@chrisjdel said:

@LadyGigi said:

@chrisjdel said:

@movie_nazi said: I personally would have quarantined them and after they died have someone go in there and put a knife in their head. Medicine was on the way and Glenn and others survived. She could have easily killed them as well. I guess it was easier for her to kill those people since she didn't know them as well. Either way no one gave her the authority to eliminate those people. What kind of society is it when you kill people because they might get someone sick? Ebola has no known cure yet people still risk their lives nursing victims of it to health even though there is a 95% chance they will die and quite possibly contaminate themselves in the process. THAT is humane. THAT is how one should act. Not murder them off because they might contaminate someone else.

And Carol may not have done anything hardcore this season but NOTHING has happened this season.

At the time Carol killed the two terminal people (who were already going to die) they were the only ones exhibiting symptoms. It's possible what she did could have contained the virus and prevented any more people falling ill. It just so happened that it was too late.

Current ebola strains are not airborne. A fully airborne and highly contagious version with a very high mortality rate could bring the human race to its knees in a matter of weeks. Suppose you knew that someone was carrying the virus and had a chance to eliminate them and stop the pandemic before it began. Is that the right thing to do, yes or no? Suppose you shoot them. They do a post-mortem examination. Does their blood work coming up positive for the deadly virus (you saved the world) versus negative (you killed them for nothing) make a difference in the moral equation, or was right and wrong etched in stone beforehand?

I just wished that Carol had consulted the counsel first before taking matters into her own hands. Then she lied about it for months and caused a fight between Rick, Daryl and Tyreese.

They never would've been okay with the idea. And they would have been right, but there was no way of knowing that until after the fact. You know what I'm saying. That's the sort of thing you get one shot at, if you get a shot at all. Being in the right place at the right time means you have to make that choice like it or not. Take action or do nothing. Either of which could turn out to be the wrong decision. If she was going to do it though, Carol should have immediately admitted it rather than lying.

If she had just said what she was thinking then perhaps a better solution would have been suggested? Someone there to guard the quarantine room and be there when the sick took their last breath. You never know how people would respond to persuasion. But Carol didn't even try. That's my point. There is another way. Karen and David weren't dead yet and they were quarantined. Remember? They weren't getting out of where they were. Carol was so wrong for that. And then she LIED by omission.

Apparently you're okay with liars and theives, huh?

@movie_nazi said:

@LizDuv said:

@movie_nazi said:

@LizDuv said:

@movie_nazi said:

I disagree. I think that honor goes to Carol who after taking it upon herself to murder some people for catching the flu, she suddenly fancies herself as 'hardcore' and believes in the notion of "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" . Fkn pathetic. And yet, people think she is actually a good character. LOL. That's too funny.

So how would you be in an actual zombie apocalypse ( I know it is far fetched, but let's pretend) ? And have you watched the show lately?

What do you mean how would I be? I wouldn't murder people for catching the flu for one. I would know when there was a time to kill and a time not to. What exactly are you getting at? Yes I have watched the show lately although for the life of me I am not exactly sure why. It's so goddamn boring now.

OK first..I asked how you would be for the obvious reason, catching the flu was detrimental to all of them as was shown. Did she go to far? Well I guess that is up to being in the same place she was at that time. I honestly do not know how I would be if it was a them or me situation, but apparently you know. What was I getting at? Well I hope my prior sentences answered that. And as far as asking why you have watched it lately, well up until this past episode Carol has been a slug and has not done anything "hardcore".

I personally would have quarantined them and after they died have someone go in there and put a knife in their head. Medicine was on the way and Glenn and others survived. She could have easily killed them as well. I guess it was easier for her to kill those people since she didn't know them as well. Either way no one gave her the authority to eliminate those people. What kind of society is it when you kill people because they might get someone sick? Ebola has no known cure yet people still risk their lives nursing victims of it to health even though there is a 95% chance they will die and quite possibly contaminate themselves in the process. THAT is humane. THAT is how one should act. Not murder them off because they might contaminate someone else.

And Carol may not have done anything hardcore this season but NOTHING has happened this season.

They were quarantined.

@KReese35 said:

Ok, you got your guns. You won. Is it really necessary to give a 12 year old the middle finger like an idiot?

Tara will die for her indiscretions but hopefully not before we find out precisely how many fish she can hold in that pelican gullet of hers.

@KReese35 said:

Ok, you got your guns. You won. Is it really necessary to give a 12 year old the middle finger like an idiot?

She is a fat dullard. Can't stand her.

@chrisjdel said:

@LizDuv said: OK first..I asked how you would be for the obvious reason, catching the flu was detrimental to all of them as was shown. Did she go to far? Well I guess that is up to being in the same place she was at that time. I honestly do not know how I would be if it was a them or me situation, but apparently you know. What was I getting at? Well I hope my prior sentences answered that. And as far as asking why you have watched it lately, well up until this past episode Carol has been a slug and has not done anything "hardcore".

Karen and David were both into what the doctor told Hershel was the terminal stage, past the point of recovery. It was arguably an act of mercy to kill them quickly since death comes as your lungs gradually fill with blood and you choke on it. In that kind of situation, whether or not you did the right thing might come down to whether or not the virus is contained. If you stop an outbthefore it starts by killing a couple of people who were dead no matter what the answer's probably yes. If it's already too late and the virus spreads, all you did was murder two people for nothing.

@chrisjdel said:

@movie_nazi said: I personally would have quarantined them and after they died have someone go in there and put a knife in their head. Medicine was on the way and Glenn and others survived. She could have easily killed them as well. I guess it was easier for her to kill those people since she didn't know them as well. Either way no one gave her the authority to eliminate those people. What kind of society is it when you kill people because they might get someone sick? Ebola has no known cure yet people still risk their lives nursing victims of it to health even though there is a 95% chance they will die and quite possibly contaminate themselves in the process. THAT is humane. THAT is how one should act. Not murder them off because they might contaminate someone else.

And Carol may not have done anything hardcore this season but NOTHING has happened this season.

At the time Carol killed the two terminal people (who were already going to die) they were the only ones exhibiting symptoms. It's possible what she did could have contained the virus and prevented any more people falling ill. It just so happened that it was too late.

Current ebola strains are not airborne. A fully airborne and highly contagious version with a very high mortality rate could bring the human race to its knees in a matter of weeks. Suppose you knew that someone was carrying the virus and had a chance to eliminate them and stop the pandemic before it began. Is that the right thing to do, yes or no? Suppose you shoot them. They do a post-mortem examination. Does their blood work coming up positive for the deadly virus (you saved the world) versus negative (you killed them for nothing) make a difference in the moral equation, or was right and wrong etched in stone beforehand?

The situation was under control.

With your rationale you're saying that Carol should have killed Karen and David on the spot since they were already symptomatic instead of sneaking into the quarantined area risking her own life just to stop them from turning.

The Ebola virus can be contained and the infected patient treated if caught early enough before its symptoms past a point of untreatable with the current application modern medication. The CDC has strict protocols for Ebola virus that doctors should follow when coming in contact with an infected patient. That includes wearing a mask, gown, and gloves.

The flu spreads by direct contact with the airbourne respiratory droplets, skin to skin contact, saliva and by touching a contaminated surface (blanket or doorknob).

If you wanna compare treatment of Ebola and the case of Swine flu situation in the show, then Hershel would represent a doctor at the CDC. The scene that recounts Carol's story about how she sneaked into the quarantined area to kill Karen and David, I remember seeing that Carol was only wore a bandana to cover her face. I don't remember her wearing gloves. She certainly wasn't wearing a gown. She was lucky not to have gotten infected herself. She still wrong for risking her own health and the safety of others by breaking the protocol set forth by Hershel.

And most importantly, Karen and David weren't going to hurt anyone because they were isolated (quarantined)in a prison cell in a section of the prison where contact with the uninfected was severely reduced.

Then she HID the truth from the rest of the group. She broke their trust. How can we even believe all of Carol's recount of events when she went about things so secretly? How do we know that Karen and David were taking their last bresths when Carol decided to end their lives? Her actions caused even more drama to the situation. Tyreese accused Rick of the murder and they fought each other.

Carol should have allowed Karen and David to die a natural death because they didn't want to die. They wanted to be treated. Carol should have let them die a natural death and then killed their zombied bodies. But she didn't. She acted like a cold hearted devious bitch.

And judging by how you condemned the women from Oceanside, how is what Carol did any different from them? Carol killed innocent people that didn't do anything to anyone yet. All they did was catch the flu.

Also, your rational leads to this conclusion, Carol was effectively teaching the traumatized Woodbury kids how commit to murder when she taught them lessons about how to use weapons. One of those kids was Lizzie. Remember when Lizzie murdered her own sister? And then Carol shot the girl down like a dog!

So now what you have to say for yourself?

I would have followed the decision of the counsel and not did what Carol did.

@LadyGigi said:

And most importantly, Karen and David weren't going to hurt anyone because they were isolated (quarantined)in a prison cell in a section of the prison where contact with the uninfected was severely reduced.

Then she HID the truth from the rest of the group. She broke their trust. How can we even believe all of Carol's recount of events when she went about things so secretly? How do we know that Karen and David were taking their last bresths when Carol decided to end their lives? Her actions caused even more drama to the situation. Tyreese accused Rick of the murder and they fought each other.

Carol should have allowed Karen and David to die a natural death because they didn't want to die. They wanted to be treated. Carol should have let them die a natural death and then killed their zombied bodies. But she didn't. She acted like a cold hearted devious bitch.

And judging by how you condemned the women from Oceanside, how is what Carol did any different from them? Carol killed innocent people that didn't do anything to anyone yet. All they did was catch the flu.

Thank you! I can't believe people actually think she was anywhere near in the right. The bitch was WAY in the wrong. You don't murder sick people because they MIGHT infect others especially when they have been securely quarantined. I honestly do not understand how ANYONE can be a fkn Carol fan. She makes me fkn sick. She's a scumbag of the highest order and is only surpassed by Negan and his crew on the scumbag scale on the show. Yes, even worse than that worm Gregory.

@LadyGigi said:

@chrisjdel said:

@LizDuv said: OK first..I asked how you would be for the obvious reason, catching the flu was detrimental to all of them as was shown. Did she go to far? Well I guess that is up to being in the same place she was at that time. I honestly do not know how I would be if it was a them or me situation, but apparently you know. What was I getting at? Well I hope my prior sentences answered that. And as far as asking why you have watched it lately, well up until this past episode Carol has been a slug and has not done anything "hardcore".

Karen and David were both into what the doctor told Hershel was the terminal stage, past the point of recovery. It was arguably an act of mercy to kill them quickly since death comes as your lungs gradually fill with blood and you choke on it. In that kind of situation, whether or not you did the right thing might come down to whether or not the virus is contained. If you stop an outbthefore it starts by killing a couple of people who were dead no matter what the answer's probably yes. If it's already too late and the virus spreads, all you did was murder two people for nothing.

@chrisjdel said:

@movie_nazi said: I personally would have quarantined them and after they died have someone go in there and put a knife in their head. Medicine was on the way and Glenn and others survived. She could have easily killed them as well. I guess it was easier for her to kill those people since she didn't know them as well. Either way no one gave her the authority to eliminate those people. What kind of society is it when you kill people because they might get someone sick? Ebola has no known cure yet people still risk their lives nursing victims of it to health even though there is a 95% chance they will die and quite possibly contaminate themselves in the process. THAT is humane. THAT is how one should act. Not murder them off because they might contaminate someone else.

And Carol may not have done anything hardcore this season but NOTHING has happened this season.

At the time Carol killed the two terminal people (who were already going to die) they were the only ones exhibiting symptoms. It's possible what she did could have contained the virus and prevented any more people falling ill. It just so happened that it was too late.

Current ebola strains are not airborne. A fully airborne and highly contagious version with a very high mortality rate could bring the human race to its knees in a matter of weeks. Suppose you knew that someone was carrying the virus and had a chance to eliminate them and stop the pandemic before it began. Is that the right thing to do, yes or no? Suppose you shoot them. They do a post-mortem examination. Does their blood work coming up positive for the deadly virus (you saved the world) versus negative (you killed them for nothing) make a difference in the moral equation, or was right and wrong etched in stone beforehand?

The situation was under control.

With your rationale you're saying that Carol should have killed Karen and David on the spot since they were already symptomatic instead of sneaking into the quarantined area risking her own life just to stop them from turning.

The Ebola virus can be contained and the infected patient treated if caught early enough before its symptoms past a point of untreatable with the current application modern medication. The CDC has strict protocols for Ebola virus that doctors should follow when coming in contact with an infected patient. That includes wearing a mask, gown, and gloves.

The flu spreads by direct contact with the airbourne respiratory droplets, skin to skin contact, saliva and by touching a contaminated surface (blanket or doorknob).

If you wanna compare treatment of Ebola and the case of Swine flu situation in the show, then Hershel would represent a doctor at the CDC. The scene that recounts Carol's story about how she sneaked into the quarantined area to kill Karen and David, I remember seeing that Carol was only wore a bandana to cover her face. I don't remember her wearing gloves. She certainly wasn't wearing a gown. She was lucky not to have gotten infected herself. She still wrong for risking her own health and the safety of others by breaking the protocol set forth by Hershel.

And most importantly, Karen and David weren't going to hurt anyone because they were isolated (quarantined)in a prison cell in a section of the prison where contact with the uninfected was severely reduced.

Then she HID the truth from the rest of the group. She broke their trust. How can we even believe all of Carol's recount of events when she went about things so secretly? How do we know that Karen and David were taking their last bresths when Carol decided to end their lives? Her actions caused even more drama to the situation. Tyreese accused Rick of the murder and they fought each other.

Carol should have allowed Karen and David to die a natural death because they didn't want to die. They wanted to be treated. Carol should have let them die a natural death and then killed their zombied bodies. But she didn't. She acted like a cold hearted devious bitch.

And judging by how you condemned the women from Oceanside, how is what Carol did any different from them? Carol killed innocent people that didn't do anything to anyone yet. All they did was catch the flu.

Also, your rational leads to this conclusion, Carol was effectively teaching the traumatized Woodbury kids how commit to murder when she taught them lessons about how to use weapons. One of those kids was Lizzie. Remember when Lizzie murdered her own sister? And then Carol shot the girl down like a dog!

So now what you have to say for yourself?

I would have followed the decision of the counsel and not did what Carol did.

Like most posed moral dilemmas mine was a little contrived. If patient zero with a lethal super-virus was identified before anyone else was infected, they'd be placed in isolation. Problem solved. Well, for everyone else at least. You wouldn't have to decide whether or not to execute them. It's just another way of asking the question, if killing a person in cold blood saved millions or even billions of lives, would it be right to do so? Is morality a fixed thing regardless of circumstances or does the outcome play a part in determining if an action was right or wrong to begin with? One of the most important ethical issues there is.

I never said Carol should have done what she did. I wouldn't have, for reasons I'll get into in a moment. I was just throwing out a hypothetical: if you knew for a fact that killing two people who were at death's door anyway would stop any further infections, no one else dies, and having them around a little longer would result in the virus spreading through the prison population and killing a respectable fraction of your people, would it be the right thing to do? People with the flu are contagious and spreading the infection for a while before they feel the first symptoms. With two gravely ill, and given the close quarters at the prison, it was already too late to contain the outbreak. That poor kid who died in the showers would have exposed Carol's entire "reading class" before he got sick to his stomach and left. Including Carol and Carl. Two people who came through the crisis unscathed, which means they had a natural resistance. Everyone in that place was exposed to the virus. The ones who were going to develop symptoms did. The ones who weren't remained well. Nothing Carol did was going to stop the inevitable at that point. Clearly she didn't realize that - which may not excuse her behavior, but you can see how someone with no real medical expertise might believe it was necessary.

Suppose the apocalyptic disaster was a horrible new disease - airborne, persistent, and highly contagious - rather than zombies. If you saw someone through your binoculars struggling slowly and painfully toward your camp, covered with fever blisters, and they ignored your shouted warnings to turn back, you might very well shoot them. They're the human equivalent of an armed VX gas warhead that could detonate at any moment. You don't want that anywhere near your people. Disease carriers leave you only two options: get them to turn around and go the other way, or drop them where they stand. Gunning strangers down simply because you don't know them is another matter entirely. Wandering travelers in the world of TWD are usually hoping to find a safe haven. You can vet them by setting up a situation where they have a golden opportunity to screw you over and seeing what they do. This isn't black and white, kill or be killed. You have more options. Deciding others have no right to live if there's the slightest possibility they might pose a threat at some point in the future is selfish to the point of being evil.

Lizzie presented Carol with a decision no one would ever have to make in the real world. It wasn't her training that made Lizzie the way she was; as her sister Mika put it, she's messed up. She was born that way. In our world her parents would've taken her to psychiatrists and gotten a diagnosis. Maybe she'd be hospitalized for a little while. Antipsychotics often allow people like her to live a relatively normal life, so long as they keep up with the regimen and take their meds. But that's not an option in the post-apocalyptic world. If she stayed with them both Carol and Tyreese (but especially little Judith) would have been in real danger. If they abandoned her she might fall in with another group. Oh you poor thing, they left you behind? Come with us! We'll take care of you. Little would they know until it was too late. She could end up killing a decent sized group if she did it quietly at night, and sneaking around in the dark is something she proved quite adept at back at the prison. This is why Carol said she couldn't be around other people. It wasn't solely her decision if you remember. She ran it by Tyreese, and much as he might hate the situation he couldn't think of another way either. What do you believe they should've done?

Plenty of characters in this show have done things that can't be excused. Carl shooting that Woodbury kid even after he surrendered would be one example. Rick hitting Officer Bob with the car would be another. Carol's killing of Karen and Dave, if it's not quite in that category, comes pretty close. From the very beginning a major theme of TWD has been the question: once you've done truly bad things do those actions define you forever after? Is there a path back to the person you were before, or is the whole idea of redemption nothing more than the wishful thinking of someone who doesn't want to live with their guilt anymore?

Chrisjdel your last paragraph sums it all up for me.

@chrisjdel

Essential you are condeming one group of people based on the set of principles while condoning someone else for doing the same thing. And your hypothetical is irrelevant.

@LadyGigi said:

@chrisjdel

This topic isn't a murder trial. It's a character assasination like a civil trial. So you lose the case.

Objection!

@chrisjdel said:

@LadyGigi said:

@chrisjdel

This topic isn't a murder trial. It's a character assasination like a civil trial. So you lose the case.

Objection!

Lol

Damn. This thread is blowing up my mailbox.

@FritzLn said:

@franky cook said:

@domremy said:

@franky cook said:

@LastLion said:

She keeps getting fatter and uglier.

and you're pathetic. Is this site really going to become like IMDB and not monitor this kind of crap?

Lol, it is their opinion and I agree she could have got back in to shape after her pregnancy but she hasn't bothered to which questions her career professionalism.

Are you kidding me? "Questions her career professionalism"? If you gain weight at your work does that show your lack of professionalism? Who gets to decide when or how an actor loses weight? Internet trolls? Peas and rice.

not all jobs are created equal. if i was an actor, yes. if i was a secretary, no

EXACTLY! Unless an actor wants to be typecast as the dumpy friend or is primarily in comedic roles he or she needs to be in decent shape. The morons who whine when people point out a fat actress is fat are the ones who should be banned from message boards. Since when does noticing a fatty is fat make a person a troll?

If a singer sucked down 5 packs of cigarettes a day, drank a lot of booze and dairy constantly and then sounded shitty when you saw their concert would you still blindly defend them?

@LadyGigi said:

@chrisjdel

Essential you are condeming one group of people based on the set of principles while condoning someone else for doing the same thing. And your hypothetical is irrelevant.

Don't know when you changed your post, but I didn't condone what Carol did. I do think her intentions were less selfish than those of the lady who runs Oceanside. And doing the wrong thing for good reasons is a slight improvement over doing the wrong thing for bad reasons. That's all I was saying. Not exactly a stamp of approval. It's the sort of factor that would have no bearing on guilt or innocence at a criminal trial but would come into play at the sentencing hearing.

And my hypothetical was definitely not irrelevant. If I'm infected with a super virus - near 100% mortality, airborne, and persistent (i.e. it survives near everywhere I've been and everything I've touched for a while after I leave the area) the danger I pose with my mere presence is real and indisputable. I am a barrel of deadly poison that walks and speaks. Gunning me down as I approach a refugee camp and ignore the guards' warning to stay back is the same as shooting down a missile coming straight at you. You don't really have a choice. And if the refugees have any dogs, they'd better be kept on a short leash. Because if they go anywhere near my body the guards will have to shoot them too.

On the other hand, simply deciding to take me out because you don't know if I can be trusted doesn't involve the same kill or be killed, black and white choice. You're deciding that the lives of you and yours are the only ones which have any value. My life is nothing. Even though I've been through hell too, lost people in front of me just like you, I deserve to have the top of my head blown off by a sniper for no reason. Just the remote possibility that at some future time I might become a danger. Some of the people in your own camp might too. It's unlikely every single one of them is trustworthy. Are you going to kill them all, just to be sure? Certain, quantifiable danger versus theoretical, remotely possible danger that most of the time isn't actually real. My hypothetical scenario illustrates the type of situation where killing people simply for being there is justified and, in fact, essential to survival. Quite far removed from what's going on at Oceanside. Which would be the whole point of the example.

@ArcherOG sooooo you don't like Janis Joplin? Just curious. But in all honesty not sure what cigarettes/alcohol and singing (because those items actually harm singing) has to do with skinny/fat/short/tall etc...etc = actor/actress. Seriously that is actually asinine.