+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. (/Thread-Greenwalt-Kouf-are-morally-indifferent-writers)
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - irukandji - 03-30-2019
I don't want to turn this into an Adalind versus Juliette versus Nick versus Renard, and on and on and on, okay? I'm just going along with hexenadler's thoughts on this because he is right.
And so, Adalind was 26, on the downhill side toward 30. Claire's date of birth year is 1980, which in real life would make her 31. But, the fact that she's even younger doesn't make it better, it just makes her more promiscuous before 30.
There really was no reason for it.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - syscrash - 03-30-2019
Quote:It's true, in the earlier days of television that you're talking about, toilets were not shown. On the other hand, did you (or anyone here for that matter) miss the toilet being omitted from a favorite weekly television program? Or could you care less because it was an unnecessary element that did not prevent the weekly yarn from being told?
Quote:Take Adalind for instance, since sex has been a recent topic. She's already 30 something when the series begins and during the course of a 6 season show, she's been through at least five guys. Call me judgmental here, but my guess would be she's been through plenty more before the viewer ever set eyes on her.You opinion about Adalind is a good example. Just like the FCC restrictions that I pointed out which only existed for reason of maintain morality. Also exist in your view that you consider Adalind promiscuous. You make that statement because she sleep with multiple guys. Only a few years ago sex out side of marriage would have been used to make the same assumption. Some even felt sex for anything other then procreation would also be seen as a definition of ones character.
What I find interesting is people who still try an hold onto this idea that ones sex life defines their character. Instead of seeing it as an adult activity like drinking a beer, that people engage in for the sole purpose of the pleasure that it brings. I was using the FCC restrictions to show the what is considered immoral not only changes over time but also buy who is making the claim.
lets consider how violence is handled. The show uses violence as a solution to confrontation. There was a time hanging horse thefts was considered not only moral but an imperative. Now days it could get you a lethal injection. The law has not changed only the perception. So why is it considered immoral for Nick or any of the characters to handle conflict resolution the same as any show depicting a time before conflict was restricted to legal resolutions. Even the bible says an eye for and eye something that was normal prior to the 21st century.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - dicappatore - 03-30-2019
(03-30-2019, 11:24 AM)syscrash Wrote: lets consider how violence is handled. The show uses violence as a solution to confrontation. There was a time hanging horse thefts was considered not only moral but an imperative. Now days it could get you a lethal injection.
Did you mean, "Now days it "COULD NOT" get you a lethal injection?
Just a small note. The days when it was imperative to hang horse thieves, back then, when you stole another man's horse, you took away his livelihood, his way to make a living. If he was camped out in the wilderness and woke up to a missing horse, it could become a matter of life and death. It was a case of contributing to another mans inability to survive in that wilderness.
If you stole someone horse today, including a prized race horse, you basically take away someone's hobby.
Trying to compare morality and criminal activity out of context is inconsequential. Long term morality issues, in time, do eventually change laws to reflect the times and its effected varied societies.
Even today, in some parts of the globe, the behavior of what the characters on Grimm committed, could mean jail time. In a few places, for women, even justified killings.
Going back to the question of the thread, "Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers", by Hexenadler.
Who's moral standards are you looking to use? Yours? Theirs? Ours???????
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - syscrash - 03-30-2019
Quote:Did you mean, "Now days it "COULD NOT" get you a lethal injection?In Texas you COULD GET the death penalty for murder. Hanging a horse theft would count as murder.
Quote:ust a small note. The days when it was imperative to hang horse thieves, back then, when you stole another man's horse, you took away his livelihood, his way to make a living. If he was camped out in the wilderness and woke up to a missing horse, it could become a matter of life and death. It was a case of contributing to another mans inability to survive in that wilderness.Ok replace horse with car or truck. Your using the a horse is someone lively hood as a false correlation. Hanging horse thefts applied to more then horses. The only requirement to hang someone was the community agree that you where wronged. It did not matter how you where wronged. People where hung for hunting wild game on someone else land.
Very few issues that people have moral or immoral opinions on have governed by laws. Remember you may think morallity is something people agree on. The truth is morality is subjective. And just like your opinion on promiscuity is an individual opinion not a known fact.
Quote:Even today, in some parts of the globe, the behavior of what the characters on Grimm committed, could mean jail time. In a few places, for women, even justified killings.And in a lot of places if you don't live by kill of be killed you would be dead. In a lot of places you can be killed just because someone does not like you. does not agree with you. or they they simple think it is funny to see your brains on the floor. I understand your understanding of what is appropriate when it comes to violence. But many places are extremely violent and people live by the laws of nature instead of the laws of man.
Quote:Who's moral standards are you looking to use? Yours? Theirs? Ours???????That is the problem. You feel someone has the ability to define what is moral and what is immoral. Morality is the rules an individual lives by. It should not be the rules someone uses to govern someone else actions. Example you see someone running down the street naked. You may see it as immoral or indecent. That does not make it immoral or indecent. Consider in the 50 a bikini on the beach would get you arrested for indecent exposure. Not anymore even though nothing has changed in the law. But even now some still see wearing a bikini as indecent.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - FaceInTheCrowd - 03-30-2019
Morality is a useless rubber standard that merely represents what a majority of the population approves of or is willing to stand by and do nothing to stop.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - irukandji - 03-30-2019
(03-30-2019, 11:24 AM)syscrash Wrote: You opinion about Adalind is a good example. Just like the FCC restrictions that I pointed out which only existed for reason of maintain morality. Also exist in your view that you consider Adalind promiscuous. You make that statement because she sleep with multiple guys. Only a few years ago sex out side of marriage would have been used to make the same assumption. Some even felt sex for anything other then procreation would also be seen as a definition of ones character.
What I find interesting is people who still try an hold onto this idea that ones sex life defines their character. Instead of seeing it as an adult activity like drinking a beer, that people engage in for the sole purpose of the pleasure that it brings.
I've never heard of sexual activity being compared to drinking beer before. It's a strange comparison to be sure. In real life, I've never judged an adult acquaintance as promiscuous. In order to do so, they'd have to be completely honest about their sexcapades. But then, how does one verify it's complete honesty or a boast? Do you happen to know people who are so comfortable with you that they'd blabber on about the many trysts they've had? If so, how do you verify they're not full of it?
As for Adalind, there is no need to, as you put it, "judge her character by her sex life". We already know about Adalind's character via the series. Her sex life is merely a part of her character.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - syscrash - 03-31-2019
Yes people talk about sex just like they talk about any other activity. Not everyone sees sex as having some kind of meaning. I will ask here like I ask everyone. why is sex any different then any other activity? It is puritanical thinking that causes stress and misunderstanding when it comes to sex. Why not just have an open conversation about what you like and don't like. Why do people feel they have to trick someone into having sex.
It's this whole idea that someone is a player, or a tease, or someone is easy, or fidget, that is a sign of a pathology. These attitudes toward sex made sense back when we knew noting about reproduction, how to protect from pregnancy and disease. Give me one logical reason to not have sex when you want and with whom you won't as long as there is a clear understanding. That is the point because some feel they can't talk about sex, you get situations of I thought they meant one things when that actually meant something else. Answer this what does sex have to do with character?
It is puritanical thinking that is driving this argument about who can use what bathroom. They come up with all these illogical reasons what sharing bathrooms is wrong. Yet lots of people live in communal living situations and experience none of the problem some insist would happen. It is this same thinking that people use to past judgement on people who work in the adult industry. The funny thing is if it was not for this type of thinking there would be no adult industry. Lets take Grimm. Every act of sex was preceded by the characters having a discussion to see if all involved where on the same page. Every time both Adalind and Juliette made it clear they where having sex for the pleasure of having sex. Not once did any of them make it seem like a big deal. So tell me how was each of those time any different then if they had said lets get a beer instead of lets have sex.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - eric - 03-31-2019
The discussion about sexual activity has changed. Many first born babies in the past were 2-3 months premature and weighted 6.5 to 7.0 lbs
No one really cared as long as there was a marriage. For those mothers who did not marry, there were places they could go and leave the children to be adopted. As a child way way way back wen I heard more than once that little Mary was taking a trip for 3-4 months. The most recent real life Royal had a bump almost as soon as she got married. You may or may not approve of the current situation, but that's just how it is.
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - irukandji - 03-31-2019
(03-31-2019, 04:48 AM)syscrash Wrote: Yes people talk about sex just like they talk about any other activity. Not everyone sees sex as having some kind of meaning. I will ask here like I ask everyone. why is sex any different then any other activity? It is puritanical thinking that causes stress and misunderstanding when it comes to sex. Why not just have an open conversation about what you like and don't like. Why do people feel they have to trick someone into having sex.
It's this whole idea that someone is a player, or a tease, or someone is easy, or fidget, that is a sign of a pathology. These attitudes toward sex made sense back when we knew noting about reproduction, how to protect from pregnancy and disease. Give me one logical reason to not have sex when you want and with whom you won't as long as there is a clear understanding. That is the point because some feel they can't talk about sex, you get situations of I thought they meant one things when that actually meant something else. Answer this what does sex have to do with character?
It is puritanical thinking that is driving this argument about who can use what bathroom. They come up with all these illogical reasons what sharing bathrooms is wrong. Yet lots of people live in communal living situations and experience none of the problem some insist would happen. It is this same thinking that people use to past judgement on people who work in the adult industry. The funny thing is if it was not for this type of thinking there would be no adult industry. Lets take Grimm. Every act of sex was preceded by the characters having a discussion to see if all involved where on the same page. Every time both Adalind and Juliette made it clear they where having sex for the pleasure of having sex. Not once did any of them make it seem like a big deal. So tell me how was each of those time any different then if they had said lets get a beer instead of lets have sex.
What does any of this have to do with Adalind?
RE: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers. - dicappatore - 03-31-2019
(03-30-2019, 04:18 PM)syscrash Wrote:Quote:Did you mean, "Now days it "COULD NOT" get you a lethal injection?In Texas you COULD GET the death penalty for murder. Hanging a horse theft would count as murder.
Quote:ust a small note. The days when it was imperative to hang horse thieves, back then, when you stole another man's horse, you took away his livelihood, his way to make a living. If he was camped out in the wilderness and woke up to a missing horse, it could become a matter of life and death. It was a case of contributing to another mans inability to survive in that wilderness.Ok replace horse with car or truck. Your using the a horse is someone lively hood as a false correlation. Hanging horse thefts applied to more then horses. The only requirement to hang someone was the community agree that you where wronged. It did not matter how you where wronged. People where hung for hunting wild game on someone else land.
Very few issues that people have moral or immoral opinions on have governed by laws. Remember you may think morallity is something people agree on. The truth is morality is subjective. And just like your opinion on promiscuity is an individual opinion not a known fact.
Quote:Even today, in some parts of the globe, the behavior of what the characters on Grimm committed, could mean jail time. In a few places, for women, even justified killings.And in a lot of places if you don't live by kill of be killed you would be dead. In a lot of places you can be killed just because someone does not like you. does not agree with you. or they they simple think it is funny to see your brains on the floor. I understand your understanding of what is appropriate when it comes to violence. But many places are extremely violent and people live by the laws of nature instead of the laws of man.
Quote:Who's moral standards are you looking to use? Yours? Theirs? Ours???????That is the problem. You feel someone has the ability to define what is moral and what is immoral. Morality is the rules an individual lives by. It should not be the rules someone uses to govern someone else actions. Example you see someone running down the street naked. You may see it as immoral or indecent. That does not make it immoral or indecent. Consider in the 50 a bikini on the beach would get you arrested for indecent exposure. Not anymore even though nothing has changed in the law. But even now some still see wearing a bikini as indecent.
WTF are you talking about? What century did you live in Texas? Better yet, do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Texas has similar laws as here in PA, when it comes to protecting life and property. Notice what I said, laws protecting life and property, not gun laws.
In Texas, like here in PA and some other states, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your life, someone else life and your property. Yea that is right even in 2019 with deadly force. So if you break in my house and try to steal my PC and TV, I use to watch Grimm, I have the right to use deadly force to stop you.
A few years back, an old couple living in the vicinity of the Scranton, Wilkes Bare area had their home broken into, by two hoodlums, in the middle of the night. Both elderly folks got ruffed up and the punks ran out of their house with some valuables. The old man stepped outside his front yard and aimed his rifle at the two running away and shot them. He killed one and wounded the other.
The local ass-hole district attorney tried to indict the old man for murder, since the dead guy was shot square in the back claimed by the DA he was running away. But since the new law was just passed, allowing law abiding citizens to use deadly force to protect life and property, the Grand Jury threw the case out.
Now I may choose to use an umbrella to kill you with, if you show up at my house and try to take my stuff, like the few reported killings committed with umbrellas, according to FBI reports, but most likely, you would be shot from one of my hand guns I legally own and that would be the end of it.
Now take my neighboring state of New Jersey. A few years back, An old man had a black bear trying to break into his house through his back sliding door. He took his hunting rifle and shot the bear dead. He was found guilty and heavily fined for hunting bear with out a license and out of season. He also lost all rights to ever hunt again or own a firearm.
So whats moral? What legal? Depends where you live. Capisce. BTW, the 4 townships where I live that make up the school district where my kids went to school, have no police departments.
Even with laws that allow us to own Class 3, full automatics machine guns, such as M-16 instead of the made up assault weapon as an AR-15, which is semi-auto only. We are also allowed to own Silencers, M-3 Grenade launchers, RPG's, Bazookas, Working Flame Throwers. I also know of one WW2 re-enactor to own a full functional MG-42 with a rate of fire of 1200 rounds per minute, that's 20 rounds per seconds, yet for some reason, crime is so low, we don't need the police.