I still don't understand your point. Washington & co were justified. Had they decided to do what you suggest, their fight would not be justifiable. In the American War for Independence, they fought to keep outsiders from exercising un-rightful dominion over them. Kind of like Robb Stark & his northmen. What you are suggesting as an alternative course of action, I would denounce as wrong, because George W & co would then become the evil they were fighting to prevent in reality. You correctly analogize that counterfactual scenario wit Daenerys, and I say both are wrong. In actual history, there was a monstrous event of the same kind, known as the French Revolution, which was later imitated by others with similarly horrific results. That was a case of malcontents attempting to impose their values and ways on others through violence (with similar results as occurred in Mereen & Astapor, courtesy of the aSoI&F version of Egwene & Alexander Kerensky), whereas the American "Revolution" was in truth, a struggle to PREVENT others from imposing themselves on the "revolutionaries" (as in the cases of Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy and the Dornish rebels against King Daeron). In no case where those rebels attempting to alter the overall government to their standards or impose their rule on outsiders. They were simply asserting their own independence of that government. Balon Greyjoy did not attempt to depose Robert, nor Robb Joffrey nor Dorne, Daeron. They were just fine with those guys occupying the Iron Throne if that's what the rest of Westeros wanted, so long as it was understood that the authority of that throne stopped at the Mountains of Dorne, or the Neck or the west coast. Just as Washington had no beef with his Germanic Majesty George III reigning over the British Isles & their inhabitants (and even offered toasts to the king during the first year of the war), so long as he desisted from his attempts to assert unlawful authority over the USA.

The difference between the two is as thin as the difference between exploitation of poverty-stricken workers, and actual plundering or robbing of them.
THAT is ridiculous. They are not whores, they are married. The difference is that a whore does not go along with a committed relationship or demand (quite frankly deserve) the respect of a partner. Wives are presumed to share in their husbands' power and act in his stead or speak with his voice otherwise. No one holds Shae to account for Tyrion's alleged regicide, but Sansa is presumed to share his guilt, or vice-versa. The point of the treaties and lands and whatnot that are so involved in a marriage among the Westeros nobles is RESPECT for marriage. Jon Snow is not termed a bastard and excluded from many of the rights and privileges his siblings enjoy out of disdain for his unmarried mother, but out of respect for his father's wife and her position and her children's rights. People are not going along with the custom of marriage because their is financial or political gain, they get the financial and political gain because of the very real, sincere and genuine commitment presumed to exist in a marriage, even if such commitment is only honored in the breech at times. That is also why there is an honor code - to enforce what standards of behavior no law has the right to interfere with.

Not remotely. The point is to have people bear witness to the consummation of this sacred commitment, even if they tend to treat it in a rather more crude manner, people being people.

WE do no such thing. You might because you are uninformed except by un-researched fiction, based off half-recalled legends and myths and propaganda. See below for my point about pots and kettles, though.

Plainly you are the one who does not, since you look upon their marital customs and traditions with the scorn of someone impossibly mired in the childish perspective of marriage as a consummation of a lust-inspired romantic affection. My outlook on the customs and practices of Westeros is not remotely based on any exclusively contemporary mores, but rather on a timeless moral code and perspective that predates even the medieval era in our world.


Not remotely, and neither does anyone else. You claim to approve of everything I say on the Wot board, so why don't you explain this accusation of me in the context of my excusing Seanchan slavery? Or condemning Daenerys' precipitate manumission of the slaves of Astapor, Yunkai & Mereen? I am the one looking at this stuff in the context of the time, while you are the one mired in contemporary morality. I defended Westeros marriage, while you scorned it as prostitution with you 21st century perspective of romantic marriage. You lauded a woman who brought starvation, disease and devastation to a thriving region, because the actions that were most responsible for this disaster are admirable by the very recent view of slavery as the ultimate evil (a view only arrived at in the last couple of centuries, in contradiction to millennia of universal practice). Which of us is more attached to the modern mindset, and unable to perceive the perspective of the Seven Kingdoms? In our "modern world" prostitution is increasingly being brought into the mainstream with the incremental acceptance and proliferation of pornography as publicly acceptable entertainment (pray tell how are the women who bare themselves and simulate sex on the TV show any different from the professions of the characters they play, except in degree? Strippers, Playboy centerfolds, and Girls Gone Wild performers are all simply prostitutes of slightly greater variation in remuneration and services rendered. They are all people who exploit themselves sexually or permit others to do so, for money or other profit. Your grudging acceptance of Westeros prostitution is more a product of contemporary fashions and entertainment trends than any immersion in the values and mores as presented in the story. I, on the other hand, am in agreement with the views of such morally diverse characters as Stannis Baratheon, Tywin Lannister and the official party line of the primary religion of the Seven Kingdoms!

And this is purely an example of transference. I hold to my values and standards because they are mine and they are what makes me who I am. It does not remotely have to do with who is better or worse than another person. I hold those principles of government not because they make me better than those who fail to meet them, but because history and experience of human nature suggest they provide the best rules for ordering the government of a society. I do not think in terms of relativity, so my adherence to the rules has nothing to do with who is better than whom. You relativists on the other hand, since relativity is a way of thinking for you, naturally fall into the trap of assuming that because something is bad, you are better for being able to identify it as such. You hold no fixed morals so all you have are comparisons of one thing or person to another. You cannot condemn anyone for any fault but failing to meet their own moral standards. You hold my principles to be a thing of my own creation or devising, and therefore you would naturally assume that on my scale, anyone who fails to adhere to those principles is less than me. On the contrary, my principles are mine because I recognize them, not because I chose them. That is how I see the world to BE, not how I would prefer it. Therefore, my condemnation of anyone for failing to meet those standards in no way reflects on me or my adherence to them. A murderer is not wrong when he calls a thief out, just because he himself is guilty of worse. It is a matter of adhering to an impartial standard, by which the character of each one judged has nothing to do with the character of any other.

I conclusion, regarding your wish to not get into a "blog debate", let me say the following: You may refrain from responding to me if you wish, or post a response saying you choose not to continue the discussion for whatever reasons you wish. Responding, and then demanding an end to the discussion, is, however, the worst sort of intellectual and rhetorical cowardice.