(01-09-2018, 07:27 PM)irukandji Wrote:(01-09-2018, 04:24 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: I would take what happened on the show and their motivations into account like I already have done. I'm not concerned with winning the debate. I'm concerned with identifying the most corrupt cop on the show. A convincing argument stays a convincing argument no matter who's selected.
What exactly does that mean, "a convincing argument stays a convincing argument no matter who's selected"?
I pose this question because I don't believe in generating convincing arguments. What would be convincing to me is not convincing to someone reading my post. Add to that that I am citing Nick as the most corrupt, not Renard. That right there is perceived as the proverbial red flag waving at a charging bull. The sum total to that is complete and total disagreement.
No one's going to look at my statement and compliment it on being convincing despite the fact that I view Nick as the more corrupt cop. Sometimes the response is a very cordial, "I disagree". But that isn't consistent or constant. I don't even want to go into what usually comes with having a contrary opinion.
I don't find any point in saying I disagree without explaining why. The worst thing that could happen to this thread is someone just saying character X or character Y is the most corrupt without going any further. Plus, comparisons are going to made because the word "most" was used.
(01-09-2018, 07:27 PM)irukandji Wrote: If this was a thread talking about how evil Juliette was, there would be no cockamamie rules applied about having conclusive or detailed opinions. Why? Because the opinion is a popular one. The character is not.
I've previously mentioned I've taken issue with some of the things said about Juliette. I've gotten into some lengthy debates because I thought people were going too far and painting everything she said or did as evil or having some underlying terrible motivation behind it. I made it clear how much I thought people were being unfair in regards to her character. I don't even think everything Renard has done is horrible and I think he's done some good things despite being the most corrupt cop.
(01-09-2018, 07:27 PM)irukandji Wrote: A valid point. However, I must also point out that there are many here who try to tone down Adalind's crimes by calling her a "pawn". What's the difference?
I never thought Adalind should be let off the hook for being a pawn. That's exactly what she was most of the time but it doesn't excuse her. It just helps to explain her actions. You probably already know that I take issue with Renard being given a pass more than anyone else. He has to be blamed along with Adalind.
Besides, plenty of posters have said Adalind was at her worst when she was a human. I didn't see anyone disputing that and most people thought Adalind deserved to have her ass kicked at the time of the Biest fight.