(12-29-2016, 06:13 AM)irukandji Wrote:I really hate to say this but Hollywood doesn't hire a lot of not pretty women. So ever TV series likely has pretty women.(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: One good reason for the frog girl to be poisonous. it would prevent the frog from mating with anything other then another frog.
And the natural purpose of that would be to what? Eventually wipe out the frog people? That could be. But for me, I don't see it other than a dumb reason for Nick to get involved so we can once again see how compassionate he is, how wonderful he is, how sympathetic he is, yada, yada, yada
(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: So irukandji in your world should having a communicable disease be a death sentence? Would you have advocated to execute the ebola victims. How about the ones that infected others. Was that their fault.
Syscrash, you're the one who's talking about death for ebola victims. I'm talking about a frog girl in Grimm. I would suggest you use similar comparisons and stick to the debate.
(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: The use of the frog girl was to make and ethical argument. The reason they had her using preventive measures. They wanted to establish her as not being responsible. Making it a situation out of her control.
It's not an ethical argument. It's an episode to show just how compassionate Nick is. That's all it boils down to. You say her people aren't responsible. So the answer is, go among the general population and just hope they don't accidentally bump into someone? Since when is that kind of thinking ethical?
(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: That they made her good looking and the historical solution was disfigurement. Was a comment on the stereotypical male view on beauty. The idea that men would not find the unattractive appealing. Even your comment " If the frog girl had weighed 300 pounds, had stringy greasy hair and was six foot one, would he have arrested her" shows the same bias toward beauty.
[quote='syscrash' pid='39135' dateline='1482987471']
At least in the show they over came the beauty bias. By giving her a mate even though the cure had altered her looks.
Yes, they replaced her bias all right. As with Grimm something is usually exchanged for something that comes with a price. She now has the bias of a tattooed face. By the way, syscrash, how do you know that's her mate? All we see is her out eating with a guy.
(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: irukandji I don't know about you but I find your description to be cruel.
The frog girl is cruel, syscrash.
(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: And to say that is the characters view ignores Nick was attracted to the daemonfeuer and the muse. Showing he is not hung up on looks. Even Juliette as a hexenbiest. Many assumed it was her look that turned him off. But Juliette looks like Adalind when woged and he doesn't have a problem with Adalind.
Lest we forget how Nick obsessively tried to "fix" Juliette. As for Adalind, Nick doesn't get the humanitarian award for his treatment of her in my opinion. She's told him she loves him several times. She might as well told him she was going out to change the tire on his car for all of the reaction she got.
(12-28-2016, 09:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: The show has used this definition of beauty several times to show bias. Rosalee is one example. As a fushbau many think she is cute. Yet if someone actually meet a fushbau most would consider her a freak and ugly. A point made by using a fushbau in the circus.
If you're saying the show is showing Nick's bias, as in he'll go out of his way to rescue the pretty girls, then yes, I agree.