The Legal Rights of Imaginary Friends - Page 2 - Never Forgotten: a Foster's Home Community

Schornforce · 09-26-2006, 01:19 PM

I was just thinking that some of the thoughts in this post were similar to my thoughts on the 'toon/human stuff regarding "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Perhaps because imaginary friends are considered goofy, dangerous, and/or juvenile they will never be treated with the respect and privileges that humans get... at least not by the government and/or general public. Even though several imaginary friends would do just as well in certain situations as humans, there'll always be the image of someone like Bloo or Cheese that the public or the government of that world could point at and bring up immaturity, irresponsibility, etc. I'd think the government would be afraid of imaginary friends, since depending on who imagined them, they could do near anything they were imagined to do and can be created as many times as wanted. i.e. an army of Extremosaurs...

...

Perhaps I'm overthinking this in a far too cynical manner, but I'd imagine the potential for anarchy and destruction would be why governments and society would want to limit the power imaginary friends could get. In the pilot, Mojo Jojo was an imaginary friend. What if someone decided to imagine someone like Doctor Doom or Megatron or some truly dangerous imaginary friend? While I wouldn't agree with it necessarily, I could see why someone would want to limit imaginary friends' societal power.

Ub3rD4n · 04-26-2007, 02:47 PM

The most probable reason why IFs can leagally be thrown out is that a lot of parents would fight to the death to preserve their right to kick an unwanted IF's "botox to the curb". Imagine if you had to take care of Bloo, or Bendy or [i]Duchess[i], [i]in addition[i]to a child. And I know, this still doesn't justify it, but there are plenty of people who are in favour of "traditional rights" (gun possession, for example) which just aren't ethical in modern society.

It would be nice to think people would agree on a law outlawing freind abandonment, but I unfortunately know too much about human nature to think that's realistic.

09-26-2006, 01:19 PM	#11
Schornforce Newly Abandoned Prepared for trouble Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: the planet you call "Earth" Posts: 4	I was just thinking that some of the thoughts in this post were similar to my thoughts on the 'toon/human stuff regarding "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Perhaps because imaginary friends are considered goofy, dangerous, and/or juvenile they will never be treated with the respect and privileges that humans get... at least not by the government and/or general public. Even though several imaginary friends would do just as well in certain situations as humans, there'll always be the image of someone like Bloo or Cheese that the public or the government of that world could point at and bring up immaturity, irresponsibility, etc. I'd think the government would be afraid of imaginary friends, since depending on who imagined them, they could do near anything they were imagined to do and can be created as many times as wanted. i.e. an army of Extremosaurs... ... Perhaps I'm overthinking this in a far too cynical manner, but I'd imagine the potential for anarchy and destruction would be why governments and society would want to limit the power imaginary friends could get. In the pilot, Mojo Jojo was an imaginary friend. What if someone decided to imagine someone like Doctor Doom or Megatron or some truly dangerous imaginary friend? While I wouldn't agree with it necessarily, I could see why someone would want to limit imaginary friends' societal power. __________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." --Willy Wonka "Laughter is a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have." --Roger Rabbit

04-26-2007, 02:47 PM	#12
Ub3rD4n Foster's Legend 40% pretention, 60% insecurity, 0% brains Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The only place more isolated than Iceland. New Zealand Posts: 547	The most probable reason why IFs can leagally be thrown out is that a lot of parents would fight to the death to preserve their right to kick an unwanted IF's "botox to the curb". Imagine if you had to take care of Bloo, or Bendy or [i]Duchess[i], [i]in addition[i]to a child. And I know, this still doesn't justify it, but there are plenty of people who are in favour of "traditional rights" (gun possession, for example) which just aren't ethical in modern society. It would be nice to think people would agree on a law outlawing freind abandonment, but I unfortunately know too much about human nature to think that's realistic. __________________ Unconscious like a fox!