|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote: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?
So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel?
So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity.
Also some nits:
You're still conflating slave owning with slave trading. And the show quite clearly at least puts forward the idea that the latter should all die (it's law in Westeroes, everything that happens in slaver's bay post Mareen where a lot of suffering could have been avoided by completely destroying the slave traders). It doesn't argue that course of action would have been right or moral, but it does suggest it would have avoided suffering.
|
On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote: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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity.
How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home.
There is a moment when Jon Snow is king of the north where he decides not to punish the children of families that sided with the Boltons. Jon decides not to strip those families of their lands and homes, but to have them swear loyalty to him. Because Jon understood that if he strip those families of their homes, those children would grow up resentful and trying to retake what they felt was theirs. Jon has a lot of flaws, but he is one of the few characters with enough insight to see the cycle of violence.
|
On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote: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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home.
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
I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful.
We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people.
|
On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote: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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. Show nested quote +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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people.
There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all.
|
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. Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:12 Acrofales wrote: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.
I think you're reading far too much into Dany's thoughts as she sits on Drogon regarding the innocents she slaughters. (1) I don't believe she sees the population as "accomplices" in the treason, and (2) if she feels that strongly then how the fuck is she hanging out with the Starks, a leader of the rebellion, and allows Jaime to live. Jaime! The Kingslayer! Shouldn't matter that Sansa vouches for him. He murdered her father as far as she's concerned. But hey, these are all points of progress that she sees that perhaps there was some justification for deposing her batshit crazy old man, and while she doesn't agree with it, she at least doesn't want to murder everybody who had anything to do with it. Except the innocent population of King's Landing, of course. Because #logic.
|
On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote: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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all.
The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. It tugs at your satisfaction of seeing bad people face consequences while a nagging thought exists behind it of how cruel she is being. That pretty well fits into throwing you into a state of moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity exists in the moment you're judging the action too, not just some pie in the sky reflection of the event.
I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy.
|
On May 15 2019 00:53 Acrofales 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. On May 15 2019 00:12 Acrofales wrote: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. I think you're reading far too much into Dany's thoughts as she sits on Drogon regarding the innocents she slaughters. (1) I don't believe she sees the population as "accomplices" in the treason, and (2) if she feels that strongly then how the fuck is she hanging out with the Starks, a leader of the rebellion, and allows Jaime to live. Jaime! The Kingslayer! Shouldn't matter that Sansa vouches for him. He murdered her father as far as she's concerned. But hey, these are all points of progress that she sees that perhaps there was some justification for deposing her batshit crazy old man, and while she doesn't agree with it, she at least doesn't want to murder everybody who had anything to do with it. Except the innocent population of King's Landing, of course. Because #logic.
Well when the Jamie thing happened she hadn't lost a second dragon and her close friend. The y could have used more time to build that up, but things did change.
|
On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote: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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all.
If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement.
A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious.
|
On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy.
And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her.
On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious.
The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved.
|
On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her.
Because the show (and book) intentionally misdirects you that way in a bit of great storytelling? Dany is (was) immensely likable and a lot of who she fought with or how she conducted herself seemed forced from her situation. She didn't choose the Dothraki, she didn't know her father or what he did, she's constantly compassionate to individuals.
Which is why ending it with a black and white completely morally indefensible action is not anywhere remotely as good as putting in just that sliver, that tiny bit, that lets us want to still side with her despite the horrible horrible thing she's just done. That thought that maybe Cersei really had it coming enough that we are still willing to root for her despite the 10,000 dead civilians, or that her emotions got the better of her but maybe she'll still be a good ruler in the time of peace.
No, they stole all of that from us for the sake of the big action sequences and now we are left with an irredeemable new villain to root against for the last episode.
|
Yeah shes a conqueror and is leading an army of savages in a sense, however her method of conqueroring hasnt been different from any of the others before her. Theres always been grey areas one has to cross to be lord of westros, her killing innocents after she has won and the enemy surrendered is just crazy. But pior to this shes pretty much as cruel and cold as the rest of them.
What doesnt make sense is her phase from pissed off conqueror to genocidal manic in the span of a battle.
The mad king didnt go mad in an instant it over many years and it grew slowly from being captured and held prisoner and believing he had been betrayed from within
|
On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved.
Hes the warden over the north...including the boltens he doesnt go telling the boltens not to flay people to death.
He is totally okay with leaving them to flay their enemies and even display it as a sigil
|
On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:08 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved.
I wasn't aware that anything moral ambigious has to be ned stark approved! I thought it has to somewhat split the audience, based on moral justifications, like the slave masters being terrible people in the first place.
Now if your whole stance is deontology, there is no moral ambiguity period. There is just right and wrong.
|
On May 15 2019 01:20 Shock710 wrote:
Yeah shes a conqueror and is leading an army of savages in a sense, however her method of conqueroring hasnt been different from any of the others before her. Theres always been grey areas one has to cross to be lord of westros, her killing innocents after she has won and the enemy surrendered is just crazy. But pior to this shes pretty much as cruel and cold as the rest of them.
What doesnt make sense is her phase from pissed off conqueror to genocidal manic in the span of a battle.
I agree that the heel turn is mostly unearned. They needed a bunch more episodes to get her to that point. Or at least to sell the majority of the audience on it. The threads were there, but they needed to spend more time with her so we could get to the heel turn. But i don't think the show has been shy about the idea that conquerors being bad and Dany wasn't going to be any different.
|
On May 15 2019 01:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved. I wasn't aware that anything moral ambigious has to be ned stark approved! I thought it has to somewhat split the audience, based on moral justifications, like the slave masters being terrible people in the first place. Now if your whole stance is deontology, there is no moral ambiguity period. There is just right and wrong.
On the specific subject of torturing people to death, sure. There isn't a lot of wiggle room there, even in Game of Thrones.
|
On May 15 2019 00:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:53 Acrofales wrote: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. On May 15 2019 00:12 Acrofales wrote: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. I think you're reading far too much into Dany's thoughts as she sits on Drogon regarding the innocents she slaughters. (1) I don't believe she sees the population as "accomplices" in the treason, and (2) if she feels that strongly then how the fuck is she hanging out with the Starks, a leader of the rebellion, and allows Jaime to live. Jaime! The Kingslayer! Shouldn't matter that Sansa vouches for him. He murdered her father as far as she's concerned. But hey, these are all points of progress that she sees that perhaps there was some justification for deposing her batshit crazy old man, and while she doesn't agree with it, she at least doesn't want to murder everybody who had anything to do with it. Except the innocent population of King's Landing, of course. Because #logic. Well when the Jamie thing happened she hadn't lost a second dragon and her close friend. The y could have used more time to build that up, but things did change.
Now you're just bringing up other stuff to somehow justify your muddle of a reasoning for why she could go 100% mad queen.
I mean. I get it. That's what the show runners want us to believe. That her losing Jorah, Rhaegon and Missandei could ratchet her paranoia up to 95% and then Varys catches onto that and betrays her. That sends her over the edge. But it comes out of left field. They haven't had time to build this in a believable way and as a consequence, it's just a bad story.
If they had taken their time, maybe spent more time in Winterfell where she opened up to someone about what Jorah meant to her, and she feels lost without him. Then a scene in dragonstone where she is getting unhinged. Maybe some kylo ren rage upending the chess table (sorry, battle plan) and yelling "BURN THEM ALLL!!!!!!!!" or something. Basically, *showing* her coming unhinged. Then her going paranoid and suspecting people of leaving Missandei behind on purpose to get captured. Maybe she starts burning some sailors for the crime. Or something. Anything. But all we got is Varys "worrying" that she's going crazy where what we actually see is a fairly sane, albeit uncertain, girl who is grieving for the loss of her friends and dragon, yet determined to continue on her path to take the Iron Throne.
|
Torture being wrong and cruel is not a precursor to insanity. If anything it's a statement on how strongly she felt about protecting the children and the innocent. It's not like she has tortured every enemy she has defeated or even the majority of them.
Now she has burned more kids than the masters ever did because show writers said so.
|
On May 15 2019 01:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved. I wasn't aware that anything moral ambigious has to be ned stark approved! I thought it has to somewhat split the audience, based on moral justifications, like the slave masters being terrible people in the first place. Now if your whole stance is deontology, there is no moral ambiguity period. There is just right and wrong. On the specific subject of torturing people to death, sure. There isn't a lot of wiggle room there, even in Game of Thrones.
Well a lot of people would disagree with this, and the show quite clearly set it up to be morally ambigious, otherwise there was no need to set it up with the crucified children in the first place. Cause and reaction, you can disagree with the action but there is an actual justification as long as one doesn't outright look at it from a deontological pov.
Just like the deserter in season 1 gets killed because he did something wrong (in comparison it isn't nearly as bad as what the slave masters did).
|
On May 15 2019 01:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:27 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 01:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. 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 I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved. I wasn't aware that anything moral ambigious has to be ned stark approved! I thought it has to somewhat split the audience, based on moral justifications, like the slave masters being terrible people in the first place. Now if your whole stance is deontology, there is no moral ambiguity period. There is just right and wrong. On the specific subject of torturing people to death, sure. There isn't a lot of wiggle room there, even in Game of Thrones. Well a lot of people would disagree with this, and the show quite clearly set it up to be morally ambigious, otherwise there was no need to set it up with the crucified children in the first place. Cause and reaction, you can disagree with the action but there is an actual justification as long as one doesn't outright look at it from a deontological pov. Just like the deserter in season 1 gets killed because he did something wrong (in comparison it isn't nearly as bad as what the slave masters did).
The show even makes you feel for the deserter. Seeing as he deserted out of fear of the army of the dead and all. Was Ned Stark actually delivering justice? It's not clear.
|
On May 15 2019 01:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:20 Shock710 wrote:
Yeah shes a conqueror and is leading an army of savages in a sense, however her method of conqueroring hasnt been different from any of the others before her. Theres always been grey areas one has to cross to be lord of westros, her killing innocents after she has won and the enemy surrendered is just crazy. But pior to this shes pretty much as cruel and cold as the rest of them.
What doesnt make sense is her phase from pissed off conqueror to genocidal manic in the span of a battle. I agree that the heel turn is mostly unearned. They needed a bunch more episodes to get her to that point. Or at least to sell the majority of the audience on it. The threads were there, but they needed to spend more time with her so we could get to the heel turn. But i don't think the show has been shy about the idea that conquerors being bad and Dany wasn't going to be any different.
I agree, the end point isn't hard to imagine, they just needed to show more of her turning insane. Although that would have given the surprise away. But Dany has been in Westeros for quite a while (S07E01). A year? More? Plenty of time, along with all the setbacks, for her to lose part of her mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
