Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

We will have to disagree to disagree. I see Dean as just as bad as either of them. 

Yeah that's a big agree to disagree.

Edited September 8, 2017 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

18 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Thanks to Buck/Lemming There is a very good chance John isn't Dean's father.  In Children Shoudn't Play with Dead Things we find out John's blood type is AB negative.  In Soul Survivor Sam tells Dean he got his blood type which is O. 

Odds of a person with an AB blood type having an O child are very slim. 

Isn't type O a universal blood type?  I thought it was the most available blood type because it could be used on anyone.  Much easier for Sam to get.

According to The Blood Connection: https://thebloodconnection.org/about-blood/blood-education/blood-types/  O+ is the most common blood type, that's why it's needed the most.  Also, AB- (John's blood type?) is compatible with all negative blood types, so if Dean were also AB-, O- blood would have been fine for him.  But not O+.  As @Katy M pointed out, AB+ is compatible with any blood type.  Interestingly, it's opposite for plasma types.  I didn't know this.  

[gonzosgirrl]

53 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

We will have to disagree to disagree. I see Dean as just as bad as either of them. 

What's the score of Castiel beating his close friend near to death vs that same friend doing the same to him? ;)

Dean has more compassion, empathy and love for his family and friends in his little finger than John & Mary combined.

34 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

According to The Blood Connection: https://thebloodconnection.org/about-blood/blood-education/blood-types/  O+ is the most common blood type, that's why it's needed the most.  Also, AB- (John's blood type?) is compatible with all negative blood types, so if Dean were also AB-, O- blood would have been fine for him.  But not O+.  As @Katy M pointed out, AB+ is compatible with any blood type.  Interestingly, it's opposite for plasma types.  I didn't know this.  

But I think the point in the beginning wasn't whether John (AB) could've donated to Dean (O), rather that he couldn't have fathered him. As for the demon cure - did type even matter? They weren't transfusing or even going for a vein, just jabbing the purified (sanctified?)  blood into random areas.

[Jeddah]

In this case it doesn't matter who can receive or give certain blood types in donations. The issue is how genes are passed on. AB are both dominant, but O is recessive. John would have had to pass down either an A or B to Dean (and Sam), which isn't genetically possible if Dean's blood type is O. 

And that's probably the nerdiest thing I've ever written on here! For now. ;)

I take it as just a continuity error, and there are other errors that annoy me a lot more. I wouldn't have noticed this one if not for this board.  The show showed Mary pregnant with Dean. Dean is in the Michael vessel bloodline, as is John. And if even if they weren't genetically related, it wouldn't change anything in my view.

 

ETA: Or what @gonzosgirrl said!

Edited September 8, 2017 by Jeddah

[Wayward Son]

9 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

What's the score of Castiel beating his close friend near to death vs that same friend doing the same to him? ;)

Dean has more compassion, empathy and love for his family and friends in his little finger than John & Mary combined.

It depends on the circumstances of course, but I assume you're referring to Point of No Return vs The Prisoner? If that is correct then I'd judge Castiel more harshly in this particular instance. I can understand why Castiel did what he did, but he was utterly wrong to do so nonetheless. Dean I give more leeway as he was being heavily influenced by the MOC at the time.

 

Sorry if those aren't the two instances you're referring to.

 

And as for your other statement agree to disagree. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Wayward Son

[DittyDotDot]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

But I think the point in the beginning wasn't whether John (AB) could've donated to Dean (O), rather that he couldn't have fathered him. As for the demon cure - did type even matter? They weren't transfusing or even going for a vein, just jabbing the purified (sanctified?)  blood into random areas.

TBH, I always took Sam's comment on getting Dean's type as being a kind of sarcasm; not that it was literally Dean's blood type, but more of a "I got just what you need to cure what ails you."

ETA for clarity: I thought Sam was using "your type" in the sense of something you like. As in, "I even got the kind you like."

Edited September 8, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

Dean was fully human and Cas was a fully powered anglel when he attacked him the first time. Not at all a fair fight. What upset me was that  Cas did that outt of anger and disappointment, not because he was trying to stop him. Cas could have just zapped him into lock down again. I had a hard time forgiving Cas for that but I figured if Dean could I could too.plus I think Cas might have  actually on some level been scared for Dean and he just didn't know how to process that so it came out via anger

[gonzosgirrl]

27 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

It depends on the circumstances of course, but I assume you're referring to Point of No Return vs The Prisoner? If that is correct then I'd judge Castiel more harshly in this particular instance. I can understand why Castiel did what he did, but he was utterly wrong to do so nonetheless. Dean I give more leeway as he was being heavily influenced by the MOC at the time.

 

Sorry if those aren't the two instances you're referring to.

 

And as for your other statement agree to disagree. 

PONR was only the first time, and not the worst (see: Goodbye Stranger). I realize we were talking about Dean and not Cas, but I think on the grand scale, Dean making Cas leave the bunker because of the direct threat to Sam doesn't make him a 'bad' person, especially when we're shown how much it tore him up to do so.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

38 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But I think the point in the beginning wasn't whether John (AB) could've donated to Dean (O), rather that he couldn't have fathered him. As for the demon cure - did type even matter? They weren't transfusing or even going for a vein, just jabbing the purified (sanctified?)  blood into random areas.

As I understood it, the point in the beginning was Sam getting type O blood and calling it 'Dean's type' when John was AB-.  Now whether or not that was an honest assessment of Dean's blood type, or sarcasm on Sam's part, or just an observation from Sam that AB is compatible with any type so it didn't really matter what type blood Sam got for Dean, is another matter.  

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

PONR was only the first time, and not the worst (see: Goodbye Stranger). I realize we were talking about Dean and not Cas, but I think on the grand scale, Dean making Cas leave the bunker because of the direct threat to Sam doesn't make him a 'bad' person, especially when we're shown how much it tore him up to do so.

I hardly think Goodbye Stranger should be counted against Castiel. He was under the mind control of Naomi. It was a testament to his character (and his feelings for Dean) that he was able to stop at all. I have no problem with fans calling Cas out on the PONR beating, hell I think he was in the wrong there, but counting the GS one against him is grossly unfair IMO. 

 

And it's not so much the fact he made Cas leave that I've an issue with, but how he made him leave. I can accept Castiel couldn't stay at the bunker, but Dean threw him to the wolves. He could have given him enough money to get by or one of their stolen credit cards. He could have sent him to live with an ally such as Jody for a while even. Instead he threw him out when he was at his most vulnerable and left him with nothing forcing Cas on to the streets until he ultimately found himself a job. That's the actions of a pretty crap friend and highlights Dean can be just as cold as John or Mary when he feels the need to be. Not to mention the appalling way he treated Cas when they did finally reunite in HCW, but I'll not get into that. 

 

And Im sure fans will try to excuse Dean with stuff like "we don't know he didn't give him money" but the show was pretty clear in his depiction of events. Dean told Castiel to leave and the next time we see him he's penniless and living on the streets. There is absolutely no indication Dean gave him money and anything else is just fans trying to justify his terrible actions here.

[catrox14]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

ONR was only the first time, and not the worst (see: Goodbye Stranger).

I don't include Goodbye Stranger as being something Cas did of his own volition like the first attack on Dean.

IMO, Dean presumed Cas had been around humanity enough to think he would be okay. Dean told Cas to get back to the bunker because he knew the angels were trying to kill him and he thought the bunker was the safest place for him, since it was warded against angels. I think Dean thought Cas was capable of taking care of himself. Honestly,  I've never really understood why there is an assumption that Dean sent Cas off with no money.  Was that ever discussed on screen? I really can't remember.

[DittyDotDot]

Just now, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As I understood it, the point in the beginning was Sam getting type O blood and calling it 'Dean's type' when John was AB-.  Now whether or not that was an honest assessment of Dean's blood type, or sarcasm on Sam's part, or just an observation from Sam that AB is compatible with any type so it didn't really matter what type blood Sam got for Dean, is another matter.  

Well, actually, the conversation was started because someone was saying they'd be happy if it turned out Dean wasn't John or Mary's biological son--because they're so terrible and all that. Someone then commented--I thought jokingly--that it's possible Dean isn't John's son because John's blood type was AB- and Sam said he'd gotten Dean's type--assuming he meant Dean's blood type and not just the type of blood Dean thinks tastes better ;)--which was O. Therefore Dean couldn't be John's child.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

20 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As I understood it, the point in the beginning was Sam getting type O blood and calling it 'Dean's type' when John was AB-.  Now whether or not that was an honest assessment of Dean's blood type, or sarcasm on Sam's part, or just an observation from Sam that AB is compatible with any type so it didn't really matter what type blood Sam got for Dean, is another matter.  

The point of this  particular discussion, was Dean's parentage, which arose from speculation about the AU. That brought to mind, the discrepancy of the blood types in Soul Survivor vs John's dog tag. The conversation kind of morphed into why Sam got Type O but the original reason this time was about Dean's parentage, which even back when Soul Survivor originally aired, some fans were like, 'Wait a minute" WRT to Dean's parentage when they saw the blood types.

 

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

 

But I think the point in the beginning wasn't whether John (AB) could've donated to Dean (O), rather that he couldn't have fathered him. As for the demon cure - did type even matter? They weren't transfusing or even going for a vein, just jabbing the purified (sanctified?)  blood into random areas.

 

[catrox14]

37 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I hardly think Goodbye Stranger should be counted against Castiel. He was under the mind control of Naomi. It was a testament to his character (and his feelings for Dean) that he was able to stop at all. I have no problem with fans calling Cas out on the PONR beating, hell I think he was in the wrong there, but counting the GS one against him is grossly unfair IMO. 

 

And it's not so much the fact he made Cas leave that I've an issue with, but how he made him leave. I can accept Castiel couldn't stay at the bunker, but Dean threw him to the wolves. He could have given him enough money to get by or one of their stolen credit cards. He could have sent him to live with an ally such as Jody for a while even. Instead he threw him out when he was at his most vulnerable and left him with nothing forcing Cas on to the streets until he ultimately found himself a job. That's the actions of a pretty crap friend and highlights Dean can be just as cold as John or Mary when he feels the need to be. Not to mention the appalling way he treated Cas when they did finally reunite in HCW, but I'll not get into that. 

 

And Im sure fans will try to excuse Dean with stuff like "we don't know he didn't give him money" but the show was pretty clear in his depiction of events. Dean told Castiel to leave and the next time we see him he's penniless and living on the streets. There is absolutely no indication Dean gave him money and anything else is just fans trying to justify his terrible actions here.

Cas was on the street and penniless from the jump because he refused to go back to the bunker as Dean advised in 9.1.

Cas called Dean who told him to get back to the bunker and not to come to the hospital because the angels were after him. But Cas insisted he could help Hael, who then kidnapped him to possess him. Cas wrecked their car, killed Hael. He never went back to the bunker.

In 9.2 Dean and Sam go on a hunt and are attacked by Abaddon. They fight her, Ezekiel saves the hunters and kills the demons. Cas isn't seen but Dean thinks he'll be okay because it's only been a day or so since 9.1.

In 9.3, they decide to look for Cas because he's still not gotten back to the bunker and it's been a few days. Cas  found a shelter in a church but people are being killed there. Cas couldn't stay another night at that shelter, so he wound up going from place to place eventually being played by April the reaper, who is plying him with food and sex and then kills him just as Dean and Sam find him. Ezekiel resurrects Cas. Then they all go back to the bunker together. They are eating burritos and talking about April was if it was all great when 'Ezekiel" insists that Cas cannot stay because it will bring the angels to the bunker."Ezekiel" insists that he'll have to vacate Sam for his own safety, which means Sam will die.  Dean does not want to do it, and it ends with Dean breaking the news to Cas that he can't stay.

The next time we see Cas is him working at the Gas N Sip. He's sleeping in the stockroom. There is no clear sign of how much time has passed or what happened with Cas between Dean telling him he can't stay and him working at the Gas N Sip.  I see no more evidence to suggest that Dean sent Cas away with no money anymore than there is to suggest he did. But, personally, IMO, to assume that Dean didn't give Cas any money is choosing to believe the absolute worst about Dean. I don't. I think he gave Cas some money and then Cas found a job when that money ran out.

[gonzosgirrl]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Cas was on the street and penniless from the jump because he refused to go back to the bunker as Dean advised in 9.1.

Cas called Dean who told him to get back to the bunker and not to come to the hospital because the angels were after him. But Cas insisted he could help Hael, who then kidnapped him to possess him. Cas wrecked their car, killed Hael. He never went back to the bunker.

In 9.2 Dean and Sam go on a hunt and are attacked by Abaddon. They fight her, Ezekiel saves the hunters and kills the demons. Cas isn't seen but Dean thinks he'll be okay because it's only been a day or so since 9.1.

In 9.3, they decide to look for Cas because he's still not gotten back to the bunker and it's been a few days. Cas  found a shelter in a church but people are being killed there. Cas couldn't stay another night at that shelter, so he wound up going from place to place eventually being played by April the reaper, who is plying him with food and sex and then kills him just as Dean and Sam find him. Ezekiel resurrects Cas. Then they all go back to the bunker together. They are eating burritos and talking about April was if it was all great when 'Ezekiel" insists that Cas cannot stay because it will bring the angels to the bunker."Ezekiel" insists that he'll have to vacate Sam for his own safety, which means Sam will die.  Dean does not want to do it, and it ends with Dean breaking the news to Cas that he can't stay.

The next time we see Cas is him working at the Gas N Sip. He's sleeping in the stockroom. There is no clear sign of how much time has passed or what happened with Cas between Dean telling him he can't stay and him working at the Gas N Sip.  I see no more evidence to suggest that Dean sent Cas away with no money anymore than there is to suggest he did. But, personally, IMO, to assume that Dean didn't give Cas any money is choosing to believe the absolute worst about Dean. I don't. I think he gave Cas some money and then Cas found a job when that money ran out.

Thanks! You answered better than I could, so I'll just +1 both your posts :) 

[Wayward Son]

12 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Th 

The next time we see Cas is him working at the Gas N Sip. He's sleeping in the stockroom. There is no clear sign of how much time has passed or what happened with Cas between Dean telling him he can't stay and him working at the Gas N Sip.  I see no more evidence to suggest that Dean sent Cas away with no money anymore than there is to suggest he did. But, personally, IMO, to assume that Dean didn't give Cas any money is choosing to believe the absolute worst about Dean. I don't. I think he gave Cas some money and then Cas found a job when that money ran out.

The show makes no reference to Dean doing anything to try and help out Castiel. All we know is that Castiel managed to get himself a job (which was definitely not aided by Dean, considering his demeaning comments about the job he chose) and was sleeping in the stock room. If the show wanted us to believe Dean had helped him then there could have been a reference to it. It could have been as simple as "you need any more cash man?" Or "what happened to the credit card I gave you etc". The show didn't and therefore it makes the most sense to conclude Dean didn't aid him. If we are just going to make up stuff without concrete evidence to try and make Dean look less bad then we might as well just say he gave Cas a huge load of cash and Cas spent it on gambling and alcohol. That theory is equally as supported by what we saw on screen as the belief Dean apparently gave him some money.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Wayward Son

[ahrtee]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

The show makes no reference to Dean doing anything to try and help out Castiel. All we know is that Castiel managed to get himself a job (which was definitely not aided by Dean, considering his demeaning comments about the job he chose) and was sleeping in the stock room. If the show wanted us to believe Dean had helped him then there could have been a reference to it. It could have been as simple as "you need any more cash man?" Or "what happened to the credit card I gave you etc". The show didn't and therefore it makes the most sense to conclude Dean didn't aid him. If we are just going to make up stuff without concrete evidence to try and make Dean look less bad then we might as well just say he gave Cas a huge load of cash and Cas spent it on gambling and alcohol. That theory is equally as supported by what we saw on screen as the belief Dean apparently gave him some money.

The show also made no reference to Dean *not* doing anything to help, or show Cas struggling with no money on his own (how did he get the job if he looked homeless? How did he get from Kansas to Montana, or wherever the store was?)   We're back to the ambiguity question that was discussed earlier re the amulet.  In the absence of any absolute canon answer, you can choose however you want to interpret something.  IMO, if you want to believe the worst, that's fine, but don't put your interpretation as the only one.  I choose to believe the best of our heroes, even if they don't show it onscreen. 

You can also remember that Cas didn't give Claire anything the first few times she left (before they sent her to Jody), which to me is much worse--sending a teenage girl out on her own, especially remembering how she wound up the last time.   Or maybe they did slip her all the cash they had on hand.  Again, you can choose whatever you want to believe. 

[catrox14]

56 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

The show makes no reference to Dean doing anything to try and help out Castiel. All we know is that Castiel managed to get himself a job (which was definitely not aided by Dean, considering his demeaning comments about the job he chose) and was sleeping in the stock room. If the show wanted us to believe Dean had helped him then there could have been a reference to it. It could have been as simple as "you need any more cash man?" Or "what happened to the credit card I gave you etc". The show didn't and therefore it makes the most sense to conclude Dean didn't aid him. If we are just going to make up stuff without concrete evidence to try and make Dean look less bad then we might as well just say he gave Cas a huge load of cash and Cas spent it on gambling and alcohol. That theory is equally as supported by what we saw on screen as the belief Dean apparently gave him some money.

Riddle me this. Why wouldn't Dean have given Cas money or at least the rest of the burritos? What about Dean makes you believe he didn't? 

ETA: I don't mean this in a challenging way or to get you to change your mind. I'm legitimately just trying to understand your viewpoint.

Edited September 8, 2017 by catrox14

[Katy M]

11 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Riddle me this. Why wouldn't Dean have given Cas money or at least the rest of the burritos? What about Dean makes you believe he didn't? 

I think he gave Cas money. He may have eaten the burritos himself:)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I think it's interesting that in one instance (the case of the amulet for example) the "if it didn't happen onscreen, it didn't happen" argument is submitted and pretty widely accepted.  But in another case (Dean giving Cas money) the same argument (if it didn't happen onscreen, it didn't happen) is submitted and immediately disputed.  

FWIW, I didn't think there was anything in @Wayward Son's comments which led me to believe he thought his interpretation on Dean giving Cas money or not was the only one.  Just that it was his interpretation as it made the most sense to him.  Since this is the unpopular opinion thread, as far as I know, that's okay.  Just as others who think it makes the most sense that Dean did give Cas money is okay too.  

I also don't think Cas gave Claire any money - at least not when he caught up to her in the pimpmobile and she walked away from him.  But I'm not sure how that's any worse (I'm not saying it was not bad to send a teenage girl off on her own with no funds) than Dean sending a newly human and pretty naive Cas out on his own.  Actually, even though Cas has been around humanity so much, there is still a lot about which he seems pretty ignorant, and I would definitely think money would be one of them.  So imo, it was worse for Dean to send Cas away with no funds than for Cas to let Claire leave with no funds.  Cas just didn't understand what it took to survive in the real world the way Dean should have.  

Edited September 8, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey
took to survive. Not too to survive.

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think it's interesting that in one instance (the case of the amulet for example) the "if it didn't happen onscreen, it didn't happen" argument is submitted and pretty widely accepted.  But in another case (Dean giving Cas money) the same argument (if it didn't happen onscreen, it didn't happen) is submitted and immediately disputed.  

FWIW, I didn't think there was anything in @Wayward Son's comments which led me to believe he thought his interpretation on Dean giving Cas money or not was the only one.  Just that it was his interpretation as it made the most sense to him.  Since this is the unpopular opinion thread, as far as I know, that's okay.  Just as others who think it makes the most sense that Dean did give Cas money is okay too.  

I also don't think Cas gave Claire any money - at least not when he caught up to her in the pimpmobile and she walked away from him.  But I'm not sure how that's any worse (I'm not saying it was not bad to send a teenage girl off on her own with no funds) than Dean sending a newly human and pretty naive Cas out on his own.  Actually, even though Cas has been around humanity so much, there is still a lot about which he seems pretty ignorant, and I would definitely think money would be one of them.  So imo, it was worse for Dean to send Cas away with no funds than for Cas to let Claire leave with no funds.  Cas just didn't understand what it too to survive in the real world the way Dean should have.  

@Wayward Son, I'm sorry if it sounded like I didn't think people should express their own opinions, or even that they shouldn't defend their opinions against others.  I actually enjoy hearing other POVs, which (at their best) make me see or think about things I might have missed.  But I've just been frustrated lately at some of the arguments that IMO have gone far beyond expressing/explaining/defending and well into "I'm going to prove that I'm right and you're wrong," which, to me, feels like disrespecting another's opinion.  That's the point when it should become "agree to disagree" but I think my threshold for wanting to drop those "discussions" is a lot lower than others.   You weren't doing anything wrong, and  I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you.

I personally think not giving Claire any money is worse than not giving any to Cas--because Claire had already proven what (bad) things she would/could do on her own--join with the thief/pimp family or the RV-let's-kill-Dean couple.  Even a naive angel would be able to find some way to survive, which was already proven by Cas managing on his own before he came to the bunker--it might not have been good, but at least he didn't rob or kill anyone, and I think he did learn the value of money at that time (remember in the laundromat, when he had some change and was debating between food, water and laundry?)  But again, that's JMO, and, since I don't think Dean let Cas go empty-handed, it's actually moot.  But YMMV.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

FWIW, I didn't think there was anything in @Wayward Son's comments which led me to believe he thought his interpretation on Dean giving Cas money or not was the only one.  Just that it was his interpretation as it made the most sense to him.  Since this is the unpopular opinion thread, as far as I know, that's okay.  Just as others who think it makes the most sense that Dean did give Cas money is okay too.

I understand the comparison you are trying to draw here but I think the amulet discussion and this are different contexts.

We all have an interpretation of Dean's actions here. I'm just trying to understand Wayward's viewpoint, which I think we are allowed to do here. It's okay for us to discuss it and ask questions that aren't in an attempt to change someone's mind which I don't think anyone is doing. I'm not.

The reason why the amulet came up in the bitterness thread is that the writer himself said, Sam had the amulet all along which for some viewers is canon and that's that. MO the bitterness was with the writer more than the amulet location itself. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.  I don't have to agree with said writer and can think it's bunk that doesn't change that the writer confirmed something canonically. There is also a matter of how something affects continuity going back years like with the amulet itself so it can be more readily argued either way and there were cases made for why Sam could or could not have had the amulet. And some folks looked at the history of Sam as to why he would have kept it. 

There many things that characters do that happen off screen, like the boys have money that we presume is a result of pool sharking or credit card fraud or other means because it's known they have done that in that past, so it's likely they did it again.  FOR ME, there is enough history between Dean and Cas, that IMO, suggests that Dean would have given Cas some money or food if Dean didn't have any money to give him.

Edited September 8, 2017 by catrox14

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think it's interesting that in one instance (the case of the amulet for example) the "if it didn't happen onscreen, it didn't happen" argument is submitted and pretty widely accepted.  But in another case (Dean giving Cas money) the same argument (if it didn't happen onscreen, it didn't happen) is submitted and immediately disputed.  

FWIW, I didn't think there was anything in @Wayward Son's comments which led me to believe he thought his interpretation on Dean giving Cas money or not was the only one.  Just that it was his interpretation as it made the most sense to him.  Since this is the unpopular opinion thread, as far as I know, that's okay.  Just as others who think it makes the most sense that Dean did give Cas money is okay too.  

I also don't think Cas gave Claire any money - at least not when he caught up to her in the pimpmobile and she walked away from him.  But I'm not sure how that's any worse (I'm not saying it was not bad to send a teenage girl off on her own with no funds) than Dean sending a newly human and pretty naive Cas out on his own.  Actually, even though Cas has been around humanity so much, there is still a lot about which he seems pretty ignorant, and I would definitely think money would be one of them.  So imo, it was worse for Dean to send Cas away with no funds than for Cas to let Claire leave with no funds.  Cas just didn't understand what it took to survive in the real world the way Dean should have.  

If it didn't happen on screen than it's not canon.  And, in both cases, I'm not saying positively either way.  But, as far as evidence goes, if something didn't happen on camera, I ask myself two questions if I'm going to believe a theory.

1. How important is something that it would have to be on camera.  So, for instance, we've never seen either one vacuum or sweep the bunker.  Howerver, there is never  a dust bunny in sight, so I'm going to assume that they did that.  However, it's not canon because the bunker may be warded against dust.  TBH, I'm not fully convinced that it isn't.  But, dust removal is not an important aspect of the show, so I don't need to see them clean to assume that they do. In the two cases we are discussing, I think Sam having the amulet would be a huge plot point. Whereas giving Cas money isn't as much.

2. Is there historical characterization or other evidence for believing something happened.  In the case of giving Cas money, I would say yes, because in About a Boy they emptied out their pockets and gave Tina all their money.  OK, that was after, but it still tells me that it's something both or eithr would do when sending an indigent on their way.  As far as Sam having the amulet goes, I can't believe it, because it doesn't make any sense to me based on reasons I've already gone over.  Another quick point is that we don't need to see them do the same things over and over again once they've done it. For instance, we don't see them test every hunter they ever come in contact with, but we can assume they are at least doing it some of the times we're not seeing it.

So, I'm not saying categorically which happened because nothing happened onscreen either way in either case.  I'm just stating why I believe what I believe and I think it's perfectly fine for anyone to believe whatever they want as long as it hasn't been stated onscreen the other way. Or even if it has.  You can obviously do what you want.  But, I think half the fun of a fandom is arguing your own point of view as long as it's done respectfully.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Katy M

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I also don't think Cas gave Claire any money - at least not when he caught up to her in the pimpmobile and she walked away from him.  But I'm not sure how that's any worse (I'm not saying it was not bad to send a teenage girl off on her own with no funds) than Dean sending a newly human and pretty naive Cas out on his own.  Actually, even though Cas has been around humanity so much, there is still a lot about which he seems pretty ignorant, and I would definitely think money would be one of them.  So imo, it was worse for Dean to send Cas away with no funds than for Cas to let Claire leave with no funds.  Cas just didn't understand what it took to survive in the real world the way Dean should have.  

This is one of the big problems I have had with Cas human portrayal in s9.  Cas is a thousands year old being who did experience the feeling of hunger with Famine and he's been drunk before. He went to a brothel with Dean and even though he didn't partake he knew what it was all about. He wasn't a brand new alien on this planet.  

Presuming that Dean didn't give Cas money, which from a character standpoint I don't think woudl happen, but if it did what is the narrative reason for doing so?

Making Cas as sympathetic as possible? That happened before Dean sent him away, with his homeless journey and non-con encounter with April.

Making Dean into the worst person on Earth? I suppose that might have been a reason since Dean was already lying, and then compound it with heartless Dean for full effect? Maybe so.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I understand the comparison you are trying to draw here but I think the amulet discussion and this are different contexts.

We all have an interpretation of Dean's actions here. I'm just trying to understand Wayward's viewpoint, which I think we are allowed to do here. It's okay for us to discuss it and ask questions that aren't in an attempt to change someone's mind which I don't think anyone is doing. I'm not.

The reason why the amulet came up in the bitterness thread is that the writer himself said, Sam had the amulet all along which for some viewers is canon and that's that. MO the bitterness was with the writer more than the amulet location itself. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.  I don't have to agree with said writer and can think it's bunk that doesn't change that the writer confirmed something canonically. There is also a matter of how something affects continuity going back years like with the amulet itself so it can be more readily argued either way and there were cases made for why Sam could or could not have had the amulet. And some folks looked at the history of Sam as to why he would have kept it. 

There many things that characters do that happen off screen, like the boys have money that we presume is a result of pool sharking or credit card fraud or other means because it's known they have done that in that past, so it's likely they did it again.  FOR ME, there is enough history between Dean and Cas, that IMO, suggests that Dean would have given Cas some money or food if Dean didn't have any money to give him. 

I think was @RulerofallIsurvey is saying, if the argument is that "it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen," then it if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen should hold true for all things. The argument loses meaning if you decide that only applies to things you happen to disagree with.

Personally, I believe Dean gave Cass some cash when he left the bunker, but since it wasn't on-screen, I also realize that's head canon, not canon.  Just as I realize Sam pulling the amulet out of the trash is head canon, not actual show canon. But, being told one thing can not possibly be true, because it wasn't shown on screen, and the other is definitely true, while also not being shown on screen, is rather contradictory. 

 

As to whether Dean was actually a bad person for throwing Cass out: I don't know, that's up to each person to decide for themselves, Whether or not Dean gave him money or not, I think it was a pretty crappy--and incredibly foolish--thing to do, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a horrible person. Dean fell down a rabbit hole when he made the decision to keep the angel inside Sam a secret, and every decision after only served to dig him deeper until he hit rock bottom. Then he had to pick himself up and slowly climb back out. I tend to judge less by the mistakes and more by intentions and/or whether they tried to make up for that mistake. I don't think Dean's intentions were bad and I believe he eventually tried to atone so I think he's a good guy in the end. 

 

ETA: I also don't think Mary and John are bad "guys" either. They're like Dean and Sam--and Cass, for that matter--they made mistakes, but their intentions were good and, at the end of the day, they try to help people not hurt them.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[AwesomO4000]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Making Dean into the worst person on Earth? I suppose that might have been a reason since Dean was already lying, and then compound it with heartless Dean for full effect? Maybe so.

Heh. Season 9, man. First let's make Dean look bad, then switch it up and make Sam look bad.

Have I mentioned lately that I dislike season 9? ; ) Yes? Well, in my opinion it bares repeating, since I can only hope the writers don't go there again. Please and thank you.

[Katy M]

10 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Have I mentioned lately that I dislike season 9? ; ) Yes? Well, in my opinion it bares repeating, since I can only hope the writers don't go there again. Please and thank you.

I suppose it would be wrong of me to state as fact that season 9 was the worst season. 

[DittyDotDot]

Just now, Katy M said:

I suppose it would be wrong of me to state as fact that season 9 was the worst season. 

Heh, I agree with you that S9 is the worst season, but you're right, it probably shouldn't be stated as a fact. But seriously, it was the worst!!! ;)

Edited September 8, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

I think was @RulerofallIsurvey is saying, if the argument is that "it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen," then it if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen should hold true for all things. The argument loses meaning if you decide that only applies to things you happen to disagree with

I understood that's what was being said. And no, I don't apply it according to my capricious watching needs.

I don't think the argument  loses meaning because there is context to everything. Does it matter to the narrative if it's off-screen or on-screen?  Where does subtext fit into what's canon or not?

[catrox14]

I'll state my UO opinion that I think S9 was one of the best seasons despite how ugly it was at times and frustrating. I thought it had some great episodes, fantastic acting, and YES I put it highly because Dean got a fucking mytharc! YEAH!!

I didn't mind the angst between the brothers. I really liked it minus a handful of episodes. My first go round live watching I was confused but upon binge rewatching the good things are better and the bad things are a little less awful. Bloodlines is so bad I just laugh at it now. Not even mad. 

S9 actually made me feel things about the show that I didn't feel in in s6 through s8. I liked s6 and s7 was fun with good episodes but I didn't care that much. I barely remember the last half of s7. Maybe because I was sick of the Lucifer/Sam SL by then LOL. STOP.  S8 helped me feel more inclined to the show because of the Purgatory arc, but the trials irked me.

But s9,  I became reinvested in the show with, starting with 9.1 even though I was frustrated at least I cared.  I was scared and horny about MoC!Dean LOL. I cared what was happening to Sam who had irked me all of s8. I cared about Cas, because I always do. Cowley annoyed me for a while but upon rewatch it's okay.

Was I livid at Demon!Dean, yup, bu again, I cared so much I was pissed LOL. That felt nice, to actually care what was coming next.

Edited September 8, 2017 by catrox14

[ILoveReading]

For me,  "it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen," has to apply to all situations doesn't apply, mainly due to context, timing, and importance. 

For example we don't see Sam and Dean go to the bathroom every ep, and I don't need to see it to believe that they do.  (other than when time travelling, of course).  It's not really that important to the story for the writers to specifically state that they do. 

But with the amulet given the history, and the importance the story placed on it, I feel its important for the writers to have firmly establish that Sam had it all along.  From when Dean threw it away and when it surfaced, I feel like too much time has passed and to many important events came and went, the biggest being 5.22, where it would have made a narrative sense for the show to reveal Sam had it.  That they didn't makes me believes the writers really thought he had it either.

It's true that we don't see Dean scrubbing the bunker with bleach and moping floors, but I've seen enough evidence that Dean likes things neat and tidy.  Which is why the scene at the beginning of 12.15 bothered me so much.  That happened on screen but I still see it as massively out of character for Dean. 

As to whether Dean gave Cas money, I guess that would depend on how you see Dean.  IMO, given the show history that established that Dean is a caretaker so I think its believable that he gave him some money.  I don't think it was a lot, and not enough to go very far because I don't think Sam and Dean have much to give.  They live hand to mouth, on hustles and credit card schemes .  As we've seen the credit cards don't last that long.   Cas had to get from the bunker to a couple of states over somehow.  That he had a credit card or cash is the most plausible. 

While its true, that people can believe that Cas would gamble the money.  I don't think its plausible because that's not who Cas's character is.   Id find that wildly OOC and it would never cross my mind that he would do that if Dean gave him money. 

As for sending Cas out, yes it was a wrong, not denying that.  But Cas isn't some naive innocent kid.  Yes, he was a newly minted human but that doesn't mean that all his previous experience and knowledge is some how lost or worthless.  Cas has been observing humans for thousands of years and interacting with humans for several.  He's smart and resourceful.   Maybe he picked up on how to run credit card scams.

Whereas Claire, yes, she might have grown up on the streets but first and formost she is a minor.  Plus, she has shown that despite the experience she is still very vunerable, gullable and naive.   Also very prone to bad decisions.

So, if I had to bet on who would stay alive longer in that situation I'd go with Cas. 

I personally loved s9.  I watch mainly for Jensen's acting, and I felt like there was really something extra in Jensen's performance.  It could be used as textbook to demonstrate to an actor/actress how to find what's not on the page.    It's hard to watch at times, but binge watching makes it really hit home just how much of downward spiral Dean was in, and how much he isolated himself from his loved ones.  Dean went down a very dark path that started in the premier and ended with his death in DYBIM.    

Watching Jensen and Dean was enjoyable just made me feel so many conflicting emotions.  . 

 

Give me s9 over s12 any day.  S12 is the one I detested.

Edited September 8, 2017 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'll state my UO opinion that I think S9 was one of the best seasons despite how ugly it was at times and frustrating. I thought it had some great episodes, fantastic acting, and YES I put it highly because Dean got a fucking mytharc! YEAH!!

I can see this, and I understand that part. It's not my least favorite season - that would be season 8 *** - but I think it was the above mentioned "character shaming" kind of thing that bothered me most.

I think what made me dislike the season most was that I was actually invested in the first half of the season. All of the potential emotional things brought up for both Sam and Dean looked promising for me, and I actually thought that the writers might go there and actually address them... but then things got twisted for me. The Gadreel possession arc turned into a story about Gadreel and his redemption. Sam's emotional concerns were diminished or mostly retconned into not having really happened... even though I saw them happen, so I know that they did. Somehow Sam got turned into the one who was wrong and being unreasonable as part of that Gadreel redemption. Even I disliked him and thought he was being a complete jerk, and how did that happen when before I was sympathetic with what he was going through?

I can even point to the episode the wheels started falling off for me: "Sharp Teeth." Looking back on it now, the tone of that episode was a harbinger of the rest of the season to come. For me, that's where it all turned around into the Gadreel story and Dean was going to be both the mytharc character and the one we were supposed to identify with heavily if not entirely. Whereas I prefer seeing things from both sides and sympathizing with both, so that didn't work for me. There were a few clues there in that episode things were going that way, but it was "The Purge" that cemented it for me. Things kinda went downhill tone-wise from there even though there were a few good episodes after that.

I think what bugged me the most was that Sam was the one who got wronged - by Gadreel, by Dean's lying, etc. - but no one apologized to him (sometimes even the opposite) and somehow Sam had to be the one to tell everyone else they were right or learn that maybe they weren't so bad after all and call them "friend" (in terms of Gadreel). For me, that's kind of messed up.  And so I guess I dislike it more than I would have if the season hadn't started out with so much potential, and even looked promising up until "First Born" - a good episode - but there wasn't enough follow through. I think the writers wimped out and tried to have it all and Sam's characterization got sacrificed in the process.

I don't dislike say season 12 as much, because it didn't really click all that much for me from the beginning. and at least I didn't hate what Sam or Dean became like I did for Sam in season 9.

*** The only season I actually stopped watching the show live for a while, and I'd watched the show since episode 1.

8 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Dean went down a very dark path that started in the premier and ended with his death in DYBIM.    

I enjoyed Dean's dark arc, but I would have enjoyed it a whole lot more if the narrative also hadn't trashed Sam's character (in my opinion) at the same time. Why was that necessary? It took me right out of the season, as did the somehow Sam becoming the one who was in the wrong thing.

[DittyDotDot]

Just now, catrox14 said:

I understood that's what was being said. And no, I don't apply it according to my capricious watching needs.

I don't think the argument  loses meaning because there is context to everything. Does it matter to the narrative if it's off-screen or on-screen?  Where does subtext fit into what's canon or not?

It sounds like to me you are saying the argument is valid when it meets your own personal set of parameters and isn't when it doesn't? Which, in my eyes, makes the argument meaningless. Either it was shown on-screen or it wasn't, everything else is just filling in the blanks with what each of us finds credible.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think was @RulerofallIsurvey is saying, if the argument is that "it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen," then it if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen should hold true for all things. The argument loses meaning if you decide that only applies to things you happen to disagree with.

Personally, I believe Dean gave Cass some cash when he left the bunker, but since it wasn't on-screen, I also realize that's head canon, not canon.  Just as I realize Sam pulling the amulet out of the trash is head canon, not actual show canon. But, being told one thing can not possibly be true, because it wasn't shown on screen, and the other is definitely true, while also not being shown on screen, is rather contradictory. 

 

As to whether Dean was actually a bad person for throwing Cass out: I don't know, that's up to each person to decide for themselves, Whether or not Dean gave him money or not, I think it was a pretty crappy--and incredibly foolish--thing to do, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a horrible person. Dean fell down a rabbit hole when he made the decision to keep the angel inside Sam a secret, and every decision after only served to dig him deeper until he hit rock bottom. Then he had to pick himself up and slowly climb back out. I tend to judge less by the mistakes and more by intentions and/or whether they tried to make up for that mistake. I don't think Dean's intentions were bad and I believe he eventually tried to atone so I think he's a good guy in the end. 

 

ETA: I also don't think Mary and John are bad "guys" either. They're like Dean and Sam--and Cass, for that matter--they made mistakes, but their intentions were good and, at the end of the day, they try to help people not hurt them.

Thank you @DittyDotDot!  As usual, you said it much better than I!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

2. Is there historical characterization or other evidence for believing something happened.  In the case of giving Cas money, I would say yes, because in About a Boy they emptied out their pockets and gave Tina all their money.  OK, that was after, but it still tells me that it's something both or eithr would do when sending an indigent on their way.  As far as Sam having the amulet goes, I can't believe it, because it doesn't make any sense to me based on reasons I've already gone over.  Another quick point is that we don't need to see them do the same things over and over again once they've done it. For instance, we don't see them test every hunter they ever come in contact with, but we can assume they are at least doing it some of the times we're not seeing it.

Or maybe they just learned a lesson from the previous times when they didn't give someone money?  (If in fact, they didn't give Cas money).  

Okay, I can agree that we don't need to see them do the same things over and over again once they've done it.  But I need to see it done initially.  And initially was when Cas was kicked out of the bunker and we didn't see Dean hand over any money.  Seeing them do it later doesn't make it retroactively always true for me.  

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

It sounds like to me you are saying the argument is valid when it meets your own personal set of parameters and isn't when it doesn't? Which, in my eyes, makes the argument meaningless. Either there's concrete in-show evidence to support your claim or there's not. Everything else is just filling in the blanks with what each of us finds credible.

 

That's not what I'm saying.. Let me try again.  

I'm talking about a couple of things here and posing some questions.

-- I was posing the question about subtext because it's on screen and I'm wondering if it should it be factored into canon interpretations, or only textual things like a scene or dialogue reference. 

-- Does everything that affects the narrative have to be on screen to prove it happened each and every time when  there is past history that suggests X thing is likely to have happened again, even if it's not shown?

In the case of the amulet, it's presence in the present, effectively alters the past history of that lore. We didn't see Sam carry it around, but some think there is enough in Sam's characterization in the past to suggest that Sam would have taken it, so if it was in his pocket in 11.21 then it makes sense to them that Sam took it.

Others think there was nothing in Sam's past that suggests he would have taken it. Hence there is a discrepancy  with continuity of the traveling amulet that was not explained on screen and that continuity affects the narrative for potentially 5 seasons.  If 11.21 had given us a flashback or comment that explained why Sam had it all along, then it would be a retcon and thus no real debate other than whether the viewer accepts that retcon as being logical.

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Or maybe they just learned a lesson from the previous times when they didn't give someone money?  (If in fact, they didn't give Cas money).  

Okay, I can agree that we don't need to see them do the same things over and over again once they've done it.  But I need to see it done initially.  And initially was when Cas was kicked out of the bunker and we didn't see Dean hand over any money.  Seeing them do it later doesn't make it retroactively always true for me.  

I don't follow.  Are you saying that past history of Dean giving money or food or shelter to someone in need, would no longer apply because he had never before kicked Cas out of the bunker?

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't follow.  Are you saying that past history of Dean giving money or food or shelter to someone in need, would no longer apply because he had never before kicked Cas out of the bunker?

I'm planning to reply to your question tomorrow when I've more time, but when exactly has Dean give food and money to those in need? Outside of the victim of the week that is.

[Bessie]

18 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Hence there is a discrepancy  with continuity of the traveling amulet that was not explained on screen and that continuity affects the narrative for potentially 5 seasons.

I'm trying to understand your point, and I admit I'm having trouble. Why does possession of the amulet impact the narrative for five seasons?  Either you find it credible that Sam had it or you don't. Where's the impact on the narrative? 

Also, I agree with @RulerofallIsurvey and @DittyDotDot that the statement that "if it didn't happen onscreen it didn't happen" seems to be pretty flexible depending on the argument. Lots of people think Dean was parentified, but we haven't seen that onscreen and that would have a huge impact on the narrative. 

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm planning to reply to your question tomorrow when I've more time, but when exactly has Dean give food and money to those in need? Outside of the victim of the week that is.

Why would VoTW be excluded from Dean's providing food, money or shelter for someone?

Dean feeds people all the time. Either he brings them food, pays for meals or cooks for them. He's never been shown to ask for repayment for those things so I presume it's out of his pocket. Sometimes the food is exchanged for a favor like with Death. He fed Kevin, Charlie, when they were helping him which only seems right, but even when they weren't doing something for him he still provided them with food. 

Dean gave Cas money for the brothel, whether that is a good thing or not, is debatable but in Dean's mind he was taking care of Cas on potentially their last night in the world.

That's for starters off the top of my head.

[DittyDotDot]

Just now, catrox14 said:

-- I was posing the question about subtext because it's on screen and I'm wondering if it should it be factored into canon interpretations, or only textual things like a scene or dialogue reference. 

The problem with subtext is, everyone sees that differently. Destiel is a perfect example. Some see it, some don't, but either way a romantic relationship between Dean and Castiel has never been established on the show. You can say you think there is one, but you can't prove it one way or the other.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

42 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't follow.  Are you saying that past history of Dean giving money or food or shelter to someone in need, would no longer apply because he had never before kicked Cas out of the bunker?

Since the issue in question is (was) money, I'm going to stick to that one.  I'm saying that I honestly can't remember Dean giving someone they sent off on their own cold hard cash before About A Boy.  Maybe he did and I just don't remember.  If you could provide me with an example, then I might (probably) amend my opinion that Dean didn't give Cas money when he kicked him out of the bunker.  

But if About a Boy was the first time we saw Sam and Dean give anyone cash for the road, then to me that does not imply that they'd always done it previously.  

I hope that makes sense.  

[SueB]

3 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Since the issue in question is (was) money, I'm going to stick to that one.  I'm saying that I honestly can't remember Dean giving someone they sent off on their own cold hard cash before About A Boy.  Maybe he did and I just don't remember.  If you could provide me with an example, then I might (probably) amend my opinion that Dean didn't give Cas money when he kicked him out of the bunker.  

But if About a Boy was the first time we saw Sam and Dean give anyone cash for the road, then to me that does not imply that they'd always done it previously.  

I hope that makes sense.  

They put the girl from Scarecrow on a bus as well as Charlie (no clue if they paid for either ticket).  They brought Kevin "food and supplies" multiple time while he was on the boat.  AFTER "About a Boy", they gave Claire and then later, Mary, a credit card.  They also gave Mary a phone.

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Also, I agree with @RulerofallIsurvey and @DittyDotDot that the statement that "if it didn't happen onscreen it didn't happen" seems to be pretty flexible depending on the argument. Lots of people think Dean was parentified, but we haven't seen that onscreen and that would have a huge impact on the narrative. 

IMO, what happens on screen is considered canon. And at the same time not everything that is canon  in the past must be shown on screen each time for it to stand as canon in the future, like Dean giving Cas food or money. IMO, if the thing that was common in the past, changes then yes, that change should be addressed on screen in some way.  Dean evicting Cas is a change to the past and it was shown why Dean did it. If it had never been shown why Dean did it, then I would be saying' NOPE, party foul" that's a change and it needs to be shown.  YMMV  

In a lame example, we don't see Dean and Sam stopping to pee and eat all the time to understand that yes, they will eat and pee since it was established once that they do stop to pee and eat, it's not necessary to show that for it to be true in the now or in the future.

IMO, Dean's history with caregiving others via food or money, implies that even when he told Cas he had to leave, I don't see him sending him off empty handed, be it money or food. That IMO would be OOC for Dean to do thus, I don't need to see to think he would have done it. And as guilt ridden as Dean is most all the time,  he would have given Cas money or food if nothing else than to assuage his own guilt.  And all of that IMO, comports with Dean's past canon history so I don't need to see it again to think he would have done the same thing again.

 

As to Dean being parentified, that was made canon as of 12.22 when Dean and the show, stated overtly that he had to be the father, mother and brother to Sam and that he had to protect him. Dean was put in the position of being responsible for the health, safety and well being of his younger sibling when he was literally a child. He couldn't say no because he was a child.  He was emotional support for John which a child should never have to be for a parent. That was shown in IMTOD. There are numerous episodes that show Dean not just babysitting Sam, but being his caregiver and having responsibility for Sam's life when he was a child himself. For me, it was always canon on screen and then confirmed in 12.22

36 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

The problem with subtext is, everyone sees that differently. Destiel is a perfect example. Some see it, some don't, but either way a romantic relationship between Dean and Castiel has never been established on the show. You can say you think there is one, but you can't prove it one way or the other.

Right, that's why I'm asking whether or not it should be considered part of canon interpretations. I'm not saying it should be. Just asking the question.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

5 minutes ago, SueB said:

They put the girl from Scarecrow on a bus as well as Charlie (no clue if they paid for either ticket).  They brought Kevin "food and supplies" multiple time while he was on the boat.  AFTER "About a Boy", they gave Claire and then later, Mary, a credit card.  They also gave Mary a phone.

Close but no cigar!  Lol!  I'm only interested if they actually gave someone money, since the issue was whether or not Dean would have sent Cas off without a penny - so the credit cards to Claire and Mary count (to me) but not the 'food and supplies' for Kevin.  Besides, they weren't exactly sending Kevin off on his own as he was staying on Garth's boat as I recall.  And since we didn't actually see them pay for either bus ticket, I think that's also too ambiguous to say that giving people cash is something that Sam and Dean are in the habit of doing as they send people off.  JMO, of course.  

[CluelessDrifter]

1 hour ago, Bessie said:

Lots of people think Dean was parentified, but we haven't seen that onscreen and that would have a huge impact on the narrative. 

Just going to chime in here.  As with everything else, I guess it depends on how you interpret what's on screen.  Some ignore scenes.  Some forget scenes.  Some take what's in a scene and run with it.  Some need more than what's in a scene for it to be considered on-screen canon.  I'm guessing that if everyone here was asked what parentification means, there wouldn't even be a similar starting point.

Medical textbook definition:  the assumption of a parentlike (or adult) role by a child.

It's not in Merriam-Websters, but yourdictionary.com has it as: A process of role reversal whereby a child is obliged to act as parent to its own parent.

Wikipedia (an unreliable source, but I don't have all night to look up definitions :) ) has this to say about it:  

Two distinct modes of parentification have been identified technically: instrumental parentification and emotional parentification. Instrumental parentification involves the child completing physical tasks for the family, such as looking after a sick relative, paying bills, or providing assistance to younger siblings that would normally be provided by a parent. Emotional parentification occurs when a child or adolescent must take on the role of a confidant or mediator for (or between) parents or family members.[2]

Does Dean fit any of these?

John in IMToD: 

"You know, when you were a kid, I'd come home from a hunt, and after what I'd seen, I'd be, I'd be wrecked. And you, you'd come up to me and you, you'd put your hand on my shoulder and you'd look me in the eye and you'd... You'd say "It's okay, Dad."  Dean I'm sorry.

You shouldn't have had to say that to me, I should have been saying that to you. You know, I put, I put too much on your shoulders, I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me. You did that, and you didn't complain, not once. I just want you to know that I am so proud of you."

I think John admitting that Dean took care of he and Sam fits.

I think Dean having to cover for his Dad not being there at Christmas by getting gifts for Sam and pretending John did show up fits.

I think a 9 or 10 year old Dean left to make dinners for his younger sibling and being left with a shotgun to protect his younger brother at night while their Dad was hunting a Shtriga fits.

I think John not leaving enough money, and Dean having to steal food for them to eat fits.

I think Dean stepping between John and Sam in their arguments fits.

I think Dean saying: 

"And I... I had to be... more than just a brother.  I had to be a father and I had to be a mother, to keep him safe." fits.

I would say we have seen it on screen, and somehow I have to say that's my opinion, but for me, it's clear as day.

Edited September 9, 2017 by CluelessDrifter
clarity

[SueB]

*standing ovation for @CluelessDrifter*

Dean's parentification has been a HUGE narrative theme.  Thank you for providing both the definition and on-screen acknowledgements of that circumstance. In fact, to me, it explains precisely why Dean just can't let Sammy die.  Remember when Ellen sat with Jo and died with her?  Yeah, that's the same level of love Dean feels for Sam.  I DO think Mary's presence may affect it, but Dean's instinctive response is very parental in nature on so many occasions.  And again, as @CluelessDrifter identified, officially acknowledged on the show. 

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Just going to chime in here.  As with everything else, I guess it depends on how you interpret what's on screen.  Some ignore scenes.  Some forget scenes.  Some take what's in a scene and run with it.  Some need more than what's in a scene for it to be considered on-screen canon.  I'm guessing that if everyone here was asked what parentification means, there wouldn't even be a similar starting point.

Medical textbook definition:  the assumption of a parentlike (or adult) role by a child.

It's not in Merriam-Websters, but yourdictionary.com has it as: A process of role reversal whereby a child is obliged to act as parent to its own parent.

Wikipedia, (an unreliable source, but I don't have all night to look up definitions :) ), has this to say about it:  

Two distinct modes of parentification have been identified technically: instrumental parentification and emotional parentification. Instrumental parentification involves the child completing physical tasks for the family, such as looking after a sick relative, paying bills, or providing assistance to younger siblings that would normally be provided by a parent. Emotional parentification occurs when a child or adolescent must take on the role of a confidant or mediator for (or between) parents or family members.[2]

Does Dean fit any of these?

John in IMToD: 

"You know, when you were a kid, I'd come home from a hunt, and after what I'd seen, I'd be, I'd be wrecked. And you, you'd come up to me and you, you'd put your hand on my shoulder and you'd look me in the eye and you'd... You'd say "It's okay, Dad."  Dean I'm sorry.

You shouldn't have had to say that to me, I should have been saying that to you. You know, I put, I put too much on your shoulders, I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me. You did that, and you didn't complain, not once. I just want you to know that I am so proud of you."

I think John admitting that Dean took care of he and Sam fits.

I think Dean having to cover for his Dad not being there at Christmas by getting gifts for Sam and pretending John did show up fits.

I think a 9 or 10 year old Dean left to make dinners for his younger sibling and being left with a shotgun to protect his younger brother at night while their Dad was hunting a Shtriga fits.

I think John not leaving enough money, so Dean had to steal food for them to eat fits.

I think Dean stepping between John and Sam in their arguments fits.

I think Dean saying: 

"And I... I had to be... more than just a brother.  I had to be a father and I had to be a mother, to keep him safe." fits.

I would say we have seen it on screen, and somehow I have to say that's my opinion, but for me, it's clear as day.

Thanks for this specificity. I didn't gotinto that much detail with my reply so thank you for this.

4 minutes ago, SueB said:

*standing ovation for @CluelessDrifter*

Dean's parentification has been a HUGE narrative theme.  Thank you for providing both the definition and on-screen acknowledgements of that circumstance. In fact, to me, it explains precisely why Dean just can't let Sammy die.  Remember when Ellen sat with Jo and died with her?  Yeah, that's the same level of love Dean feels for Sam.  I DO think Mary's presence may affect it, but Dean's instinctive response is very parental in nature on so many occasions.  And again, as @CluelessDrifter identified, officially acknowledged on the show. 

That's been the whole Prime Directive for Dean. It's not that he can't live without Sam, because he has in the past and done it well,  it's that he can't live with Sam dead. Those are just really different things.

[Bessie]

46 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I'm only interested if they actually gave someone money, since the issue was whether or not Dean would have sent Cas off without a penny - so the credit cards to Claire and Mary count (to me) but not the 'food and supplies' for Kevin.

I thnk he probably did help out Castiel, but those boys have been pretty fricken clueless at times. How bout Magda (I think that was her name) who was just a kid that had to be severely traumatized after being tortured by her mother and witnessed the murder of her father and brother. And the boys just leave her at a bus stop. Really compassionate there, boys!

So it's not like it would be completely out of character for Dean to be clueless about the needs of others. Especially when Sam's wellbeing is at stake. 

ETA: Although this did happen after the Castiel situation so maybe it doesn't count. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Bessie

[Katy M]

10 minutes ago, Bessie said:

How bout Magda (I think that was her name) who was just a kid that had to be severely traumatized after being tortured by her mother and witnessed the murder of her father and brother. And the boys just leave her at a bus stop. Really compassionate there, boys!

Actually, the boys did not put her on  a bus.  Children's Services did.  I am actually pretty sure that wouldn't happen in real life, unless she was 18, and maybe she was.  But, Sam and Dean had nothing to do with that.  the CPS lady who had the hots for Dean arranged that.