Mother of Mac

[WiltsAKGirl17]

Originally Posted by girl_named_goo

In Foster's universe, Imaginary Friends are regarded with the same wide range of sympathy as cats and dogs in our universe. In our universe, one person with a dog who had to move would spend lots of time and money searching for an apartment that allows dogs, and perhaps even live in a place below their standards to keep their pet. Other people would give their dog to a friend or find them new home. Other people would just drop them off at a local shelter, and other people still would abandon the dog in a park or even have them put down. I personally would make the sacrifices to keep my dog, but who am I to judge those who would find them a new home?? How about people who give up their pet because they have behavior problems or are too large and hyper for their children?

Where does the line of sympathy stop? Some people will do anything for a dog or cat, but many don't care about "lesser" pets like hamsters, ferrets, rats, snakes, goldfish etc. Where would Imaginary Friends fit?

Mac's Mom just has a lower regard for IF's than Mac or the Foster's. She's not a bad person, and in fact, she opted to find a new home for Bloo not because she is cold, but because she felt keeping Bloo was hindering her son's development. Even if she was wrong, can we question her intentions?

Thank you very much for the clarification, Ms. Faust.

I find it interesting that IF’s are given the same range of sympathy as a household pet. I disagree, but I find it fascinating. However, it leads me to ask this: why is that? Given that IF is created by a human being, doesn’t that made the vast majority of them (excluding animal friends like Chewy and the imaginary puppies, and “object friends,” such as Oveny from “Cookie Dough”) human by default?

But I’m not here to ponder the finer points of where IF’s fall into the social spectrum of Foster’s universe; the purpose of this thread is to discuss Mac’s mother. In some ways, I can understand her reasons (as I perceive them) for sending Bloo away-- she wants only the best for Mac, just as any mother would want. I know that under similar circumstances, my parents would have done the exact same thing if they thought it would be beneficial to me. I’m not necessarily supporting or denouncing her decisions and actions; I’m simply saying that I understand them.

[girl_named_goo]

It goes along the same lines as why is it ok to eat dogs in some countries, and not in others. Some may say that dogs are obviously more intelligent and/or obviously emotional than other animals and that makes them eligible for higher regard. We think it's awful to eat horses, but they do it in Europe. Indians are appalled that we kill cows here in the States, but we don't regard them highly at all.

Even closer along the lines in the show, is humankind's history of giving one type of person more or less rights than others. It still happens all over the world. Even here. Is it right or wrong? Who's to say, but it happens, and that's the way it is for IF's in Foster's. They're at the mercy of whoever cares for them and how they regard their worth.

I always wanted to make a show about the Friends having to hang around outside while Mac was in a store or restaurant where IF's were not allowed inside--- we could never make a whole story out of that, though.

[jekylljuice]

Originally Posted by girl_named_goo

I always wanted to make a show about the Friends having to hang around outside while Mac was in a store or restaurant where IF's were not allowed inside--- we could never make a whole story out of that, though.

Hmmm, like segregation...interesting. I suppose that the closest the show came to touching upon something like that would be the potential venues of employment in "Setting a President" which specifically stated that they would not employ imaginary friends.

[girl_named_goo]

sort of... but you have to remember, even though they talk and are sentient, Imaginary Friends are NOT human beings.

Imagine being a restaurant owner and having an IF like Sloppy Moe or George Mucous in your restaurant.

[cartman414]

Originally Posted by girl_named_goo

sort of... but you have to remember, even though they talk and are sentient, Imaginary Friends are NOT human beings.

Imagine being a restaurant owner and having an IF like Sloppy Moe or George Mucous in your restaurant.

Exactly.

I think that Imaginary Friends would be more of a taboo than cats, dogs, or other commonly accepted pets. Even if not for the repulsiveness of those two, IFs would probably be considered to be too juvenile.

With the possible exception of Jackie Khones, of course.

[pitbulllady]

Originally Posted by girl_named_goo

sort of... but you have to remember, even though they talk and are sentient, Imaginary Friends are NOT human beings.

Imagine being a restaurant owner and having an IF like Sloppy Moe or George Mucous in your restaurant.

Where I live, some of the HUMANS are nastier, stinkier and sloppier than any of the IF's, and I'm NOT exaggerating!

It's interesting, that just a few weeks ago, my pastor and I(he's a BIG fan of the show, by the way), and my father, who is a lay minister himself, got into a discussion as to a hypothetical situation where we humans suddenly found ourselves sharing the planet with a species which is equal to us in every respect-not just sentient and capable of complex language, but also MORALLY equal-able to make decisions based on an individual AND collective sense of what's right or what's wrong, and to comprehend how their actions can affect not just others around them now, but even down the road, in the future. That would certainly characterize the Imaginary Friends in the "Foster's Universe". While they are not human, especially in terms of looks, they DO share with us the very things that we tend to think of as truly separating us from other animal species. My dogs, no matter how smart or well-trained they are, for instance, show no indication that they are aware of how their actions will affect anyone other than themselves. They don't worry about starving dogs in other parts of the world, or future generations of dogs, when they do something. They just do it. In this respect, I believe that the analogy of Imaginary Friends with various races of human is more accurate, and yes, even now, here in the US, we DO still treat certain people differently, based on their looks, how they talk, how they dress, or what they believe in. The key difference is that at least, there are laws established to protect people from such discrimination, within reasonable limits. A restaurant still has the rights to keep a person out if that person is improperly dressed, or really filthy, or exhibiting inappropriate behavior, like cursing, for instance. While Sloppy Moe or George Mucous might not be able to help how they are, I don't think anyone could argue that they would not pose at least an unpleasant distraction, if not a health hazard, to other patrons of the same restaurant, but then, where would you draw the line? If a business could prohibit someone like them from entering, what about someone like Wilt, who isn't stinky or slimy and certainly knows how to behave in public. So yeah, from my perspective, as someone who is old enough to recall times here in the South when certain races would have been treated as inferior, I would say that the comparison with how the Imaginary Friends are treated with how certain humans were treated at that time is a more accurate one. I, personally, do not consider them inferior or "lower" because they don't look like me, or came into existence in a different manner from me, but at the same time, but then, another person who has not had my experiences or grown up in the culture that I did, could see things differently. I can't consider my grandfather, for instance, who was one of my closest family members when he was still alive, to be "evil" or "bad" because for most of his life, he honestly believed that Black people were less than human and that the Civil Rights movement was the ultimate downfall of this country. That's just what he was taught, and there was no alternative, no other school of thought available to him for most of his life. I suppose that Mac's mother would be similar in how SHE views Imaginary Friends.

On that, though, continuing with the analogy of Imaginary Friends and other races or sectors of the human populace, that no one can arbitrarily "give" rights to any one group. Those who stand to gain, or lose, the most-in this case, the Imaginary Friends-are the one who have to take it upon themselves to stand up and prove their worth and equality, and while some might very well choose to pursue that, others would be just as likely to remain content with the status quo. That decision would ultimately be up to them.

pitbulllady

[jekylljuice]

Originally Posted by pitbulllady

Where I live, some of the HUMANS are nastier, stinkier and sloppier than any of the IF's, and I'm NOT exaggerating!

That's the dilemma right there. While there may be some imaginary friends who'd pose something of a hygiene problem to restaurants and other such venues, there'd also many others, like Mr. Herriman, for example, who'd be far more dignified and orderly than a lot of the human patrons, and who could complain that it's unfair to lump them all into the same catagory upon such grounds. And yet, if such distinctions were made, those IFs within the "less desirable" catagories could argue that this would constitute discrimination, upon the grounds that they can't help being designed as they are. IFs may not be human, but, as PBL points out, the notion of "rights" in itself is a highly arbitrary and subjective one, and the fact that they possess speech and sentience does at least give them the power to demand equal rights, however likely they actually are to achieve them. It's the same kind of ethical dilemma we'd be liable to face if an artifically intelligent lifeform ever became self-aware, I guess.

Erm, so, Mac's mother...I wonder if she has facial scarring?

[Xroc88]

I know i wouldn't want bloo in my restaurant thats for sure.

[cartman414]

Originally Posted by pitbulllady

On that, though, continuing with the analogy of Imaginary Friends and other races or sectors of the human populace, that no one can arbitrarily "give" rights to any one group. Those who stand to gain, or lose, the most-in this case, the Imaginary Friends-are the one who have to take it upon themselves to stand up and prove their worth and equality, and while some might very well choose to pursue that, others would be just as likely to remain content with the status quo. That decision would ultimately be up to them.

pitbulllady

I think it would be sort of unfair to put the onus on the IFs, since it would be evident they would be worthy of respect. Getting into why would open up a whole different can of worms though.

[Cell_Phone_guy]

Originally Posted by Xroc88

I know i wouldn't want bloo in my restaurant thats for sure.

Yeah, I'm sure Bloo would either start a foodfight and/or call the waiters/waitresses "rip off artists" and kick them in the shin when they gave Bloo his bill.

Though the idea of Mac being in a store/restaurant that doesn't allow IF's could be made into an episode, if not a full 30 minute episode, they could make it a short like "Phone Home."

I could imagine that Bloo would try many different ways to get into the store/restaurant without success until he finally gets in and causes a big commotion which embarrasses Mac.

Also, sorry for keeping silent for so long. Teletoon hasn't shown any new episodes after "Cheese A Go-go".