Guess I didn't make my point. I'll try and clarify and then drop it. I'm probably too out there.
( "Grove" episode)
We are more and more frequently dealing with unprovoked violence--Newtown, the Colorado theatre shootings, school shootings. We know we have a problem, and clearly we aren't dealing with it. We can't come up with a solution balancing the rights of those who are "likely" to commit violent acts (even tho we can often identify them) and the rights of people who may be harmed by them. We are personally affected by that.
Anyway, what I'm trying to ask is are we more sensitive to, more willing to accept what happened with Lizzie because it's something we are exposed to in our real lives; something we haven't figured out how to handle?
I am totally clear with Carol's actions. She did something she understood as "wrong" and personally painful, but accepted it as the only logical, practical, efficient road to take. But it is kind of weird that no one (meaning viewer) has registered any discomfort with someone "putting down" a child, tho admittedly a dangerous one.
Now take it a step further. Viewers seem pretty divided on the David/Karen issue. You can only go by what the group knew:
*Only two people exhibiting symptoms (thus far).
*One dead and reanimated person killing a couple (?) of others.
*No quarantine. (If you have a guy in the next morning delivering flowers, you don't have a quarantine).
*No effective medical treatment for a disease diagnosed (Hershel and the doctor) as horrific and deadly.
--So were D/K less of a threat than Lizzie? I think they were (at least as far as the group were able to discern) a far greater threat.
So I wonder why the difference in reaction (to Carol's "putting them down") by the viewers. I wonder if we were currently living in the throes of something like the Spanish flu of 1918 if we wouldn't be seeing things much differently.
And maybe I take this whole WD business a little too far and should just enjoy the show.
So I said my say and I'll shut up now.