Game of Thrones

[flyerhawk]

How she looked at it isn't what we are talking about. Cersei doing that would make sense because that's who her character was. Dany or Jon or even Sansa... no. We are talking about the character and what is a plausible reaction and action due to the events taking place based on what we know of her. The slave owners are not farmers and mothers and children. A logical person doesn't connect those dots and they didn't flesh out (nor has martin in the books) her losing her mind in order to reach that conclusion.

We bombed every city in Japan and Germany for years. We killed thousands of women and children. Does that mean we were murderers that was unable to connect the dots? Or did we rationalize that killing those people was necessary?

She knew better than to think that the people "supported Cersei" and were anything but peasants with no voice. At least the Dany that we knew would know that. The character that they drew for us over the course of the story would know that. And that's the problem.

 

[flyerhawk]

So your feeling is that show Jon was very brave but a victim of fate? And that doesn't mesh with book Jon?

My sense is that Book Jon had far more agency and far less whinyness to him.

 

[Bridgeburner]

We bombed every city in Japan and Germany for years. We killed thousands of women and children. Does that mean we were murderers that was unable to connect the dots? Or did we rationalize that killing those people was necessary?

When did we bomb someone after the battle was won?

And no... I've never supported targeting civilians. You have?

 

[flyerhawk]

When did we bomb someone after the battle was won?

And no... I've never supported targeting civilians. You have?

We targeted civilians as part of the war. Not sure why you needed to throw the passive aggressive jab at me.

The point here is that Dany didn't think the war was over. In her speech she says it is time to move on to Dorne and Winterfell.

 

[Bridgeburner]

We targeted civilians as part of the war. Not sure why you needed to throw the passive aggressive jab at me.

The point here is that Dany didn't think the war was over. In her speech she says it is time to move on to Dorne and Winterfell.

The battle was over. She knew that. They showed her looking down on the surrendering soldiers.

Again, the point here is that the Dany were knew wouldn't have reacted that way. You keep talking about how she saw things like I don't see that. I do. I'm talking about how that conflicts with what we know of the character.

There was no passive aggressive jab. You asked me a question and I answered truthfully. I was expecting you to realize that even as monstrous as we've been in wars (WWII especially), we've never attacked civilians on that scale after the battle was over. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings.

 

[flyerhawk]

The battle was over. She knew that. They showed her looking down on the surrendering soldiers

Again, the point here is that the Dany were knew wouldn't have reacted that way. You keep talking about how she saw things like I don't see that. I do. I'm talking about how that conflicts with what we know of the character.

Well I posted a video of Danerys consistently choosing to be merciless throughout the show.

There was no passive aggressive jab. You asked me a question and I answered truthfully. I was expecting you to realize that even as monstrous as we've been in wars (WWII especially), we've never attacked civilians on that scale after the battle was over. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings.

My feelings weren't hurt in the least. But when people starting going down the "Do you like to murder people" path the conversation is likely to suffer quickly.

We attacked civilians in a far greater scale. We nuked a city 4 days after nuking a different city. That's a real life modern scenario.

If you want go back in history, people were FAR MORE bloodthirsty. "Liberators" routinely would go into towns they "liberated" and r*pe the women and kill the men anyway.

Danerys crucified people who posed no threat to her any longer. She torched people just to watch them burn.

 

[Bridgeburner]

Well I posted a video of Danerys consistently choosing to be merciless throughout the show.



My feelings weren't hurt in the least. But when people starting going down the "Do you like to murder people" path the conversation is likely to suffer quickly.

We attacked civilians in a far greater scale. We nuked a city 4 days after nuking a different city. That's a real life modern scenario.

If you want go back in history, people were FAR MORE bloodthirsty. "Liberators" routinely would go into towns they "liberated" and r*pe the women and kill the men anyway.

Danerys crucified people who posed no threat to her any longer. She torched people just to watch them burn.

Know what man? You're willing to make the leap to feel good about it. Great. But I've already addressed everything you've said here and I'm really not interested in repeating myself.

You have a great day.

 

[flyerhawk]

Know what man? You're willing to make the leap to feel good about it. Great. But I've already addressed everything you've said here and I'm really not interested in repeating myself.

You have a great day.

Well you have repeated that you don't believe that she acted consistently. That's certainly you're right.

Very few people I know were surprised by Dany's heel turn. Perhaps to the extent that she turned but her breaking bad was almost a foregone conclusion. But to each their own.

 

[SU Nittany Tide]

We bombed every city in Japan and Germany for years. We killed thousands of women and children. Does that mean we were murderers that was unable to connect the dots? Or did we rationalize that killing those people was necessary?

Japan and Germany hadn't given up.

 

[flyerhawk]

Japan and Germany hadn't given up.

4 days is 4 days.

 

[flyerhawk]

Anyway, The Ringer did a ranking of all the episodes in Thrones...

https://thrones.theringer.com/?_ga=2.180066596.1491788573.1558450651-140928237.1557788899

Nothing terribly surprising really.

 

[Bridgeburner]

Japan and Germany hadn't given up.

That's the thing. If the people were effectively used by Cersei and were lost in the battle that's one thing. But that was a slaughter after the fact. A massive one. There's nothing in her character arch that supports that kind of slip into absolute madness.

 

[Jiddy]

Someone won Game of Thrones—but it may not be who you think

People will do anything to justify the Tyrion character....Good Lord.

 

[anotheridiot]

How she looked at it isn't what we are talking about. Cersei doing that would make sense because that's who her character was. Dany or Jon or even Sansa... no. We are talking about the character and what is a plausible reaction and action due to the events taking place based on what we know of her. The slave owners are not farmers and mothers and children. A logical person doesn't connect those dots and they didn't flesh out (nor has martin in the books) her losing her mind in order to reach that conclusion.

She knew better than to think that the people "supported Cersei" and were anything but peasants with no voice. At least the Dany that we knew would know that. The character that they drew for us over the course of the story would know that. And that's the problem.

When you go way way back, when Dany was given to the warlord as a peace offering was a scar that I thought came out at the end. One of her best scenes back then was when she had him fuck her face to face. She showed what it meant to be loved. I really dont know how she lost that in the last two just because Jon would not bang her anymore.

Jon was the true king, half the leaders left hated him, the other half did not seem to mind either way, they were really not fit to rule. That is what it boiled down to at the end, who truly was fit to rule. It came down to two men that did not want the job. I go 20 years into the future of this episode and Broken dies, (or truly is evil as the night king was trying to rid the world of) the only one invading to become queen would be Sansa.

 

[Payton]

You are looking at her as a murderer but she looked at it punishing her enemies. The people of King's Landing supported Cersei. Thus they were complicit in her remaining in power and ultimately killing her dragon and Missandei. When she torched all the slave owners, it wasn't like she interviewed each one and made sure that only the bad ones were killed.

Oh, so there are "good slave owners"?

Never in our 20,000 Civil War debates did you ever let on that there was a discernible difference in your eyes...

That said, I'm thinking Dany viewed it much as "Civil War Debate Flyerhawk" does/did. Slavery is slavery. There is no "benevolent" slave-holder...

However, somehow reasoning that those in King's Landing supported Cersei, simply because they lived in King's Landing is quite a stretch...

 

[PatsFan2003]

I like Daneryus story until they fist-fucked it in front of millions of viewers. It's really unforgivable how they handled that. And I'm not sure if that's on Martin or the show runners or both.

It would have been satisfying for Daneryus to truely be a different type of Targereon as she claimed but I also think the idea that there could only be one (i.e. either Jon or Daneryus) was in the cards for a while too..

 

[Payton]

Well I posted a video of Danerys consistently choosing to be merciless throughout the show.



My feelings weren't hurt in the least. But when people starting going down the "Do you like to murder people" path the conversation is likely to suffer quickly.

We attacked civilians in a far greater scale. We nuked a city 4 days after nuking a different city. That's a real life modern scenario.

If you want go back in history, people were FAR MORE bloodthirsty. "Liberators" routinely would go into towns they "liberated" and r*pe the women and kill the men anyway.

Danerys crucified people who posed no threat to her any longer. She torched people just to watch them burn.

I'm guessing had we nuked Tokyo and killed the Emperor of Japan in the process and the city (the CAPITAL CITY) had capitulated, that we wouldn't have found it necessary to do Nagasaki just for shits and giggles...

 

[flyerhawk]

Oh, so there are "good slave owners"?

Never in our 20,000 Civil War debates did you ever let on that there was a discernible difference in your eyes...

That said, I'm thinking Dany viewed it much as "Civil War Debate Flyerhawk" does/did. Slavery is slavery. There is no "benevolent" slave-holder...

However, somehow reasoning that those in King's Landing supported Cersei, simply because they lived in King's Landing is quite a stretch...

I know you are going for snark here but I have NEVER called all slave owners evil.

Slavery is slavery. Putting someone up on a cross and sticking nails through their arms and legs is still crucifixion. Feeding your enemies to your dragon is still feeding your enemies to your dragon.

I don't believe that the people in King's Landing supported Cersei in any way and I think the show made a point to highlight that. But that doesn't mean that Dany saw it that way.

 

[flyerhawk]

I'm guessing had we nuked Tokyo and killed the Emperor of Japan in the process and the city (the CAPITAL CITY) had capitulated, that we wouldn't have found it necessary to do Nagasaki just for shits and giggles...

Well sure, I guess.

Seems like lots of people want to come up with reasons why it was ok for us to nuke Nagasaki. Which is fine since I'm not arguing about the morality of it one way or the other. But the truth is that war brings out the worst in people, even ostensibly good people.

 

[Bridgeburner]

It would have been satisfying for Daneryus to truely be a different type of Targereon as she claimed but I also think the idea that there could only be one (i.e. either Jon or Daneryus) was in the cards for a while too..

Oh I agree. I never really saw her sitting the thrown. I actually thought they would end up with Jon on it. But I thought we would get that ending by Dany not surviving the battle at King's Landing.