On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote: Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves and all slave owners like owning slaves then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing
Terrible argument. If there is a situation where slaves enjoy being slaves or people enjoy being slaughtered, obviously whoever has lied to them to put them in a situation of acceptance is performing the immoral act. Your argument would excuse someone like Josef Fritzl as long as he can stockholm-syndrome his victims long enough for them to like him.
There is no reality in which slavery is not immoral, and murder of innocent people is not immoral.
On June 07 2013 08:32 SamsungStar wrote: If slavery is an absolute wrong, so is murder. And so is making condescending comments like 1st year uni moral etc etc. If you disagree with people then state your reasons.
I don't follow you. Murder is not always wrong, sometimes it's necessary and right, for example in self defence. You can't use slavery in self defence.
On June 07 2013 08:34 Nebuchad wrote: I mean it's not that complex.
Yeah, the characters in Game of Thrones aren't good or evil. But that doesn't mean that they are "grey" or whatever, that there isn't good or evil in the story.
When Jaime is jumping in the bear pit to save Brienne, he's doing a good action. When Jaime saves King's Landing from Aerys, he's doing a good action. That doesn't mean attempting to kill Bran is forgivable, or in a grey moral area, or whatever.
The point is that the same people can do both good things and evil things. Saying there's no good or no evil in the characters of this show is completely missing the point. It's concluding the exact opposite of what's being shown to us.
Yes, I agree. Good and evil are things that exist in everyone in different balances. There happens to be quite a lot of good in Dany, mixed with a bit of ruthlessness. She is still the 'goodest' major player still left alive. Granted there are plenty of characters who have shown not a single bit of malice and still performed good actions. But of the people who lead armies and have a legit chance of taking the iron throne, Dany is the one to root for if you are hoping for a just, courageous and caring ruler. Although I do have no idea if Stannis would be good...we don't really know much about Stannis tbf.
Killing =/= murder
Yeah I already conceded this to the other guy you are right.
On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote: Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves and all slave owners like owning slaves then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing
You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior."
They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion.
I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_-
No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said.
In the world of Westeros, Frey committed a terrible sin when he broke the laws of guest right. But simply changing sides and killing Starks would not have been that big a deal. In our world, obviously any sort of killing is considered wrong. I could go on for pages about all the various things that EVERY character in GoT does that would be considered appalling and vile by today's standards but obviously that would be a very dumb mental exercise. Just as it's very dumb to try to say Daeny is some highly moral character in the story, because by the standards of Westeros/Essos she is not all that great.
Or do you guys forget that she stood by and watched when her husband dumped a pot of gold on her own BROTHER's head? The brother that was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The brother that by right was supposed to get an army in exchange for his sister? Ugh, why am I even bothering. Daeny is such an easy target. I'm just astounded that some people can so quickly default to "she must be a good guy!" as soon as she positions herself as anti-slavery. That doesn't automatically make her a good person. She just happens to come down on the more humane side of the equation when it comes to a single subject. Sigh, it's scary how deep brainwashing goes in our supposedly modern and civilized society.
Brainwashing? This trainwreck of an argument is hilarious to read.
Heh, I was going to respond to it but I realized "wait where the heck would I even begin..."
=========
I wonder if we'll see the dragons at a prime fighting age soon. Seems like they've grown fairly steadily up to where we are now in S3. Once those badboys are ready to kick into gear, I'm thinking she'll really start to dominate... She'll probably end up defending against the white walker hoard with her grown dragons as many people have mentioned.
And one related question: If the dragons had been getting smaller and smaller, was this due to them being treated like pets? Or was it just their breed losing power over time? Why are Dany's already bigger than "the last dragons" mentioned by Joffrey -- is it just that she gives them plenty of food & space?
I'm betting its food and space, unless the dragons were wiped out progressively by sabotage or something innate in westeros. The latter two options sound kind of, well, lame. So I'm betting its open space.
On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote: Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves and all slave owners like owning slaves then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing
You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior."
They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion.
I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_-
No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said.
In the world of Westeros, Frey committed a terrible sin when he broke the laws of guest right. But simply changing sides and killing Starks would not have been that big a deal. In our world, obviously any sort of killing is considered wrong. I could go on for pages about all the various things that EVERY character in GoT does that would be considered appalling and vile by today's standards but obviously that would be a very dumb mental exercise. Just as it's very dumb to try to say Daeny is some highly moral character in the story, because by the standards of Westeros/Essos she is not all that great.
Or do you guys forget that she stood by and watched when her husband dumped a pot of gold on her own BROTHER's head? The brother that was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The brother that by right was supposed to get an army in exchange for his sister? Ugh, why am I even bothering. Daeny is such an easy target. I'm just astounded that some people can so quickly default to "she must be a good guy!" as soon as she positions herself as anti-slavery. That doesn't automatically make her a good person. She just happens to come down on the more humane side of the equation when it comes to a single subject. Sigh, it's scary how deep brainwashing goes in our supposedly modern and civilized society.
Absolutely agree with you. And I absolutely hate the tone that your opponents are using. They act the same as Dany, all high, mighty, self-righteous and think they are completely incapable of doing or saying anything wrong.
You can only judge the characters and people by considering their time period as well. If the theory of moral objectivity stands, perhaps we are all committing some heinously immortal wrong for one reason or another when looked from a 28th Century perspective.
Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves, an act many of you are purporting to be the 'morally right' thing to do, is in my opinion not good, but rather a horror.
Edit: In fact, I would call the above action genocide.
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
who do you think were the citizens in astapor? They were all slavemasters.
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
who do you think were the citizens in astapor? They were all slavemasters.
I don't know - do you? I don't recall them specifically saying 'everyone in Astapor who is not a slave is a slave master'. I might have forgotten, go ahead and remind me.
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
who do you think were the citizens in astapor? They were all slavemasters.
I don't know - do you? I don't recall them specifically saying 'everyone in Astapor who is not a slave is a slave master'. I might have forgotten, go ahead and remind me.
Its pretty easily understood from the culture and just seeing the city. Watching stuff.
But i suppose if you need it spelled out for you, then whatever
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
who do you think were the citizens in astapor? They were all slavemasters.
I don't know - do you? I don't recall them specifically saying 'everyone in Astapor who is not a slave is a slave master'. I might have forgotten, go ahead and remind me.
Its pretty easily understood from the culture and just seeing the city. Watching stuff.
But i suppose if you need it spelled out for you, then whatever
No not really. Even in Rome the majority of people would not own slaves. Tradesmen and 'working class' people would not own slaves. Only higher up business owners and such would. And, by the way, according to the show, I am not given the impression that she had all the slaves run through every street of the city and kill anyone who owned a slave. I am given the impression that she had all the people who ran the 'slave army building process' killed. Which is definitely the right thing to do.
On June 07 2013 16:39 Badgerdavis wrote: Dany, "Unsullied! Slay the Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who holds a whip!"
Maybe she did have everyone who owned slaves killed (depends on how they interpreted the word 'whip'). But still that wouldn't mean every citizen because all the fishermen, butchers, hunters, builders etc would not own slaves.
you do realize that slavery isn't universally accepted as standard in Martin's world, right? Like, they are completely prohibited in Westeros, just for starters? That's a good thing to know when making 1000 debates about semantics.
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
who do you think were the citizens in astapor? They were all slavemasters.
I don't know - do you? I don't recall them specifically saying 'everyone in Astapor who is not a slave is a slave master'. I might have forgotten, go ahead and remind me.
Its pretty easily understood from the culture and just seeing the city. Watching stuff.
But i suppose if you need it spelled out for you, then whatever
No not really. Even in Rome the majority of people would not own slaves. Tradesmen and 'working class' people would not own slaves. Only higher up business owners and such would. And, by the way, according to the show, I am not given the impression that she had all the slaves run through every street of the city and kill anyone who owned a slave. I am given the impression that she had all the people who ran the 'slave army building process' killed. Which is definitely the right thing to do.
Maybe she did have everyone who owned slaves killed (depends on how they interpreted the word 'whip'). But still that wouldn't mean every citizen because all the fishermen, butchers, hunters, builders etc would not own slaves.
Its likely that the fishermen, butchers, (what hunters? Astapor is in like, a desert) and builders.. Are slaves -.-
Great Point. Also, it's rare that every single person is wiped out in a sack/razing of a city. There are almost always people that are either spared or who get away.
On June 07 2013 14:21 SamsungStar wrote: No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said.
I don't get some people saying Dany is wrong to want to fight slavers.
If I understand correctly, you are basically saying that since the morality of people in Westeros is different from the one in our time, we shouldn't judge them using our moral. right ?
In other words, to apply this to slavery, if most of the people during that time are OK with slaves, then Dany is WRONG to fight them.
Is this what you guys are trying to say or am I missing something ?
On June 07 2013 09:54 Lord Tolkien wrote: sc4k: My argument isn't about morality at all. It's the practical, political nature of it all. The actions she takes are not sustainable. What happens to Astapor after she finishes razing the city? Depending on how prevalent slavery is, you've indiscriminately killed a large percentage of the free population and skilled laborers (at the very least, gutted the political and merchant classes), and she doesn't even stay to sort out the mess that she creates. The complete decapitation of (at least) the ruling class and its institutions, customs, norms, etc, means that the city. For a modern example, think of Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, you could argue that the US intervened for good, moral reasons: except that the road to hell is paved on good intentions. She's effectively done the same thing as the US in Astapor and Yunkai in miniature, except she isn't even staying to rebuild those institutions, and enforce and cultivate the social change she wishes to occur. The short/long term effects of her incredibly impulsive action will probably mean that the slaves she freed, and who stayed in Astapor (not even speaking of the free population) will live worse.
She's as naive and rash as the Starks (except she's also a proud Targaryen with dragons).
I simply repeat, what would YOU do?
She made the only realistic and good choice. And I still can't believe people like you are failing to call it good. She had the SLAVE MASTERS killed, people who raised soldiers to kill babies in front of their mothers. I don't give a fuck if it fed everyone, find a new way to feed! It's not impossible! What Danaerys did is not in any way comparable to what the US did in the middle east. And even if what she did was not the most politically stable or long term rational choice, with the exception of taking a large amount of time to install a stable prison system which imprisoned the slavers, it was by far the most compassionate choice (granting the slaves the release of killing their masters). Danaerys does make choices from an ideological place and that's what makes her a GOOD character and not necessarily a most-likely-to-win character. But that's what supporting good guys is all about.
It's like some people in this thread have been conditioned to see slavery as not one of the most absolutely worse thing ever.
But you're also missing my point, in that the choice may be "moral", it is not at all realistic or sustainable and indeed incredibly short-sighted, and in fact she makes the worst choice possible if we're concerned about the well-being of the people and slaves of Astapor.
That is, she guts at least the political/ruling class, and then leaves with the army. Because if we consider things on even a remotely longer term horizon, everything for Astapor is going to get worse. At worst, the slaves you've left behind are going to be massacred; at best, we're talking anarchy. The former is the result of you marching out with basically the entirety of Astapor's army (and killed any non-slave soldiers trying to defend free citizens). The result is that Astapor is entirely defenseless to the many other slave-owning cities, or say Volantis, whom will come in and massacre/enslave the freed slaves, perhaps at the behest of the frightened remnants of free citizens suffering unchecked reprisals or on their own volition, or else just sack the city entirely, because why not. They're utterly defenseless now thanks to you.
So in that scenario, the former slaves are infinitely worse off because, you know, they're dead, while the city of Astapor has been burned, sacked, and looted, and all in all destroyed, with no real possibility of recovery.
The not-worst case scenario assumes that Astapor is not preyed upon (nor intervention called from) foreign powers. You've left a complete power vacuum, destroyed any and all pre-existing political structures, institutions, and relationships, and let them fend for themselves, while making away with the army. Fantastic. That's a wonderful recipe for disaster, as the ensuing power struggle, total breakdown of public order, etc., will plunge Astapor into anarchy and domestic bloodbaths, as reprisals lead to more reprisals, etc. Plus you haven't even guaranteed that there won't be any Unsullied, the source of your outrage to begin with, because the prudent thing for any leader, leaders, or aspiring claimant to do is create a security force/army of their own (to secure their own power). And hey, why not Unsullied? As you yourself brought up, child soldiers in Africa come from underlying political turmoil and upheaval. Consider what you just created by leaving a power vacuum and most likely killing anyone experienced with ruling.
What I am saying is this: morality and ideology is entirely irrelevant to my judgement of her actions. What I am judging her on is the complete misunderstanding of how societies work and develop, and her extreme shortsightedness. You can read Charles Tilly's seminal Warmaking and Statemaking as Organized Crime, but coercive power is essential to
What would I do? There are two major routes, dependent on my priorities. Is going to Westeros and reclaiming my throne the primary objective? Then I renege the deal and march out with the army. Quite frankly, I'm in a far, far more likely to do harm (if I actually care about their long-term wellbeing instead of angrily imposing radical social upheavals and leaving with any and all military power in the city). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is no different. Do I want to help them? Yes. Will violently overthrowing the entire social order in Astapor then leaving help them? For the first few days, then the Pandora's box I've opened for them will kick in.
If freeing the slaves and looking after their best interests is my priority? I free the damn slaves (preferably without the killing and razing) and stay in Astapor for the rest of my foreseeable life and work to transition the society from what it was to one without slavery, and restructure/build up the institutions necessary to sustain it after I die. This is the real, compassionate choice.
Quibbling on this like Dany has(by killing all slaveowning adults, razing the city with dragonfire, and leaving after all is said and done with the army) is probably the worst choice out of all of them.
None of this stops people from cheering for the Starks (or Dany), nor am I saying that they shouldn't. She champions our morality against those evil slaveholders, and does badass shit that we all wish we could. I'm just pointing out how utterly boneheaded and short-sighted it all is, and that it's indicative of how unprepared she is to actually wield power effectively and thoughtfully.
But honestly, I should stop with this. If you want to continue this, we should do it via PM.
At worst they become slaves again. That's about it.
The city is also a port, you know, so they could go somewhere else. Guess I'll just wait for the argument that slavery is better than being free because you're taken care for.
Well obviously Tolkein that isn't a viable option. Dany has a purpose she isn't specifically there to be a peacekeeper. If you strike out the option of staying for the foreseeable future she CLEARLY makes the right choice. I don't have time for your bizarrely disproportionate wall of text.
The point remains and you even concede it, that Dany is the 'good' character out of the major players left alive. So stop quibbling!!!!!
On June 07 2013 18:02 sc4k wrote: Well obviously Tolkein that isn't a viable option. Dany has a purpose she isn't specifically there to be a peacekeeper. If you strike out the option of staying for the foreseeable future she CLEARLY makes the right choice. I don't have time for your bizarrely disproportionate wall of text.
The point remains and you even concede it, that Dany is the 'good' character out of the major players left alive. So stop quibbling!!!!!
I can't believe you still think this. Dany is definitely not a "good" character. She's a murderer, a hypocrite, doesn't abhor to deals, a thief (stealing from the rich and the "bad" is still stealing) vengeful and incredibly short sighted. Jaime is a much more "good" character than she is Obviously, she can be your favorite character if you want her to be, but I feel like you're blind to her bad sides, your use of exclamation marks only supports that insecurity
More important than anything else is that writing out the logistics of how the slaves fare after being freed and exactly what occurs to them isn't important to the story. It's a waste of writing space that's unimportant to most people. It's clear that Martin wants to portray Daenarys as someone who's compassionate towards slaves and ruthless to slavers (to an extent). We can see her main goal is to free the slaves over killing slavers in the later episodes as she tries to negotiate with them. Anyone trying to get more out of her actions is just searching for stuff that isn't meant to be there.
On June 07 2013 16:19 sickle wrote: Don't forget that simply 'freeing' everyone does not necessarily guarantee a better life. They now have the freedom to starve, since their entire institution that was build upon feeding them and guaranteeing somewhat of a life, is gone.
When Rome, a slave-owning institution, fell, life didn't suddenly and miraculously improve. Burning every single citizen of ancient Rome to the ground, leaving it in ashes for the 'freed' slaves.
Wait did that (bolded part) even happen? Yes murdering all the citizens of Astapor would be a terrible act. But she didn't. She allowed the slaves to kill their slave masters. Even if it is not guaranteeing them a better life, freeing slaves is the only right act to do. Especially when considering Dany's position of relative weakness and the fact that she wouldn't be able to, like a modern nation, be able to install rulers and attempt to bring the city out of its moral doldrums.
Since when allowing the victim to become judge and executioner has become a moral standard?
EPT
