|Viewing Single Post From: Interesting/Spoilerish Tweets, Week of 12/10|
|Will&Sonny||Dec 10 2012, 05:21 PM|
Re: the bolded portion...until recently, Sydney would have been too young to have feelings of exclusion, so that's a moot point. Beyond that, my final statement would apply -- that [IMO, at least] the fact that certain people have been unfairly excluded doesn't mean that we should be upset about other people not being excluded.
I'd be fine with Sydney receiving an ornament simply so that she doesn't feel left out (not that there aren't other reasons that she could receive one; I'm just saying that would be enough of a reason for me), but if that's not why Johnny received his ornament, then it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
I disagree that Johnny's ornament privileges should be revoked, unless Sami's privileges are also revoked -- otherwise, it doesn't make sense for a woman's children to not be consider at least half-Horton, if that woman is considered to be a(n honorary) Horton herself. But I feel like this is all just a circular argument, because now we're back to the fact that Sydney apparently doesn't have an ornament yet. I can only reiterate what I've said before -- finding examples where the "rules" haven't been followed isn't, IMO, an acceptable justification for those "rules" to continue to be ignored in other situations.
|Interesting/Spoilerish Tweets, Week of 12/10 · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion|