rule). Being merciless to enemies is hardly comparable to randomly killing innocents. Especially when protecting innocents has been one of her primary concerns since season 1. Every past and present leader on the show from every faction has done something that could be considered merciless to enemies, including Jon hanging a 10 year old. Nobody thinks these were signs they might be going mad. When she was going to burn those cities in season 6 they were not all her enemies. Yes she allowed herself to be talked out, but she went from seeking vengeance against those who wronged her, to seeking it for those who wronged others, to seeking it on the areas where her enemies live and burning those who rightfully oppose her.
Season 7. It's very notable here that this entire descent (the 2nd and 3rd steps you mention) happens in Westeroes in 11 episodes with 1/2 of those have her distracted by defeating the Night King. Notably for comparison it takes 18 episodes for Jon Snow to go from "defeated the Wildlings and becomes Lord Commander turning down warden of the North" to "killed by the Night's Watch for betraying the Watch". It's a significantly shorter fall for Jon Snow to strain the Night's Watch resolve and get murdered by them as a traitor and takes nearly twice as long.
The simple answer to why Dany went through with burning Kings Landing is that she saw the people of kings landing as her enemy because they supported the people who overthrew her family all these years. She didn’t see them as innocent, or she justified it to herself that way.
No, frankly that's a crap excuse. It explains why she burned the Red Keep, not King's Landing. There's 0 evidence to support it based on foreshadowing and it's filled in just so you can make the story make sense. In the very same episode she said sacrificing the innocents would be worth it to free future generations from tyrants. That's a direct opposite stance from that justification.
|
On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it
You would make a good mad queen...
|
On May 14 2019 22:22 TaKeTV wrote:
The people claiming Dany going mad was a suprise and a twist. Have you been watching the same show? What the hell.
those people weren't paying attention - the show has been dropping multiple hints and foreshadowing she was mad queen. i think the issue is the execution. everyone who was actually watching the show knew dany was gonna be the final villain. but having her go full genocide in one episode, AFTER the city had rung the damn bells, AFTER the city had fallen, made zero sense.
the main problem is that 6 episodes isn't enough, it should have been a slower transition, but with one episode, this is the best they could come up with.
|
On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it
Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed.
|
On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed.
I feel like the irony of discussing the morally ambiguous actions of Dany, in a series defined by morally ambiguous actions as both the theme and explicit plot points, in the context of Dany committing an act that's not at all morally ambiguous (especially when a more morally ambiguous action was available at no cost to the story) is not being properly appreciated here.
|
On May 14 2019 23:55 Plansix wrote:
Dany’s first response to a lot of things has been violence. It was Jorah and others that talked her down, saying “maybe more violence isn’t the solution to this violent problem.” In response to finding out that over a hundred slave children had been crucified, she decided to crucify the same number of masters. Not the masters that crucified the children or the guards who followed through the orders, just the same number of masters. And she called that justice. That isn’t justice. That is just cruelty.
Quite a key difference is that she didn't consider the masters innocent. All masters were guilty of slavery, and she considered all of them guilty of any crimes committed to further perpetuate slavery. She actually wanted to murder all masters, but was convinced of the impracticality of that. But her whole stay in Slaver's bay was an uncomfortable truce between her disgust for the masters and her need for them to keep shit from hitting the fan.
Could you see that as foreshadowing that she would murder 10s of thousands of innocents? I dunno. She saw the slaves as innocent victims and her whole disgust for the masters came from their treatment of them. She had very strong feelings about protecting innocents throughout the series, which flipped in like... 2 minutes of her sitting on a wall with her dragon?
Her wanting to send her dragons against Yunkai and burning it to the ground is a far better example of how she was willing to slaughter innocents "for the greater good", but the whole point of that exchange was that she *learned* there how she can both wage war and govern her people. Tyrion showed her the way to achieve her goals without resorting to burning everything to the ground, and she was wiser for it. Also, she didn't want to do it for the sake of doing it, she wanted to do it because she thought that was the only way she could succeed.
None of that is present here. And it comes after repeated emphasis that she sees herself as their just and wise ruler even if the people of Westeros might not. The justaposition of that video in the twitter I linked above shows how stupid this "plot twist" is.
Her burning down the red keep to "get to Cersei"? I'd understand that. It'd still kill plenty of innocents, but her not being convinced that the city surrendering was sufficient and being unwilling to let Cersei slip away somehow could be sufficient justification for her going full mad queen on the Red Keep. But instead of beelining for the keep she first torches the streets of KL, filled with her own troops to boot.
|
On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed. I feel like the irony of discussing the morally ambiguous actions of Dany, in a series defined by morally ambiguous actions as both the theme and explicit plot points, in the context of Dany committing an act that's not at all morally ambiguous (especially when a morally ambiguous action was available at no cost to the story) is not being properly appreciated here.
I just want to be clear, are you saying that the act of torturing a group of masters to death is morally ambiguous? Because the story makes it very clear that those masters were not directly responsible for the children being tortured to death. That Dany picked the number based on the number of children killed.
On May 15 2019 00:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 23:55 Plansix wrote:
Dany’s first response to a lot of things has been violence. It was Jorah and others that talked her down, saying “maybe more violence isn’t the solution to this violent problem.” In response to finding out that over a hundred slave children had been crucified, she decided to crucify the same number of masters. Not the masters that crucified the children or the guards who followed through the orders, just the same number of masters. And she called that justice. That isn’t justice. That is just cruelty. Quite a key difference is that she didn't consider the masters innocent. All masters were guilty of slavery, and she considered all of them guilty of any crimes committed to further perpetuate slavery. She actually wanted to murder all masters, but was convinced of the impracticality of that. But her whole stay in Slaver's bay was an uncomfortable truce between her disgust for the masters and her need for them to keep shit from hitting the fan.
And the people of Kings Landing supported a family that stole the throne from Dany. Dany is a person trying to establish dominance over the 7 Kingdoms. To place herself at the top of the social ladder though violence and justify it by some claim to the throne based. It is easy to see her justifying killing them because they didn’t or wouldn’t accept her as the rightful ruler of the kingdom.
|
On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed. I feel like the irony of discussing the morally ambiguous actions of Dany, in a series defined by morally ambiguous actions as both the theme and explicit plot points, in the context of Dany committing an act that's not at all morally ambiguous (especially when a morally ambiguous action was available at no cost to the story) is not being properly appreciated here. I just want to be clear, are you saying that the act of torturing a group of masters to death is morally ambiguous? Because the story makes it very clear that those masters were not directly responsible for the children being tortured to death. That Dany picked the number based on the number of children killed.
That's not true? The # of responsible masters is clearly implied to be more than 0, but less than the 168 she crucifies and all of them are responsible for perpetuating slavery. Even the innocent man mentioned, Hizdar's father, complied with the plot when he was overruled.
Also these masters in general aren't just slave owners, the great masters of Mareen are the actual slaving families, the ones that ran and organized the slave trade, not just families in the city that owned slaves.
Notably in Westeros the penalty for slave trading is also death. Under Westeros laws she should have slaughtered every master in all three cities. Not that we're taking Westeros as what's moral and just, but there is a pretty strong context there.
|
On May 15 2019 00:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it You would make a good mad queen...
Totally! Burn them all! I would have burned cersei back when I had three dragons
|
On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed. I feel like the irony of discussing the morally ambiguous actions of Dany, in a series defined by morally ambiguous actions as both the theme and explicit plot points, in the context of Dany committing an act that's not at all morally ambiguous (especially when a morally ambiguous action was available at no cost to the story) is not being properly appreciated here. I just want to be clear, are you saying that the act of torturing a group of masters to death is morally ambiguous? Because the story makes it very clear that those masters were not directly responsible for the children being tortured to death. That Dany picked the number based on the number of children killed. That's not true? The # of responsible masters is clearly implied to be more than 0, but less than the 168 she crucifies and all of them are responsible for perpetuating slavery. Even the innocent man mentioned, Hizdar's father complied with the plot when he was overruled. Notably in Westeros the penalty for slave trading is also death. Under Westeros laws she should have slaughtered every master in all three cities. Not that we're taking Westeros as what's moral and just, but there is a pretty strong context there.
Yes. And in the first episode of the series we see Ned Stark executing someone for deserting the wall. And he manages to do it without torturing the man to death. And he doesn't kill anyone else that may have aided the deserter.
The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad. But the reality of that we justify punishing a class of people simply because of the class they are part of. Not all masters were guilty of all crimes equally. Some were born into slave owning family and were still young. That doesn’t mean they should escape punishment, but it is hard to believe that they all deserve to die. And if they do, does that mean that all the adults in slave owning families must die?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
