Um, I was just re-watching the finale, and it occurred to me that Doc seemed pretty intent on being with his "best friend" Ned, even if it meant abandoning the greatest discovery of his life. Not to mention that they said he and Ned moved to the coast together. It's just, this seems like alot of trouble for "friends" to go through to stay close....
shareBut he had known Ned far longer than his girlfriend at the inn where he worked. When you are around his age, you'll understand that family and friends are impermanent and it was important for Doc to help his friend. He doesn't seem to have family other than Sprocket, so really he had no one besides Ned (You may see this as evidence that's he's gay, but it could also be that he outlived his relatives or he never had children). He really wanted to befriend Gobo, but his friend's life was in danger (that's why Ned had to move) if he stayed. It bothered Doc to let his new discovery go, but he'd never have lived with himself had he sacrificed Ned.
http://youtube.com/profile?user=imjessietr29
Um, how did his moving affect Ned's life? Ned was going to move regardless, wasn't he?
Maybe I'm just digging too deep, because I'm still recovering from the shock of the deeper meaning behind the episodes. A friend of mine mentioned them too me, so I went back to this show, and now I'm in shock from the discovery that a childrens show was able to make arguments for a libertarian economy supported by collective anarachism. lol
Doc moved so that Ned wouldn't be alone in (Arizona? or something?). I'm not lucky enough to have that good a friend, but if I did I would do the same. Our society is used to dumping inconvenient people and sacrificing what's really important for our own selfish motivations. For Doc to dump his sick friend would go against everything this show stood for.
And despite what the Fraggles said towards the end, I don't feel that they fully supported anarchy. They contrasted from the ones in Fraggle Cave, and I concede a certain amount of individualism was promoted. However, Fraggles could be griped at or ostracized if they risked the safety of the society. I think you're confusing anarchy with the Fraggle situation. We silly creatures need governing only because we're not helpful like the Fraggles. When Mokey tried to "help" those caterpillar things and they almost ate all the vegetation in the Rock, Gobo etc griped a bit but, unlike us, actually teamed up to help clean up Mokey's mess. The episode where Red accuses others of stealing her candy was a rare episode. In most episodes, the Fraggles don't complain about their problems too much ... they team up and fix them. Let's say that storm that hit the Gorg kingdom threatened to flood the Rock. Would the Fraggles have turned to their "rulers" to deal with the problem? No ... they would deal with the problem themselves. They might have turned to Marjory for advice, but they aren't strictly anarchist since although they don't have rulers they DO have guides and they honor those guides' advice. I would imagine true anarchists wouldn't care what others said.
Your friend is also the type of person who would say that Ernie and Bert are gay. I wouldn't put too much stock in opinions like that. Besides, even if it were true ... why should you care? The Henson moral has always been to accept those who are different. Why is that a bad thing? Jesus supposedly wanted us to do the same thing ... the difference is that the Muppets are usually more consistent in that message than even the Bible. Yeah, my Fraggle shipping vid from the link makes fun of certain gay ships ... but I am only making fun of them. I don't honestly believe it. Even if it were true, it would actually fit in with the greater moral of tolerance.
http://youtube.com/profile?user=imjessietr29
"And despite what the Fraggles said towards the end, I don't feel that they fully supported anarchy."
Well, I know Henson couldn't be too overt, but in The Gorg Who Would Be King they did sing a song about how "You can never be the boss of someone else." I mean, I know American's probably just assumed the episode was against monarchy and/or being bossy, but a society where you can "never" make anyone else do anything they don't want to is anarchy.
"However, Fraggles could be griped at or ostracized if they risked the safety of the society. I think you're confusing anarchy with the Fraggle situation."
Um, ostracism simply stigmatizing a member of society to instill cultural values. You don't need a government to do that (it happens in alot of egalitarian societies). The Gorgs were really the only true government on the show, and their titles were shown as arbitrary, and really meaningless. Pa Gorg's power extended only to those who would obey him (Junior), and when Junior became King he immediately dissolved the monarch, realizing the universe didn't need a king anyway, and no one was really qualified to run it even if such a thing were possible.
"We silly creatures need governing only because we're not helpful like the Fraggles."
I was not arguing for anarchy, I was saying it was supported by the show.
" Let's say that storm that hit the Gorg kingdom threatened to flood the Rock. Would the Fraggles have turned to their "rulers" to deal with the problem? No ... they would deal with the problem themselves. They might have turned to Marjory for advice, but they aren't strictly anarchist since although they don't have rulers they DO have guides and they honor those guides' advice. I would imagine true anarchists wouldn't care what others said."
It depends on how you define anarchy. I'm defining it simply as the absence of government. What the fraggles lived in would be referred too (by Anthropologists anyway) as a "big man" society. This essentially means that, while everyone is expected to treat everyone else equally, there are a few individuals who are recognized as wise and/or good mediators (ie Marjory, Candus, Convincing John) who are allowed a certain level of clout. However, these individuals cannot "make" anyone do anything if they don't want to.
"Your friend is also the type of person who would say that Ernie and Bert are gay."
Did you even read my original post? My friend never said Doc was gay, in fact now that I've told her she doesn't agree with me. I SAID THAT! What my friend said was that there were alot of deeper meanings in Fraggle Rock episodes related to politics, religion, ect. (she said that Henson did it in such a way that if anyone ever recognized what he was doing he would have failed).
"Besides, even if it were true ... why should you care? The Henson moral has always been to accept those who are different. Why is that a bad thing?"
Allow me to answer my own question: No you did not read my original post. I never said it was a bad thing. Can't I consider the possibility that someone was gay on a children's show without being a nut-case religious bigot? I would actually consider such a thing positive, since it might subtly imply "it's ok to be different."
"Jesus supposedly wanted us to do the same thing ... the difference is that the Muppets are usually more consistent in that message than even the Bible."
Wow, I ask if Doc was gay, and not only do you leap to the conclusion that I think it's a bad thing, you also leap to the conclusion that I'm a Christian (I know of at least one Hindu who was almost kicked out of my college for anti-gay slurs. I would also note that homosexuality continues to be illegal in India). Actually, I am a Christian, but I think it's fine to be gay. The only reason so many people hate gays is because of Paul (who's teachings contradict Jesus as every turn).
"I don't honestly believe it. Even if it were true, it would actually fit in with the greater moral of tolerance."
I feel the exact same way. In my original post, I merely posed a question, not a value judgement. If I asked something like "Is Muhammad Ali a Muslim?" or "Is the Dalai Lama Buddhist?" would you therefore assume that I hate those groups? What if I asked "Is Princess Diana British?" or "Is Khaled Hosseini Afghani?"
Don't get me wrong, I admire your willingness to defend tolerance, but you shouldn't just have knee-jerk responses to anyone who uses the word "gay."
I do apologize. I'm so used to seeing vicious anti-gay morons that it was a "knee-jerk response". I do apologize. Most people who ask questions like that are mocking gay people or insuating that it's a sin or some such nonsense like that.
Did I say I'm sorry? :)
http://youtube.com/profile?user=imjessietr29
"I do apologize. I'm so used to seeing vicious anti-gay morons that it was a "knee-jerk response". I do apologize. Most people who ask questions like that are mocking gay people or insuating that it's a sin or some such nonsense like that.
Did I say I'm sorry? :)"
It's perfectly alright.
To answer the main question at hand, NO Doc was not gay/ homosexual. If you watch the episode where doc was trying to save the tree near his home. He clearly states that he proposed to some woman there. I think it was the episode where red met the merggles.
share"When Mokey tried to "help" those caterpillar things and they almost ate all the vegetation in the Rock, Gobo etc griped a bit but, unlike us, actually teamed up to help clean up Mokey's mess."
As much as I love Mokey, she's kind of always screwing things up with her good intentions.
Like the time she convinced everyone not to eat doozer buildings.
Well, Mokey is the stereotypical liberal: the well-meaning but ultimately ignorant moron who causes more harm than good.
http://youtube.com/profile?user=imjessietr29
Mokey's not a moron.
She does screw things up sometimes but if you watch "Mokey's funeral" she devises a brilliant scheme to distract the Gorgs.
She is also a genius when it comes to poetry.
However, Cotterpin Doozer isn't very smart. She led her own mother out in front of a glob that was known to eat doozers.
[deleted]
When I was little and watched this, I assumed Doc and Ned were "Daddy and Daddy". Turns out, I may not have been wrong!
shareLOL! dewboy you're a homophobe
share