So I guess you hate Rick as well? Because he also has no problem killing those he sees as a threat to protect his child.

 

Your question is ludicrous. Please point out the actual equivalency between anything Rick has done and Carol's cold blooded murder of two incapacitated people. It may work when no one asks you to explain yourself, but the context of their situations are vastly different from a moral standpoint. Whether you look at it from a process perspective, utilitarian, humanist, or Christian or just plain practicality she did the math wrong on what she did.

It was not only logically ineffective (as killing two people after they already were near death from the disease would not prevent the spread of disease), they posed no immediate threat, were incapable of defending themselves and were already in quarantine.

Also logically ineffective, killing them, dragging their bleeding bodies out of quarantine, making a huge mess and burning them outside.

She actually acted counter to her stated intentions here, putting more people at risk of infection

So her logic was wrong and her actions were immoral. Carol succeeded in protecting absolutely nobody in the act of committing two murders in cold blood of her own people.

Her intentions at that point become irrelevant when it comes to the moral question and when it comes to regarding her as a threat to the safety of the group. Especially given she was content to sit there and watch Rick and Tyreese fight, in silence (as [MENTION=58732]Autumn[/MENTION] stated).. She's clearly not exactly willing to own up to it there.

Then she refuses to own up to it when Rick confronts here. I think we all remember her saying "No one needs to know about this." So even if she had good intentions, she had no intention of owning up to what she did.

Then when confronting Tyreese, an incredibly selfish action given the timing, the gun and the fact that he needs her alive for survival purposes at the time and also not sure if he'll ever see another living adult again..

That's not a brave move, she leveraged forgiveness from him, giving him the option to forgive her or kill her in cold blood like she did to Karen and David.

So she was logically wrong, morally wrong, she tried to avoid responsibility... and then she took advantage of a Tyreese in the depths of despair, asking him to murder or forgive. Choosing forgiveness sort of loses its meaning in that situation.

But at least her intentions were good, right? Her own physical well being... her own emotional well being...she's taking care of those just fine... But Lizzie, Mika, Karen, David.. well I'm sure she never intended for them to die.

Except for Lizzie, Karen and David.

Edit: On the plus side, she is much more intricate, better written and interesting to follow than Maggie.

I actually enjoy discussing her, given there's something to discuss. Though I'm glad Maggie missed Glenn and then found him.

 

Well to explain myself, for you, I was just giving him a hard time. I realize Rick and Carol's kills are not the exact same. But good job making things escalate quickly.

 

Seems legit. I couldn't tell you were kidding. Have to admit that initial comment was pretty par for the course for a short snarky retort to a long post detailing an argument regarding Carol's killing spree.

Okay, I admit it, I really don't think you were kidding in the first place.

However my post was a response to the past few pages in the thread, not just to yours, so it's all good

And given the past few pages of this thread, you could hardly call my post an escalation... I think the word you were looking for was clarification

 

I don't think that means she knew it was wrong, I think it meant she knew that most people wouldn't approve of it. Especially Tyreese who was dating Karen, lol. She thought at the time she was doing the right thing, but probably felt she was one of the only ones that understood that. I think that we can't look at a ZA from our standards, and we must be willing to admit that we may change our minds under extreme conditions, so I wouldn't say that killing someone who is sick is always cowardly. If the situation was different, and Karen and David couldn't be quarantined for whatever reason, and there was strong evidence that the infection was highly contagious and usually deadly, then I think killing them would have been the right thing. In the case that actually happened, yes, it was the wrong thing. But maybe not quite as wrong as many think, as they weren't really properly quarantined. Tyreese was on his way to give her flowers, and probably sit with her and hug her. But the more appropriate thing would have been to just have stricter rules on the quarantine earlier on. That would have been my order, had I been Rick.

 

Killing sick people isn't always cowardly, I'm not sure anyone would argue that, hell plenty of societies put the sick out of their misery all of the time. And people who are bitten in the ZA routinely get put down.

What constitutes wrong, though, in this a-moral ZA situation, apart from a willful violation of your social contract with your group? She demonstrated she knew she'd be in violation by her repeated attempts to cover up her actions during and after the fact.

Her attempting to hide her actions didn't mean she knew they were wrong, no, it meant she knew the group as a whole would disapprove of them. That's as close to relativistically wrong as we're going to get in a ZA environment. As nothing is more valuable than people you can trust in this situation, and you can only trust people that can trust you.

So let's forget transcendental laws of right and wrong and just talk about small group dynamics. She demonstrated full knowledge that what she was doing would be against the wishes of the group (just like her secretive knife training) and yet she continued on anyway.

So to clarify, what I'm saying here, is absolute right and wrong being irrelevant and going by a relativistic ZA standard...

We'll just say, what she did was stupid! It risked her life, it took the lives of others and involved the necessity of deceit. The necessity of deceit in and of itself is more than enough proof that what she was doing was a mistake on many levels.

Lack of consideration for the feelings of others
Lack of information regarding the risks
Lack of thought regarding near dead people already had plenty of time to expose others
Lack of foresight into disposal of the bodies
Lack of willingness to take responsibility for her action to the detriment of others

It seems as if Carol believed it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

I agree a stricter quarantine may have been helpful, but maybe she should have brought that up at the staff meeting.

So I just wanted to take subjective morality out of this and substitute it with some practical morality. She emotionally harmed those she didn't physically harm, and then reflexively hid from any blow back. She accomplished nothing, and rather than accept what she's done, she stands by what she had hoped to do, indicating she will be a loose cannon and a danger to have around in the future.

I'm not saying I can't envision the scenario where she believed she was doing the right thing, and I'm glad she was trying to do right rather than just being a murdering Lizzie, however... She still failed, regardless of what she hoped to do. Failed herself, the group and her friends. She needs to be the first to admit that her intentions are meaningless in the face of the danger, fear and loss she put them through rather than trying to defend her actions or avoid consequences.

 

In her mind, Carol thought she was doing the right thing. I think she willed herself to believe that, but deep down she knew that she screwed up big time. I might be able to understand what Carol did if K & D were bad people, but they were good people that deserved to live. They had just as much right as anyone else to fight for their lives and Carol played God. She took that away from them. She murdered them.

What made the whole situation a clusterf*ck was her dragging the bodies out and burning them. So not only did Carol kill them, but she made a mess of the crime scene. She didn't even attempt to clean up after herself. Maybe she did not have the time, but that also caused a panic. It made Tyrese believe that a serial killer was amongst them. I can only imagine if word got out about the killings the whole community would have been in an uproar. What Carol did was insidious. It was futile and it could have caused the destruction of the prison community. I understand why Rick came to the decision he came to and I don't think he had to consult the Council. Carol did not consult the Council when she killed K & D so why should Rick have to? That was something that pissed me off when Carol fans tried to slam Rick for the decision he made.

I also think that Carol would have hid what she did from everyone had Rick not found out. So she would have watched Tyrese and Rick kill each other over what she did. Carol telling Rick to cover for her when he found out was very cowardly. I don't see how that was strength or how that could be admired in any way. Her actions were unscrupulous and devious. Furthermore the way she tried to justify her actions was by comparing what she did to Rick killing Shane. That was her way of trying to deflect and use a smokescreen to hide her own poor judgement and weakness.

I felt sorry for Lizzie and Mika. Carol did care for them, but her expectations were too high for them. She sometimes came off like a drill sergeant who berated Lizzie and Mika for showing any signs of weakness. It was unfair to them. You cannot expect children to adapt quickly or be impervious to their surroundings. She was right for teaching the kids how to use weapons, but she went about it in the wrong way. She also taught Lizzie, a girl who was exhibiting symptoms of being mentally unstable how to kill. Lizzie killing Mika was Carol's own doing. If she had consulted their dad than maybe she would have found out about Lizzie's mental illness. Many of Carol's actions in season 4 could have been prevented if she just told people what she was doing instead of trying control everything.

I have hope that Carol can be redeemed. I don't think its too late for her. She made a mistake. She's human so I don't think she should be condemned for her mistakes. I think Carol now sees the repercussions of her bad judgement calls. Most likely giving her a new perspective. Tyrese forgiving her is possibly the first step on her road to redemption. Nevertheless Carol is still a character I find interesting and Melissa McBride is great in the role.

Its sad that the Carol murder arc has the split fandom in many ways. Of course there are those diehard Carol fans that will defend her every step of the way. There are those that view her differently now. Then there are those that will always dislike her. Everyone is entitled to how they feel so I see nothing wrong with the different opinions. This topic is very interesting.

 

Oh good, our epic lurker [MENTION=38792]Fergrim[/MENTION] got my back when I am too ****ed up from drinking last night to write much.

 

An important decision in such an extreme scenario wouldn't even necessarily be relativistically wrong as judged by majority approval if the consequences of following the popular opinion could lead to most of those with the opinions being dead. It would actually be more relativistically wrong to follow the majority opinion if you believed that by doing so many of them would die. In hindsight we can look at it as she was wrong, but from her standpoint, being the full belief that she was saving lives, she was following practical morality. Your judgment of her actions, like my judgment, is given with the benefit of knowing the consequences.

If, instead, her actions had prevented Tyreese from becoming sick, and thus saving everyone else, we would we having a different discussion. Practical morality actually has more to do with promoting an outcome that has the greatest good, and is actually more blind to majority approval. I disagree with what she did, but given her knowledge and belief regarding the situation at the time, I don't think we can say much more about her wrongness other than that there was at least one better option that she should have taken.

 

In fact, when you think about it, we can't say that her actions didn't in fact save lives. It prevented Tyreese from visiting her in quarantine. Had he visited her, may he have gotten sick? The people who got sick went downhill very rapidly, so I can imagine a scenario where Tyreese got the medicine-run group sick while they were out on the run, causing them to never make it back with the antibiotics. If we were given an alternative ending by the producers that depicted that scenario, our opinions of her actions would change accordingly.

I still disagree with what she did, and there were better options, but my point is that we can't judge her actions quite as definitively as many seem to think.

 

1. I think berated is a little harsh of a word, it is the ZA after all. She has obvious reasons for wanting the girls to be tough, and able to take care of themselves if they need to.

2. This seems very level headed

3. It's funny, none of the people "defending" Carol, if we're calling it that, are die hard Carol fans, and all of them (us) admit that what she did was wrong. I don't see why this is being so blown out of proportion. The intensity seems to be coming from the "anti-Carol" side.

 

You know saying things are getting blown out of proportion and then pointing a finger at the opposite side is not a very convincing argument. I think this debate is completely fine, both sides agree that what she did was wrong, what is questioned is the severity and reasoning behind her actions.

 

Carol's actions in the last 4 seasons of TWD made her one of the most interesting characters on the show. Whatever she did was just fine with me and made TWD a lot more fascinating to watch. The more she kills the more I like her.

 

Well I'm not trying to convince, so maybe that's where I went wrong. My bad.

 

I don't see why that word is harsh. I think its the appropriate word for how Carol approached Lizzie and Mika sometimes. If you read my precious post I did not say Carol was wrong for teaching the girls to survive. I thought it was a great idea, but she subjected the girls to a lot of criticism for showing any sign of weakness. For instance how can a child put down their own parent? I applaud Carl for having the guts to do that, but he also faced lots more challenges than Lizzie and Mika. After that scene where Lizzie failed to stab her father Carol did berate her. Its like berating your child for getting a C on her math test when you know math is challenging for her. You don't do that to a child. That is why I think she was a bit too harsh on them. I would say that Carol was overcompensating for her weakness in failing to protect Sophia. But Lizzie and Mika were not Sophia. Out of a need to stop another Sophia from happening Carol caused more damage putting a weapon in the hands of a girl that was unstable. Carol pushed Lizzie to a point of no return. She could have prevented that.

First, I'm not anti-Carol. Second, I have ran into some diehard Carol fans who will defend just about anything she does because they think she is this ultimate survivor and must prove that all the time.Third, I don't see this topic being blown out of proportion at all. I like acknowledging and reading both sides of the argument. I see nothing wrong with civil debates and many fans have interpreted Carol's actions in many different ways. I'm someone who is open to reading many opinions.

 

Alright, do I have to be the one to say it? I know 1618 is frustrated.

Horn, your frequent anemic posts, containing one or two lines snarking at someone and then later claiming to be kidding, not involved, or not interested..

This is sort of a lame tactic..

It'd be interesting if you'd make a point... As it is, you're just spectating the people who are actually debating, heckling, and then rolling over the moment someone calls you out. It's a bit tiring and I'd rather not play along any longer.

@Kingston50 and @1618 put plenty of time and thought into their responses and your one liners, as if in response to their page of thought, are somewhat laughable, and even moreso somewhat disrespectful. I'm not sure if you're incapable of forming the rebuttal or just not sure you can defend your opinion, but come on.

I mean, hey, are you kidding here too? Or only once you read Kingston's response and decide it'd be too difficult to respond with more than a single sentence?

Feel free to hop in with the grownups and participate in the debate.

Interesting point though, regarding, it "all being blown out of proportion". And the "intensity" coming from the anti carol side. I'm not sure how either of those observations are relevant, but I'm sure you'd just explain you were either just kidding or not trying to convince anyone

I'm intrigued by this. What would one have to do for it to become serious? I mean what's worse than killing two sick adults and one confused child? Maybe we just draw the line at different points. Maybe it'd require at least two children and four adults for you. 3 kids and 4 adults? Not sure how the math works out here. But once there a was a single innocent killed in their fever ridden gross sleep, I had an issue with her.

 

I guess we are just perceiving things differently. As a teacher I see so many parents who are almost shocked by what I ask their children to do. Like they're not even aware of their own child's capabilities, and they walk on eggshells around their children. Maybe I'm just seeing it from that perspective.

I get what you're saying about letting Lizzie have access to a weapon, and maybe she should have read the signs more carefully, but there were times when there was no choice but to leave Lizzie in control. At any given moment there could be the need to defend and/or protect. And I don't think Carol thought that Mika would be able to handle a situation on her own. I can't see putting the blame for Mika's death on Carol, however.

 

All I know is I sure as shit wouldn't want Carol around me if I had a cough.

 

Wow, out for blood. 1618 and I have chatted at length. He knows me, and I know him. So yes, I was just messing with him, knowing he would get riled up. Is that enough proof?

Also, could I maybe get a copy of the post making rubric so that I can bring my grades up?