OMG, I'm becoming the world's biggest John apologist.

Yikes.

Hey, shouldn't he get points for raising a Dean that could raise Sam so well? Sure, Dean came out very broken, but I think events broke Sam more than parenting (or lack thereof) broken Sam.

Hey, shouldn't he get points for raising a Dean that could raise Sam so well? Sure, Dean came out very broken, but I think events broke Sam more than parenting (or lack thereof) broken Sam.

Oh, events totally broke Sam. But John helped break Dean. And I'm not sure that World's #1 Dad mugs are appropriate when you only truly fucked up half of your kids.

I get why he did what he did. I really do. But I don't think he was the best dad.

He wanted to avenge his wife, and you can (and I do) wave it as protecting the world, more than keep his kids safe.

He ... should. I mean, *I* give him points for a lot of things, but trying to look at it objectively, I don't think he was a great parent.

It does count for me that he loved them so much, though, and that he wanted things for them. It counts a lot that he saved Sam's trophy, and Dean's sawed-off.

But I also think people are more than how they're parented. Sam was never going to be the soldier Dean was, and Dean was, in my mind, wired that way -- partly because he just was, and partly because he watched his family fall apart, he experienced the one huge loss and was determined to hold onto to the rest of it however he could.

Oh, I wouldn't put him on a list anywhere near Jack Carter, or anything. But I would put him near Walter Bishop. He loved massively, was massively broken, raised remarkable offspring.

you can (and I do) wave it as protecting the world, more than keep his kids safe

I have come around to believing he had a very strong motivation in just keeping them safe from the horror only he understood, and his monomania meant he could trust no one else to do it--and that was the issue. Could he really have protected them some other way? Could he have investigated the paranormal without putting them in similar positions and exposing them to what he exposed them to?

Did Walter need to do what he did to Peter?

Could he really have protected them some other way? Could he have investigated the paranormal without putting them in similar positions and exposing them to what he exposed them to?

I believe he could have found someone to take care of them while he was on the road.

I believe he could have found someone to take care of them while he was on the road.

He could have. But I don't think he would have believed they would be safe. Truth was, at nine, Dean knew more about how to protect them than some kindly neighbor lady.

And then there's ends justifying the means, which is backwards but maybe valid. When you look at what these boys were destined for, what was at work their whole lives, how else would they have been prepared for what happened to them without John raising them that way?

Did Walter need to do what he did to Peter?

That's a sticky question. I think a lot of what Walter did was out of selfishness and grief, but I also haven't watched the final episode of S2, so.

I believe he could have found someone to take care of them while he was on the road.

Could that someone have (theoretically) have protected them from demons? I think when push came to shove (and this is where the potential fail comes in) he'd rather raise Dean to be someone he trusted to protect the two of them than find someone new to trust instead.

Turns out demons got to Sam anyway, but not for lack of John trying.

I think a lot of what Walter did was out of selfishness and grief

Same can be said of John, seriously. He was motivated by Mary, not the boys.

(And I will argue way more here than anywhere else because I can trust people to realize that we can all love the show and see it differently. Plus sometimes I can argue the logic of one side or another without being emotionally committed to said side.)

He was motivated by Mary, not the boys.

I think he was motivated by the boys too. Admittedly this is influenced by grey canon, but I do think he did the dodgy things for the wrong reasons.

I think when push came to shove, Walter wanted to save Peter's life. And that's admirable. What happened next...gets really murky. But given Walternate's persona? Best of a bad deal, methinks.

Same can be said of John, seriously. He was motivated by Mary, not the boys.

I didn't even know you were keeping up with Fringe! Awesome.

I think the difference, for me, is in terms of collateral damage. Which ... I'm not sure how to explain what I mean without spoilers, and this isn't the right thread anyway. But you're right in the sense that John's vengeance was completely selfish and motivated by grief, too.

(And I will argue way more here than anywhere else because I can trust people to realize that we can all love the show and see it differently. Plus sometimes I can argue the logic of one side or another without being emotionally committed to said side.)

That's why I stay here, warm and safe and cozy. And run my mouth.