@Wyld
...Right. This is the last response to you, as I think you are getting way too het up over, what is after all a TV show.
 Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
Wow,
I don't know how much clearer one can be about a post than saying "This isn't about that." I even explained, in detail no less, why I was no longer debating the whole Rick Vs. Shane thing. So at this point, any "spin" that has been alleged towards my recent posts is COMPLETELY IMAGINARY.
YOU chose to chime in on a discussion that was about the similarities, or lack thereof between Ricks killing of Andrew and Shane's actions last season. You then backed off of that and tried to reframe that discussion to one that suited your purposes better. If you're just interested in saying how shocking Ricks killing of Andrew was, then you'll find few people who would disagree. However, THAT was not the original point that was being discussed.
Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
Now, going on to say that taking a swipe at someone with a bat is a justifiable reason to feed them to zombies and refrain from killing them cleanly...Now THAT is the very epitome of Pro-Heroic Rick spin. As many have been so quick to employ this particular muddying of the waters tactic, now so will I. We don't KNOW Andrew was complicit in Tomas's attempt to take out Rick. All there is are Rick's suspicions to that effect. Now, unless there was an episode where Rick gained the power of mind-reading that I missed, Rick's actions towards Andrew (as well as the two prisoners he eventually decided to not murder on their knees) were based on suspicion, NOT fact.
The way the scene is clearly written, is that Rick believes that there was an attempt to harm his group by the prisoners they freed. Tomas is CLEARLY a threat and Andrew plays his hand by swiping at Rick and then running off. Rick then makes the decision to go after him and make sure he ceases to be a threat. It's very clear in the later scenes, too, that the other two prisoners were up for execution, only Rick backs down on this and takes their word that they "...weren't part of it". Of course the Rick character is acting out of suspicion, what else is he going to do? Set up a board of enquiry? Go to court?
Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
So, Shootem, if I understand you correctly you're stating that uncorroborated suspicion of conspiracy + attempted assault = Feeding someone to Walkers as a moral act. Glad we cleared that up. I'll forego comments about high horses in the interests of not trolling the thread. I even apologize. I didn't realize that my basic assumption that condemning an unarmed and trapped human being to being eaten alive WOULDN'T be considered universally monstrous. Now that I understand you believe slow, excruciatingly painful and terrifying consumption by mindless eating machine to be nothing more than an efficient means of disposing of a threat, with the added economical benefit of saving a bullet, I see where our differing moral standards diverged. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
YOU don't get to question my morals, or lack thereof, based on a fucking TV show.
As I said before to you, get off your high horse because, frankly, you're acting like a twat.
Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
You're right man. It's a show. With a stated, intended to be long-running primary theme of how the "Walking Dead world" can corrupt even an individual who was once much more moral than the average person. You've said a lot about how Shane was written/intended as an antagonist from the very beginning. I can agree with that, as that obviously was the intent of the writers. So why all the fuss about defending Rick's long-since-vanished status as Paragon of Morality?
Neither I, nor anyone else (to the best of my knowledge) has said that Rick was a paragon of anything. This is something you are spinning "out of whole cloth". I don't think anyone has mentioned morals either, except you. The Rick character is written as a protagonist. A primary character that the audience is supposed to identify with. The Shane character is written as an antagonist and one which the protagonist must overcome. Shane is actually a very minor character in the comics and one that was given artificial shelf life in the TV show, because of the soap opera drama his angle provided. In both media, he exists merely as a foil and one that eventually has to be done away with. Rick is an "everyman" character and one that has to deal with the complexities of a fantasy world, where the normal rules no longer apply.
Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
One single questionable action on Rick's part? To retort: 1) Rick declares he (in no particular order) killed Shane a) For the good of the group, b) In self-defense and c) "Because of how he kept pushing me, acting like I was in the way etc etc." The killing of Shane as multi-purpose tool to support Rick's position in three different circumstances. To be fair, I omitted the "I wanted it over. I just wanted it over" statements as too subjective in nature, so as not to be accused of spin-doctoring Rick's motives. Don't know what YOU would call this, but "Unquestionably Moral" is not how I perceived Rick's use of the killing for what amounts to political manipulations. (Now, that last statement IS subjective, and certainly can be argued. Just what I find reasonable and happen to believe. Whether or not this ploy had positive results is moot, as we're debating whether or not feeding Andrew to Walkers was or was not Rick's first morally questionable act.
No, it's not possible to argue that point, because that point doesn't exist, except in your own head.
The killing of Shane is very clearly written. He plotted to take his best friend out into a field and put a bullet into his back and then steal his wife and kid, because his delusion had become so overpowering that he could no longer see anything else. In the end Rick had to kill him, lest he be killed himself.
The are no "political manipulations" going on here. Just a simple refusal by you to see what is actually playing out on the screen.
Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
2) Rick conceals the information about all living persons being carriers of the reanimation pathogen which he acquired from Jenner, until such time as he can no longer conceal it due to events beyond his control. Again, an arguably moral/immoral decision, but CERTAINLY not "Unquestionably Moral"
Again, you're trying to put words in other peoples mouths. Nobody except you has mentioned morals or their questionability.
In addition, Rick "conceals" the information that Jenner told him because, iirc, he wasn't sure if it was correct. But this is neither here, nor there and hardly a point worth even mentioning.
Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
I could go on at length, but the point has been made. Andrew's fate, and Rick's part in it is by NO MEANS Rick's first questionable, morally dubious act. That's FINE, his descent from Morality to Expediency is a primary, driving theme of the show's overall narrative. We could debate until doomsday whether person X is/was more or less moral than person Y, but that would be missing the forest for the trees.
Lastly, I NEVER said Rick = Shane/Shane = Rick. I simply said, for the umpteenth time, that Rick has recently adopted the same 1-2 modus operandi of Immediate Action, with use of Deadly Force as the immediately secondary part of how the character operates that Shane once used. YOU spun the shifting context(s) of said statement from whole cloth. The irony being that you ignored the fact I professed no value judgment about that specific observation at all. In fact, having digested quite a bit of the discussion here, I consider Rick's adoption of a modus operandi originally introduced to the story by Shane as both reasonable/sane, if not simple common sense.
Wyld, you do go on at length. Frequently. You have written reams of text about this. For some reason you have seen fit to latch onto this Shane character and have written multiple posts about him, since the show began.
As for Rick, his killing of Andrew IS his first act that most people would have a problem with, regardless of what you say. It's written as a dramatic act and is actually quite out of character. However, it's still an act that can be seen as justifiable, even if his chosen method is shocking.
In addition, the Rick character has not adopted anything that Shane would have done. In fact, he was willing to give the prisoners a chance to prove themselves, even with the clear indication that at least one of them was going to be a serious issue. Even after their attempted assault, Rick still let the other prisoners live, simply because they said that "they weren't part of it". The Rick character is adopting "deadly force", because the world around him and some of the people in it are forcing his hand.
Shane adopted deadly force, because it furthered his own deluded agenda. A deluded agenda that culminated in a plot to murder his best friend.
Finally Wyld, I am done with this. I've only replied because I said I would and I have already wasted too much time with it...and to be blunt, it's getting silly.
Other posters are correct. You are taking this way to seriously and to be honest I have much better things to do.
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks