Old characters where identifiable because that is how a lot of us want to see ourselves. Yet in resembles nothing of who we really are. Some are more aggressive some are more docile. But what I find interesting is the statement about morality and immorality. It is the same argument about one side being good and the other being bad. People comment that the writers care nothing about how characters are perceived. Yet the writers went far beyond any show that I can think of that made both sides equal in the conviction of their cause.
Even in real life remember one group freedom fighter is the other groups terrorist. People you do realize the founders of this country by any definition where terrorist that over threw the areas rulers, committed genocide on the natural inhabitants. But to use they are considered heroes. The point is the writers went out of their way to write each character and groups beliefs to reflect a position that lends itself to objective debate. Take HW or take Nick for that matter. The only reason people don't find fault with Their actions is because Nick is considered the hero and anyone associated with him must be right. Not one comment have is seen defending BC position of wesen not wanting to have to hide in the shadows. People find BC wrong because of how they are going about supporting their cause. Yet during the american revolution we used guerrilla war fare. During a time when there was a code of honor followed on the field of battle.
The point I am making is you can agree or disagree with a person or group belief. That does not make the other group wrong. But it is wrong to pass judgement on a group or person because they do not agree with you. A point the writers make many times in the show. If the writers did not care about the morality, they would not provide the opposition with a rational opposing view. They would not have Nick finding alternatives to just killing a wesen to solve a problem.
Lets consider how to show addresses sex. I know for some sex outside marriage or a committed relationship would be considered immoral. That position does not take into consideration the people who consider sex as an activity performed between two consenting adults. They do not have these preconceived notions of when it is ok to have sex. What really gets me is people want to use the bible to support their position. Yet time after time theologians will point out passages that support to opposite position. What comes to mine are the biblical verses people sighted to support slavery and denigrate homosexuality. yet ignore any and all passages that support an opposites position.
In closing don't judge the next person until you walk in their shows and look through their eyes. As are constitution says I may not agree in what you say, but I will defined to the death the right to say it. People talk about role models, not watching show to be taught a lesson. Her is a question how will your kids ever learn about other points of view if they are never exposed to them. that is what I see is wrong these days. Instead of using things in shows and life as a teaching moment. People argue to restrict anything that does not match their belief. My position is not to eliminate hate speech. But to make a cohesive argument in opposition to it. The same is true with bombastic statements, and propagandize rhetoric. teach your kids critical thinking and not just follow what sounds good. When your belief is based on faith over facts, that is the bases of many of our current problems. A professor said something that has stuck with me. Why does one plus one equal two. If your answer is that is what I was taught or because it is, then you are a follower with no thoughts of your own.
Even in real life remember one group freedom fighter is the other groups terrorist. People you do realize the founders of this country by any definition where terrorist that over threw the areas rulers, committed genocide on the natural inhabitants. But to use they are considered heroes. The point is the writers went out of their way to write each character and groups beliefs to reflect a position that lends itself to objective debate. Take HW or take Nick for that matter. The only reason people don't find fault with Their actions is because Nick is considered the hero and anyone associated with him must be right. Not one comment have is seen defending BC position of wesen not wanting to have to hide in the shadows. People find BC wrong because of how they are going about supporting their cause. Yet during the american revolution we used guerrilla war fare. During a time when there was a code of honor followed on the field of battle.
The point I am making is you can agree or disagree with a person or group belief. That does not make the other group wrong. But it is wrong to pass judgement on a group or person because they do not agree with you. A point the writers make many times in the show. If the writers did not care about the morality, they would not provide the opposition with a rational opposing view. They would not have Nick finding alternatives to just killing a wesen to solve a problem.
Lets consider how to show addresses sex. I know for some sex outside marriage or a committed relationship would be considered immoral. That position does not take into consideration the people who consider sex as an activity performed between two consenting adults. They do not have these preconceived notions of when it is ok to have sex. What really gets me is people want to use the bible to support their position. Yet time after time theologians will point out passages that support to opposite position. What comes to mine are the biblical verses people sighted to support slavery and denigrate homosexuality. yet ignore any and all passages that support an opposites position.
In closing don't judge the next person until you walk in their shows and look through their eyes. As are constitution says I may not agree in what you say, but I will defined to the death the right to say it. People talk about role models, not watching show to be taught a lesson. Her is a question how will your kids ever learn about other points of view if they are never exposed to them. that is what I see is wrong these days. Instead of using things in shows and life as a teaching moment. People argue to restrict anything that does not match their belief. My position is not to eliminate hate speech. But to make a cohesive argument in opposition to it. The same is true with bombastic statements, and propagandize rhetoric. teach your kids critical thinking and not just follow what sounds good. When your belief is based on faith over facts, that is the bases of many of our current problems. A professor said something that has stuck with me. Why does one plus one equal two. If your answer is that is what I was taught or because it is, then you are a follower with no thoughts of your own.
Quote:This brought a question to my mind. Do you think Grimm would have been a more morally correct show had they put kids into it? Juliette gets the bean bag everytime for staying with Nick thick and thin, but how would he have reacted had there been a couple of little ones running around?This is a good example of something that is not a moral issue. This is a cultural issue. This is not even a right or wrong issue. Studies have shown the makeup of a family does not define what is good or bad for a child. It is the dynamics between the members that matters. Point of fact. our last president was raised by a single mother with an absentee father. But even from the perspective of the show. It was never implied that Adalind was concerned that Kelly need to be with his father and that is why she was there. It was always shown she needed and wanted Nick protection. Yes she did make several statement about how and why both her kids needed their father. But she never used that to determine what she did. It was why Adalind agreed to joint custody with Sean.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one