Khals Wound

Life feeds on life, for the most part. You kill a potato plant when you eat it. Tomato plants are smarter, they get things to eat their… seed I suppose.

So people try to calculate how Mirri's life pays for one of the dragons but it doesn't quite work and nothing explains how Daenerys herself survives.

That belief, however, is just that. We never see it proven, quite the contrary. Jaqen H'ghar's arithmetic is only in his words, never adds up. He accepts to kill several guards so Arya can escape in S2. He also takes money or just some justification to kill anyone (Lady Crane, the Thin Man), without caring much. When Beric Dondarrion or Jon Snow are resurrected, no lives are given in exchange.

This is GRRM's way of showing the pure fantasy in people's beliefs and he also demonstrates, although probably not intentionally, how such fantasies propagate in that even his readers come to share them as desired truth within his world. The fandom is full of people who will want this arithmetic to work or the prophecies to come true, even though the author's purpose is to show that they don't and that fools believe in what they want.

They want Jaqen to be right, for some reason, the same way Stannis wants to believe in Melisandre's god because she has done a few things he does not understand. And yet, enabling him to kill Renly by some sort of outward warging doesn't prove anything she says about the Lord of Light, but he is willing to go along anyway. Note: the "shadow baby" is Stannis' presence, "warging" free of a body, not a "son". This is how Brienne recognises him and also why we never see it again. Then Stannis fails and he does because of his unsubstantiated belief. Dumb Stannis fans who want to see him live further in the books fail to realise that he is only there to display the fall of a believer or at least of someone who puts too much faith in a religious movement. Book-Stannis does not believe but he uses the belief of others and will fall when that belief no longer carries his endeavour. All it will take is for the non-believing part of his army to tell him to get lost in the snow, as the sellswords did in the show. It should happen quite early in the next book.

Back to Daenerys, her behaviour around the pyre is strange. She knows what she is doing, even though we cannot understand it. Maybe she thinks she is giving Mirri's life for herself? Does she believe in that silly arithmetic? Was Mirri's murder unnecessary? I think the latter is entirely possible. Young Daenerys acts like any other young, learning person, accepting the "truths" thrown at them without much questioning. 
What remains is that there is no sense of revenge or justice in the act. She tells her people "those who would harm them will die screaming", then turns back to Mirri and says "it is not your screams I want, only your life". Therefore, Mirri is not being punished, only used. She burns, like Shireen later, and we don't know if it really did anything. 

Yes, the Targaryens are mad. They listen to "voices" or believe in dreams. Of course, the author makes it real and gives them a justification. As all good relativists shits, he will never make someone look bad without offering a possible excuse. "Something else made them do it", he will bleat.It is not an absolute rule, though. Jon is apparently not affected and I wouldn't see Stannis or his brothers as such either. Stannis had no visions or dreams, he only let himself be driven by someone who claims she sees things.

An infected wound is not the result of poisoning. It was a common way firearms killed before they got good. Bullets pushed dirty fragments of clothes into the wounds and people died of that.

She did not say she did it. "It was wrong of them to burn my temple. It angered the Great Shepherd", she says, then she goes on to say how Drogo's son would have been "the Stallion Who Mounts The World" and now "won't burn any cities" nor "trample nations into dust". This is an interpretation of what happened, not an admission of guilt. She says the gods did it, expressing the common wish that things happen for a reason above people's heads.

Daenerys implicitly accuses her: "I spoke for you. I saved you". Then Mirri denies being saved, but it confirms nothing. She never says she did anything.

"Saved me? Three of those riders had already raped me before you saved me, girl. I saw my God's house burn, there where I had healed men and women beyond counting. In the streets I saw piles of heads the head of the Baker who makes my bread, the head of a young boy that I had cured of fever just three moons past. So tell me again exactly what it was that you saved."

Both are speaking parallel concerns. Daenerys doesn't not listen to Mirri's accusations and Mirri doesn't defend herself. One could ask why she doesn't defend herself if she is innocent but she gives that very answer: she has no wish to live anyway. So we cannot tell.

As ever, the writing is fooling those who jump to conclusions, especially those who process things emotionally. Mirri contradicts Daenerys, therefore she is against her, therefore she killed Drogo and her son. That's the level of "intellect" that goes into it. They are the same who see Cersei going against Tyrion in S2 when it is exactly the other way around. Tyrion marches into the city with his own guard of Hill Tribe's men and starts removing the people loyal to his sister or to Joffrey as if he assumed he were in danger and places his own cutthroat at the head of the City Guard. Emofools then cheer for the witty arsehoie because they like him and call Cersei an evil bitch for acting in self-defence.

The authors have had both Beric and Jon explicitly say that there is nothing after death. They will not come back on this and make a contradicting statement, no matter how many show their own stupidity on the Internet.

To keep herself from being gang raped by 40000 men and their horses too. Theorising book wankers are just as dumb as any show casual.

Why don't you go fuck yourself, idiot? Don't expect me to ever stop telling you.