(01-09-2018, 07:12 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: Nick may not fit everyone's idea of good, and I think that's fair, but saying he's just as bad as Renard is something I just can't get behind. I find it to be completely far-fetched.
One of the things that is bothering me as this discussion continues, as well as other discussions, is the impression that everyone is just as bad as everyone else. Even if you consider Nick a bad guy, a phrase like the lesser of two evils exists for a reason. I really get baffled when there are two bad choices and someone tries to make it seem like they're equally as bad. It's not that tough here. The question I read was who is the most corrupt cop in Grimm and that is Renard. I didn't read, did Nick do anything corrupt on the show?
The question on the thread is:
"Who is the worst most corrupt cop on Grimm?"
It's not, "Why is Renard the worst most corrupt cop on Grimm?"
The way I read the thread, posters are allowed a choice of who is the worst, most corrupt cop on Grimm. It shouldn't be up to anyone to tell everyone else that their choice isn't correct or they cannot understand someone else's choice because it's different than their own.
And who says it has to be between Nick and Renard in the first place? Maybe someone sees Grossetti(sp?) or Hank or Wu as the most corrupt cop.
Shouldn't everyone be allowed to make their own choice? Why does it have to be that everyone must choose Renard?
I don't get why just because Nick is chosen, posters have to provide detailed and convincing arguments just to satisfy those who have chosen Renard. Those who chose Renard aren't going to change their opinions and they're not going to be convinced no matter what is posted. Right?
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.