More like "Some of you may be in my line of fire, as I indiscrimately have my dragon breath fire on surrendering soldiers and defenseless civilians, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."

@@silastipton9982 “We did it, Patrick! We saved the city!”

"Those women and children were guilty" Daenerys, probably.

"Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" - Daenerys, probably.

*All of you

Think he would have mentionned the lisp?

​​@arklaw8306 you bet he would

Had Wolf been on this, the Lisp would have 'bubbled' himself ( to use some of It's a Gundam's vernacular) 🤣

It's true, mostly, because Wolf is just Rags with a worse temperment and is more than willing to make ad hominin attacks on people and openly harass them in what is supposed to be a debate. It would be easy to bait him into saying something heinous, since he was usually barely two seconds away from saying it of his own volition. Wolf stepping away from the internet was the best thing for him, and I'm thrilled *NEW* wolf *TOTALLY* wouldn't call this guy a *MASSIVE* live on-air. Totally.

Perfect comment

This guy must have scored a full kilo of pure uncut Copium, before this "debate".

House of the Dragon periodically reminds the audience, and their brains reject the association.

@@williamshelton4318 The cope is strong!

House of the dragon is a smashimg wee programme. Suppose its easy to make a tv show when you stay close-ER to the books your copying. Those fellas rushed that show so they could get their star wars chance that fell through

​@@abc-oq7dt what weirds me is that SW was already in decline by that point, and people even nowadays believe that they wrote the show when they literally used the books as a script and everytime they deviated from the books it sucked. They had everything, they succesfully gaslit people, they had their kingdom and threw it away to do an harder work.

@@Lampoluke "they had everything" Almost. When they ran out of book material and had to make stuff up for the rest of the series it was clear they had no idea what they were doing. If only JRRM used all those years the show was still popular to finish the books, they might have salvaged what was remaining in the story for the last seasons. But we've all seen how that turned out. Now nobody will care even if by some miracle the books do come out.

Still not as cringe as being named khaleesi

Would genuinely rather be named Dovahkiin or Sephiroth.

lmao

I feel sorry for anyone unlucky enough to be named after a trendy pop culture character from the fantasy genre because their parents don't know how names work in real life.

Ever meet one of those thirty year old dudes named Goku?

SOG Prairie Fire is my personal Vietnam

The people of King's Landing were like an aliens to Daenerys!

t'was our generation s 'NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM BABBY!

"The White walkers are this unknowable alien force." "You know, just like the Vietnamese"

I mean, if you weren’t getting skeptical at season 6 I don’t know how. People act like this came out of nowhere

GOOD.

Same thing happened to Twin Perfects too i think. It seems these type of apologist critics get real afraid when someone calls them out on their bullshit.

He later called people in the chat antisemitic on reddit

@@TrajGreekFire ... wow, I'm so surprised... really didn't see that coming

​@@tereninsecundus6084you are a bully but in real life anyone could break your legs

Sopranos had very fitting ending, that's how it ws supposed to go, unless you wanted some 20 extra seasons of Tony's sucessor dealing with usual shit. I wouldn't want Sopranos to share SImpsons fate of melting into flanderisation for the sake of keeping going. Breaking Bad was veeeeery slow burn at the start, a few waited longenough for it to start to be good.. The show would be better without Skyler, that's for sure.

Breaking Bad did have an issue with for its ending, but thankfully El Camino answered it. Namely my issue was that Brock was rendered an orphan in the penultimate episode and nobody references him in the finale.

​@@emberfist8347 Eh The show ended well enough. El Camino as a piece of media was terrible. Sometimes things should just be left open ended.

@@The_Stranger1986 To me E Camino was good because as I said Brock’s fate was too open-ended. It is one of those things where a significant character suddenly disappears from the story and nobody remembers them and we never learn what happened that is a writing problem.

All Stars flanderized so many characters it isn't even funny. And don't remind me of that idiotic Mal plotline...

It's not just bad writing, it's the cope to justify evil being done. Hell, I just saw Jujutsu Kaisen, season 2's ending, and my god, THAT is what you do to end in a sour note but still hopeful for the future. Literally a "nah, it'll be fine" that makes sense.

Ngl, I wasnt expecting to see a comment mentioning TD 😂 I watched a video of it today after a long time not seeing the show, only saw first season, crazy that suddenly a comment mentions on a non related video 😂

@@denkerbosu3551 sour is maybe the tamest word I’d choose to describe how that biz played out lol.

@@Arko777777 that season is my personal Vietnam xD

There are dozens of us. Dozens!

We are legion!

He made a stream about it with Wolf and a third person, I forget who. That's as close as you're gonna get.

I asked him in a game stream about doing a longer cover of the long night and he said he no and that he probably won’t touch GoT for a while, if ever

i’d like to see it

But she's saving the future generations by not having to experience PTSD!

She freed all those slaves and made them her slaves. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss lmao

@@Kwisatz-Chaderach "Oh I would't say free. More like under new management."

​@@cyrilmagi6201 Tighten

If I get splashed by scalding hot water and nothing happens, I'll go "Huh. That's.... That's not normal." Then if I get touched by a like, burning rock or something, and nothing happens, I'm gonna go "Now that's very interesting." At that point, if I need to convince people that I'm super badass and worthy of ruling a kingdom, you bet your ass I'm going to walk into fire. If it burns me I'm backing out of it, and I'm going to try and figure out who decided hot STUFF doesn't hurt me, but FIRE does, cause fire and super hot rock is the same fucking thing in a different medium. Heat is heat. In a world where literal magic fire witches that can produce fire on hundreds of weapons at a range at will and cover her hands in flame and not be burned, it's even less crazy. Believing you're fireproof in REAL LIFE is crazy because WE do not have fucking magic. Dany being MAGICALLY immune to fire is possible in this world, and her believing she has this ability is not inherently crazy, especially if she actually does have it, and she does. But he said "feeding a guy to your dragon is crazy, therefore Dany can burn innocent people alive. Also they're not innocent, cause she just doesn't like them cause they're like dicks or something. So nyeh." This guy's retarded.

And you'd test it on a candle first, right?

@@arklaw8306 If I touch scalding water and burning coals and nothing happens, that's a sufficient test. If I walk into a fire and go ow, I would back out and try to figure out what's going on.

​@@arklaw8306if I'm walking towards an inferno there'd be some point that pain would start before I'm all the way in it, and I'm not fireproof/fire resistant

"But they're not innocent in her eyes."

​@@arklaw8306Maybe if he flipped it: "What if it's actually just as monstrous to burn a city full of rich people who owned slaves. But you all thought it was bad ass and awesome. That's not a Dany problem; it's a you problem." It's not a great argument, but if this guy had the balls to make it, he wouldn't find it so hard to be consistent.

He was actually referring to clath contheosneth. A totally different phenomenon

It gets better as time goes on, at one point someone asks him If you kill 10,000 people and free 10,000 slaves do the two acts cancel out? He can't answer because its a weird philosophy question, his words not mine. Total left brain rot syndrome

@@samwallaceart288 that's funny, thank you.

​@@samwallaceart288Man Idk why but how clath contheoneth is typed out just hurts my brain on so many levels.

Yea that got me and it dosent even makes sense because peasants would very much identify with their king and Kingdom But than again he calls monarchy an extortion Business which pick up a book man medieval times are highly complex and fascinating

Innocent and not guilty are not synonyms.

"I mean... innocent according to whose metric?" The metric of the person who is known not to slaughter innocents.

​@nassan1599 Yes, they are. It's like saying "clean" and "not dirty" aren't the same.

@@Susan_K Legally speaking, innocence must be proven. “Not guilty” is just the default position of everyone.

@jlev1028 not guilty is default, innocence has to be proven.

Yeah he never gave any examples of people acting inconsistent. Morality IS subjective, that's correct, but people like Dany and John have THEIR OWN MORAL CODES, they have their own standards. Dany's is that you don't kill children, innocent people should be left out of this shit, slavery is abhorrent and slavers are pieces of shit, and if they don't give that up they are on the chopping block. You need to FROM HER PERSPECTIVE establish "Killing kids is ABHORRENT" to "Well.... Like JUST THIS ONCE it was the correct decision. I didn't like it, but it had to be done." Then you go to "Well THESE children were certain to grow up all hateful and try to rebel, that'd definitely get GOOD children and innocent people killed because their PARENTS were horrible. This was the best decision." Then eventually peaking at something like "These children don't matter. MY people matter, I matter, MY rule matters. What I say matters, is what matters. These children were complacent in evil, it's better to wipe the slate clean." There needs to be an escalation from Dany's own viewpoint, you can't just say "well subjective so nothing matters." THAT is the bullshit theists pedal to say atheists can't say anything matters because subjective. It's a bullshit argument that falls apart with the slightest pressure.

I think his perspective on morality is just infantile. It's insanely poorly developed. He literally said if you kill 10,000 people for fun, then save 10,000 people, you're morally gray. No.

It's particularly odd that those inconsistencies seem to be backloaded on the latter seasons... strange

Yeah it’s just that Griffith accomplished his goal, he won, and he had to do the thing to achieve it, also his circumstances at the time were let’s say, dire. Danny on the other hand didn’t have to burn the city, she did it to fuel her rage I suppose? Idk. But she didn’t accomplish anything except for dying. So I’d argue she’s worse than griff, she’s just stupid and cruel.

Also don’t know this Magnus fellow, but sounds like a classy gentleman!

Those two are well written tho. Griffith I dont have to elaborate on. Magnus was a good man with a great deal of flaws but always seeking to do good with the information at hand. Well, until chaos juice.

He's from the tabletop game Warhammer 40k. He's a big (as in 10+ feet tall) red skinned one eyed psyker (a space wizard) and a demigod son of the god emperor. In the prequel books (set 10k years before the setting) through the machinations of the god of change his ego was exploited and he ended up doing more harm than good and became a daemon prince (with bird wings).

Daenerys should be like that, but they failed at it.

Thank you. I got about 12 minutes in and found it too annoying. Cane down here to enjoy the comments before I go.

For me it's the several minutes of ums and ers. It tends to grate on the nerves after a while. If you're going to debate someone, come prepared.

No no, it's okay if you're fighting a system😂

capita... ehem, I meant feodalism bad.

@@Phaeron123 You joke about that, but there are actual people out there who sincerely think that. People who subscribe to the communist rhetoric about the necessity of revolutions and violently overthrowing the establishment. It's the kind of people who view moderates in more contempt than the far right, and tell you with a straight face that MLK was a pussy and people don't give enough credit to the "heroic black panthers" for scaring the white moderates into supporting the civil rights movement.

​@Phaeron123 It's okay if you're fighting a system the speaker personally disapproves of.

It's not like they need kingslanding a central position in westeros and also has been the freaking place where kings and Queen's rule and a position of power and control and influence. 😂😂 but also the fuking ppl that literally lives there. Don't forget the farm lands that those ppl in kingslanding should be fuking working in

It's almost like throughout the series she started somewhere, then she changed, made mistakes, developed, wanted to fix those mistakes and not make them again, had a journey, became a person people could root for and look up to, maybe advocate for the throne, and then literally in an instant she just slaughters innocent people for literally NO reason, despite that action impeding her actual goals. But I'm sure she just FORGOT about Cersei. I hear she does that a lot.

@@haku8135 idk what you’re talking about Danny was always evil. Yall just hold on to her empty morals that she stated but clearly never actually held up. I was never surprised she decided to burn innocents. I never felt she was justified in doing evil things to evil people. That makes her no better than anyone she claimed was evil. Seemed obvious she was going to be evil the whole time. She was on a mission of Conquest but yall think she was good? 😂😂😂😂😂 definition of gullible.

@@the21stcenturyboy_ Probably a troll but I'll bite. The Iron Throne belonged to the Targaryens initially. Her family lost but she had a claim. That is part of the ambiguity of war. She freed slaves and turned them against their masters, she liberated cities, was against people senseless dying in the fighting pit, locked her dragons away when they killed a little girl when they hunted for food, and when she was angry or frustrated still heeded consul from people like Barrastion and Mormont.

@@Fauwkes yeth

Basically how I word it is this: Her tactics have always been the same. She has threatened violence, done violence, lied to get what she wanted, and has looked at suffering with either a cold stare or feeling of righteousness. The difference was that was all done against those who were slavers, or those who belittled her and her claim so we cheered it on. Now it's happening to people who are simply standing against her claim for the throne, some just soldiers and men who had never enslaved or tormented anyone. But when it comes to King's Landing, that was purely a temper tantrum from her bottled up rage and the need to unleash it, regardless who was beneath her.

Tyrant Definition: a cruel and oppressive ruler Dany is not cruel, and she specifically does NOT want to oppress those she rules. She wants to FREE slaves, and make the world a more peaceful place. Tyrant does not just mean anyone who is in charge. Dany is literally AT WAR, of course she's going to kill people and do meanie pants things. That doesn't make her a tyrant. To people NOT trying to kill her, she's consistently good to, until the show shits the bed, apparently. I haven't watched it btw, I'm going off the fallout of this season, it's very comprehensive. She doesn't do anything any other ruler, including the ones considered to be very good and not tyrants at all, has done to pursue the rule she believes is the best for everyone. If she burned someone alive BEFORE season 8, is what because they were TYRANTS who fucked over the lives of the innocent for their own gain. She executed them for crimes against humanity basically, and the people like her for it. They were tried as criminals, found guilty, and executed. The same thing every other leader does, John Snow included. This is just how life WORKS. Westeros isn't sunshine and rainbows, it's a hard, brutal place, and Dany cannot survive it without being willing to spill blood. She always made sure the blood she spilled was people OPPOSED to her values of freedom, prosperity, and so on. She believes her side is JUST, and the side that's happy to enslave and rape and butcher kids is the bad side, and she needs to rescue the common people from those TYRANTS. Tyranny is NOT just she's in charge and kills her enemies, therefore she is a tyrant. That's not how this works at all. America was not tyrannical when we fought against Britain for our independence.

@@haku8135 Dany put over a hundred men to the cross without blinking, having no idea who they were besides the elite. She had to be told after they died of thirst or blood loss that at least one of them was against the act the city did to the slaves. She fed a man to her dragon with no idea if he was innocent or not. She conquered cities to free slaves but did nothing to prevent it from happening again which only caused more death. She imprisoned her dragons on the action of another dragon. Did she want to free slaves? Yes. But she did it and other actions in cruel ways without hesitation or a thought to the consequences. The episode where she takes Mareen ends on her at the top as she listens to the screams of men on the crosses. No trial nor remorse based on their status instead of knowing their actions.

@@EndThusIAm "Dany put over a hundred men to the cross without blinking" Did she, or is there context you're leaving out? Was there an entire lead up TO crucifying people? Did she have REASONS to do it? Why are you being so incredibly vague in favor of making Dany look like a psychopath? You're being dishonest. " having no idea who they were besides the elite" Who are "the elite"? Did they as a group do things that Dany found reprehensible? Did they commit crimes harsh enough execution was her only recourse? Did they attack her? Why are you being so vague!? You're acting like she can just walk up, crucify 100 people, and nobody can say anything about it! There's OTHER THINGS that happens before this event, surely. Why are you being so VAGUE!? "She had to be told after they died of thirst or blood loss that at least one of them was against the act the city did to the slaves." Ok, so the people who controlled the city were slavers, they did something horrible, and she punished them for it. Why are you pretending she just walked up and crucified 100 totally innocent people for fun? On top of that, out of 100 people, ONE of them maybe wasn't QUITE so bad a guy? Did he do OTHER things that WERE bad? Was it just this one line that he thought was too far, but he did OTHER horrible shit? Was he advocating the slaves should be freed and the other nobles just weren't down for that? Did he not keep his own slaves? Did he have slaves, but he treated them as equals? Is he well known as the super awesome noble that everyone liked? You're not EXPLAINING anything, you're making it MORE confusing. So Dany learned she killed, I'm going to assume this, an innocent man by mistake. Did she have a reaction to that? She believed they were all evil, but this guy wasn't, does she LEARN something from this? Does she grow? Does she strive to do BETTER? You're cherry picking to the extreme. "She fed a man to her dragon with no idea if he was innocent or not." What's the context? John Snow killed a man for back talk, didn't he? Who was this man? What's the CONTEXT? You can't just say "She killed a guy at random" without ANY context. You've already made it clear you're fine with just lying to me about what Dany did. So be DETAILED, what is the CONTEXT here. WHY did she decide this man being killed by her dragon was acceptable in this circumstance? Does she just feed people to her dragons just because? Do her dragons just snatch random people up and Dany goes "Well, they're hungry, it's fine." EXPLAIN this to me. I haven't seen this show, I don't know a lot about it, but you're deliberately divorcing her actions from ANY amount of context in an extremely harsh world that's literally on the brink or literally IN a war for power over the throne. "She conquered cities to free slaves but did nothing to prevent it from happening again which only caused more death." How is that evil? That's naivete, not evil. She conquered a city, freed the slaves, and tried to make it better, then something bad happened LATER? That's not her fault, that isn't her being evil. "She imprisoned her dragons on the action of another dragon." The actions of some random dragon totally unrelated to hers? You're being VERY SUSPICIOUSLY vague here. What dragon? What did it do? Why did she decide she needed to lock her dragons away? Did one of her dragons do something she found morally abhorrent? Like did one of her dragons just lash out and kill a child, so because she was horrified at that, she kept her dragons away from people until she was certain that wouldn't happen again? Did she tell one of them to pull a cart and it took a nap so she locked them all away? Did she hear a STORY of dragons burning down a village, so she locked her dragons up so they wouldn't burn down a village? WHY ARE YOU BEING SO FUCKING VAGUE!? This entire time you've been plucking things so far out of context it's like you want me to believe she's just going around at random doing shitty things to people that have done absolutely nothing wrong, she's just crazy and has obscene amounts of power, so she keeps getting away with it, but she's performing atrocious acts left and right and everyone.... Supports her, for some reason, I guess they're all crazy? That's what you're making me think. You're SHIT at explaining this character. "Did she want to free slaves? Yes. But she did it and other actions in cruel ways without hesitation or a thought to the consequences." DOES SHE!? Or is she just not PERFECT with infinite foresight, and she makes mistakes? Is she being too MEAN to slavers that rape women and beat children? Should she be NICER to the monsters raping little girls? Is THAT your position? Cause it SOUNDS like that's your position. She's killing people she considers to be absolute monsters that treat human beings as their property, and she's being MEAN about, so it's totally understandable that she'd just randomly decide to burn thousands of women and children alive for the crime of existing.

It's almost like her actions happened in completely different context and had different purposes, therefore her killing slave masters because they killed children is different than her committing a genocide for no reason Could it be?

Eyyyyyy Love your vids Jedibrooks

Who is the guy in the video

Yezen. His channel is in the description. You can always check there to see who's featured :)​@@JacobKasza

Hey Brooks! 🙂

@@primesonic4459 respect!

3 seconds later… “bY whOsE mEtRIc?” The person who you’ve been talking about for the past half hour and who Mauler just quoted verbatim… openly admitting it… it’d be nice if he actually listened to the points being made…

🤣🤣

imagine some horrible medical condition where you cry coom and ejac tears... Thats what your comment made me think of.

I mean watching an entire fleet of super badass navy soldiers getting one shot by this lady's singular dragon is pretty scary. Especially when those ships were all mounted with dragon killing weapons, but they still couldn't stop her. I really don't need 90% of my city to be burned to get the picture this lady holds a LOT of power. Especially considering I'm pretty sure they already hated Cerse, they just couldn't do anything about it because they don't have any power over her. Like revolts fail. A LOT. You need specific circumstances for a revolt to work. Cersei's holed up in a CASTLE. Those things are literally built to be extremely defensible. Not only could she hold up against tens of thousands of ARMED combatants attacking the castle for probably days depending on how many soldiers she has on hand, but like we already know she has escape routes as well. She's unreachable to the average person. MEANWHILE THIS BITCH HAS A DRAGON, AND GOES AFTER EVERYONE EXCEPT HER!

Danaery's feelings don't care about the facts. She was angry so it was OK ro throw a temper tantrum and burn a city full of people that just surrendered to her.

Read a history book. Every bloodthristy, authoritarian dictator started out as a well-intended activist with a goal they perceived to be beneficial and positive for humanity but turned into a monster because they didn't get their way or something didn't turn out how they wanted it to. Do you think the atrocities committed by fanatical madmen "made sense" when they were actually happening? Do you think there's a story-like narrative where every genocidal behavior is predicted and explained in a pat, satisfactory manner like a movie? I think Danny's story feeling so chaotic could be attributed to incompetence in writing *OR* it could just be that she had an evil, maniacal side in her all along. Like this reviewer said, it was there in subtle ways, I can't even disagree with her arc.

Basically she decides children deserve to be burned to death because they were afraid to fight an army. I haven't seen the show, I've not seen ANY game of thrones at all, I've learned from the FALLOUT of season 8 exclusively, and I feel like I have a better grasp on who Dany is than this guy who admits he had to convince himself through cherry picking things out of context and forcing rationalizations who has apparently seen the entire show. This guy's just willfully retarded.

Like so many things are water soluble, HOW CAN HE KNOW that he's waterPROOF? Water wears away MOUNTAINS, this guy's crazy.

And she did everything to whack people on BOTH tracks.

Yeah she’s not evil in the books. She is however quickly becoming surrounded by people who are evil. Moqqoro, baelon Greyjoy is on his way, Tyrion, maester whatshisnuts that taught mirri mazdur, dothraki blood riders, strong Belwas and her new lord husband who tried to kill her. So like…shits not going well.

tbf she's a tyrant in that she's a monarch but she's pretty fair if only slightly naiive. If anything her empathy and compassion is a flaw in her rule as she tried to remove slavery from a place literally called slavers bay ha.

​@@hadriancaesar2686but she was successful as far as we know. It caused a lot of social unrest, but I would take that everyday over 50% of people being slaves

@@sarwatarannya8786 I agree vbut a ruler can't always look at things in a moral regard, she thought if she banned slavery that was it, it wasn't

A really embarrassing reason for a driver to stop a bus. "I called 911, thought the passenger was dying, turns out he was just listening to a podcast..."

Your friend group was lying.

@@sayLeotardbutsayitChinese nah man they just have terrible taste. Same group loved the Star Wars sequels but shit on Rogue One for being boring. Suffice to say, I haven't talked to any of them in years.

THIS. The way 7 seasons of Game of Thrones portrayed, she'd have been the best ruler of Westeros with Jon. The first ruler in a long time who cared about the fate of innocent and common folk. We still could have given the show a bittersweet ending to the characters the show wanted. Dany gets the name the "Queen of the Ashes" not because of nuking King's Landing herself but because of the true Mad Queen, Cersei, using wildfire to deny Deanarys the full victory. The last "F YOU!" if you will. Other people in King's Landing wouldn't know if it was really Cersei setting the wildfire off or it was dragon fire that did. So people would still blame her for this to some degree. So despite the best efforts, Daenarys became someone she tried so much to avoid as she conquered Westeros. Then she'd have spent the rest of her life making up for that tragedy, trying to make sure every death of the innocent was not in vain. In that way, she'd have truly broken the wheel. Daenerys would be known as ruthless but just Queen

@@piotrfijoek1095 i wish you were the writer instead

@@sab3redg333 Thank You :) I wouldn't be able to write the whole show but I'd be that irritating guy in the writers' room to call their BS ideas out like Mauler would have as well :D Overall, the way Dany was written, the showrunners should have gone for the non-canon but natural conclusion of her character within the show because they had no setup for G.R.R. Martin's fate of that character. I don't know when they even found out how A Song of Ice and Fire ends from Martin's notes. When they did, they realized how much their GoT's characters' face is far from Martin's.

Yes, thank you. Completely agree.

Rags: "Describe to me the bad things that happened to Dany from E1S1 to E6S8."

Even though I’m on the EFAP side of the overall debate, I was really irritated with Rags’ argumentation. I would not have kept my cool at his “yes or no will suffice”, my brother in Christ, you are king of loving your own voice, do not dictate my response to me.

@@shamboholic when someone is waffling thats a useful tactic because it establishes a basis. It forces someone to take a position which can be confronted as opposed to hovering in ambiguity

Who?

@@CarlosThadeu MundaneMatt.

@@OlioH_ Ah, I pulled a Danerys and kinda forgot about that guy

still chuckle whenever I see that pfp

"Yo Hitler, you wanna smoke some grass?"

Says a lot about you

@@sandcrawlerstudios2013 yeah it says that i dont have a speech impediment

@@Fauwkes so what? It’s not a big deal. You’re a bit of a prick to make fun of someone just for the way they speak. Comment on WHAT he says not the minor lisp

That’s the thing and this dude obviously didn’t rewatch the whole show because if he did he would remember that Danny could hold a dragons egg that’s been steeping in fire without being burned. When her servant tries to take it from her she’s scalded instantly.

Conquerors, by default, must be brutal, but that does not mean they are necessarily unjust, Case in point: the leadership of the Western Allies AGAINST Adolf Hitler, Imperial Japan, and (later) Stalin and Mao. What Danny did was Hiroshima and Nagasaki without ANY warning against a nation that was not going to fight to the last man, woman, and child and was already subdued in everything but the personhood of their leader. It’d be like the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER already conquering the Japanese mainland and isolating its generals and leaders to Tokyo just because they insulted you and killed a prisoner. It was already unjust and questionable attacking civilian targets (which is why the Western nations established rules against it afterwards with the Geneva Conventions), but that’s just taking things to a whole new level of atrocity. If the US had done that, we absolutely would have become the villains in that moment.

@@scionofdorn9101 Well said 👍

Was the rite of guest a thing in the East? I honestly don't remember.

Thats a westerosi thing

Even if that rite isn't valued in Essos, it does show she has no problem going back on her word but we're supposed to be alright with that character trait because she did it to a slaver.

What a merciful act

good, there is some good in the world

Morality is obviously subjective. Do you think people in Pakistan have the same sense of morality as those in Switzerland?

@@MoonlitMarchtheir morality is wrong. Have you seen how they treat women or gay people?

@@MoonlitMarch No, but you're just citing an end. It is not the point you think it to be. It has been pointed out already that their sense could be - or as the commenter put it is - wrong. Moreover, yours is a point that pertains more so to culture than morality per se. If I were to punch you and you were to punch me back, how would we acquire for ourselves the difference between the punches?

@@SacClass650 Morality is subjective. It has to be. Only subjects have OPINIONS on morality. The mere fact there are arguments about what is or is not moral, should be an indication it's not subjective. 2+2=4 is not subjective, nobody argues when you take 2 apples, and put 2 more apples in the pile, you have 5 apples. Because math is objective, where morals are subjective. It can ONLY be subjective, because it is entirely dependent on subjects. That is the literal definition of subjective. If you click a button and erase all humans from the universe, morality changes. It disappears. Nothing is moral OR immoral, everything is Amoral, because morality is dependent on subjects to argue about it. Nick over there said their morality IS WRONG because of how they treat women and gay people. That's HIS opinion. Subjectively from his point of view, they are in the wrong. They believe, they are in the RIGHT. Two subjects disagree over a matter, subjective. Morality is subjective, just because people agree on things like "You shouldn't kill people for fun" doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY immoral, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY immoral, because we say so. And lots of people saying it just means we agree on this thing. 10000 people saying vanilla ice cream is the best flavor does not make it objectively true, it's a subjective opinion, no matter how common the opinion.

@@haku8135 For argument's sake, let's say your non cognitivism is correct. We have then - predominantly through religion - distilled and systematized our ethicality, creating a grounding from which an _objective_ language is spoken. There is no such thing as a private [subjective] language; indeed, that we can dispute it tells us there is, in fact, a contingency that is subject to disputation (demonstrative, or deliberative). And I will ask you the same - if I were to punch you and you were to punch me back, how would we acquire for ourselves the difference between the punches? (Moreover, do you not think there are virtues contained in, for example, a mother birthing a child that speaks to us possessing "a natural proneness toward having the virtues"? I do.)

Yeth kween thlayy

If you do read the books it’s so much worse, because “Dani burns Kingslanding” is a plot point straight from George RR Martin who wrote the books, the difference being that the books set up Dani’s character far differently even as early as the first book. Where as the show just tried to turn her into a girl-boss-moment generator, her actions are far more villainous, for example Miri Mazdur’s advice in the first book is consistently ignored by both Dani and Khal Drogo, and Miri isn’t nearly as antagonistic or condescending towards her, which makes Dani’s decision to burn Miri on Drogo’s pyre much more f$&ked up. Later by Book/Season 5 another character was also majorly changed, Tyrion, in the show he’s Dani’s voice of reason from Season 5 onwards, but last we saw him in the books he’s set up to be a devil on Dani’s should, he says that he’ll “bring Fire and Blood to Westeros” and other characters around Dani are also reminding her that her family’s words are “Fire and Blood” because all of her peaceful options are failing, it’s hinted that she’ll burn down at least one city in Essos before she even gets to Westeros.