But the article made no such distinction, and the clear implication of it was that no matter what the kid chose to do, Dad would support it.
You're right that the article made no such distinction. So what conclusion do we draw from that? You claim a clear implication that the fathers of Michael Kelly and John E. Tobin Jr. would condone evil. That simply never occurred to me. I assume that no distinction was made because it never occurred to the author, either.
I think that much of the difference in perception in all the thread's discussion on this issue is in how the participants view the space between the classic life path and evil. Some people find variations from the classic as wrong where others find them merely different. Sure, some deviations from the classic tend toward evil, like serial rapist-murders. Others variances from the traditional are simply creative or interesting. We may be disappointed if our daughters, for example, earn a living as welders or bodyguards, or never marry, or author materials with which we disagree, or otherwise become ducks. But that's not the same thing as their being bad. Or even unhappy. And being happy for ourselves and being happy for them are not the same thing. The article, I think, was simply talking about being receptive to having ducks in the family.
Karen |
