05-27-2018, 02:51 PM
(05-27-2018, 12:14 PM)syscrash Wrote: What I think is funny. People complain about how could the group accept Juliette after helping to kill kelly. Yet I have never heard one complaint about how can Hank accept Adalind after she used him, sleep with him then left him for dead. The other big thing is not one comment one how Nick over looks the fact that Adalind used Nick love for Juliette to trick him into sleeping with her so she could remove his grimm. And event that end with her becoming pregnant. The reason she is with Nick in the first place.
Juliette was captured, had her memories taken, put under a compulsion spell, then turned into a hexenbiest, after having her worst enemy sleep with the guy she loves and becomes pregnant. After all of this is done to her. I only see comments complaining about the things Juliette did in retaliation. Not one comment supporting or showing some understanding why she might be extremely pissed. Here is something I find interesting. People justify Adalind sleeping with Nick to take his powers because he took her child. Yet it is wrong that Juliette burnt the trailer after having her feeling hurt at the police station. Why is that. Why is Adalind taking Nicks powers ok. But Juliette destroying Nicks reference material not ok. When the question is tried to be answered. The reasoning comes down to the difference is Nick and Juliette where in a relationship. Nick and Adalind where enemies. Here is the problem I see with people making a difference. The characters on the show do not make a difference. The characters to not hold a grudge against another character for prior actions.
Just like the writers had Adalind help Monroe get the shirt and tie, showing she is working with Nick and the group. The writers started the season with having Eve save the group. At no point have the writers ever shown eve to be a villain or evil. None of the characters one screen or off have referred to Eve as a villain or evil.
I see a much bigger problem and it is not with the show or any of the characters on the show itself. The problem is with you. You are the one that is unable to distinguish between left for dead and dead.
Like I have said many times before. If anyone had any good reasons to kill Kelly was Adalind. Kelly killed or was responsible for he rmother Catherine's death. Any which way you want to look at it, Kelly's hand were the last hand to touch her before she died. We can also justify why Kelly killed Catherine as a payback for Adalind trying and/or being responsible for the demise of her Sister Marie'.
What did Kelly do to Juliette to deserve her murder and decapitation. No matter what the gang or Nick did to Juliette, How was Kelly directly responsible for her dilemma. If anyone was more directly responsible for Juliette's troubles was the same people she sides, allies with and helped, The ROYALS. It does not matter is Juliette intend to get her killed or was clueless. The fact is, Kelly's blood was on her hands. Who's blood belonging to the gang was on Adalind's hands. Not whom came close but who was killed by Adalind's hands?
AGAIN, better question is what does it say about you being unable to distinguish the differences between causing mayhem or bringing others close to their deaths and what Juliette did which was aiding and abetting (accessory)to the murder of his mother. HELLO!!!.
This is a fictional show with fictional characters. We all apply our opinions and pass judgement on these characters based on our life experiences and our own moral compass. How can you explain how you apply your moral compass to these fictional situations is beyond me. Obviously, you seem unable to distinguish between attempt to commit murder and committing murder.
I am hoping I am wrong and you are just being blinded by your bias which causes you and the rest of your Juliette sympathizers are unable to stop and think what you are defending is un-defendable.
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!