It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Disney endorse pedophilia? You be the judge. ** Warning: image may be offensive **

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
man thats some messed up shi't


but in all honesty

i doubt Disney are endorsing pedophilia.
Think about how many writers, directors, managers etc that would have to be involved, specially in a company of that magnitude.

IMHO i think its just certain people messing around playing pranks or deciding, hey lets throw in a little trick or two and see if people pick up on it. I know if i was working in some massive media company or entertainment company id messing with peoples heads!
Think about the dudes who made that ride or who hide weird messages in cartoons, there having a laugh right now because you've been suckered into there little joke, even if it involves something as ridiculous as that ride.




Also i wanted to add, you might be jumping the gun there in that pic

remember when u were a kid, you'd sit on ur dads stomach?
yeah thats right, hed be facing you
same thing,
i think thats what that ride is suppose to predict.
it only looks wierd beccause its a small ride.



[edit on 11-1-2008 by gtirlad2]




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
That image is wrong.. full stop

But i dont think Disney would be supportive of this. I think it is most likely an out sourced, disney liscenced ride.

And in all honesty it was probabley not intended to be that way, Probabley just a design which wasnt really well thought through before production.

I very much doubt any company would be that sick and twisted to actually make a fairground ride which insinuates(spelling?) Peadeophilia

never the less it should be recalled....



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kerrichin
 



Good idea on the list.

Just 1 correction, in Lilo and Stitch its not that her father is ot there, both her father and her mother are dead, though I don't remember how. The person looking after her is her sister.

Don't ask me why I know that



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Well, I grew up with Donald Duck and Ducksberg, and at a very early age I did wonder, why are they wearing no pants?


Another good question is why does he wear a towel when taking a shower???

2PacSade-



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
Personally, I believe that overwrought zealots are causing damage that goes well beyond tarnishing their own image with ridicule. We all suffer - or are bound to suffer - because of their hysteria.


Who are the zealots that you are speaking of? It sounds to me like you are trying to imply that those who find the actions of Disney to be less that honest as the zealots.

Personally, I find that those who are overzealous in the defense of Disney to be the ones who cause 'us' to suffer. Those gatekeepers, overwrought with hysteria over the possibility that they have been financially supporting the destruction of their own children's innocence, would rather fool themselves into attacking the messenger, than to gaze upon the looking glass and recognize themselves as the culpable.

They must be in complete denial. This particular theme, White Water Fowl performing coitus with a human Maiden was at one time the MOST POPULAR theme to illustrate sexuality in art. To cry 'coincidence' is to completely overlook Art, and its Image. Without Michelangelo and Da Vinci, you have no Walt Disney, or Walt Disney Corp. I don't have numbers, but I imagine that at least 50% of the artists who design everything Disney would have attended Art School. It is a requirement to obtain your degree at a majority of Art Schools, that you have to take several years of Art History.
In fact, Walt Disney attended the same prestigious Art School as I, where I first learned of the theme of "Leda and the Swan". It just took a while for me to remember it myself looking at that Donald Ride. I would think he would have to have been aware at the very least, as well as the current crop of art directors/illustrators/designers at Disney. Its their job to know.

Why is it so hard to come to the realization that there are people who know about topics and themes outside of one's knowledge base, and that they would use those things to manipulate you and/or your children? Is it that they don't want to feel the scorn of being swindled? Or is it that you need to try to block out the possible damage they are doing to their children? What ever it is exactly that keeps one from opening their eyes, but that weakness tarnishes the image of those cannot see. To the those who can, it is hard not to see this blindness as stupidity.

I know it feels terrible at first to realize that Disney is Evil, but once you allow yourself to mourn the fantasies of childhood, you will feel better than ever before. And more importantly, your children will be healthier for it.

Sex sells, even cartoons.
DocMoreau

[edit on 11/1/2008 by DocMoreau]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


WOW, amazing, I knew about the Disney phallic symbol on the Little mermaid DVD, they are collectors items now, they pay big money for it,

The Sharon Tate, Rosmary's baby connection was creepy though, WOW



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gtirlad2
i doubt Disney are endorsing pedophilia.
Think about how many writers, directors, managers etc that would have to be involved, specially in a company of that magnitude.


Indeed, think about how many employees of Disney, who job it is to be aware of things like this, letting it get past. You would think all it would take is one or two employees out of the thousands to speak up, and at least mention the possibility that maybe you don't want kids riding Donald Duck's groin.

Strangely, a ride like this is able to get past the Disney 'censors'. And we are talking about a company that loves to sue to protect their intellectual property rights, time and time again, letting something out like this among the citizens. Hmmmm....

Yeah, Disney is not trying to get your money by manipulating you child's innate, immature sexuality. I think they would rather lose money, so long as each child in the world is emotionally and mentally balanced. Yeah, Thats it...
DocMoreau



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 


Great post!


I just wanted to add a point that I found odd about Donald Duck, it's his many incarnations, or more specifically incarnations of the Donald Duck "image". Let's not forget there was a vampire Donald also. A vampire could be seen in a reptilian/occult light.

Why were other Disney characters, at least to my knowledge, not presented in the same manner? If I'm wrong about that please tell me.

Peace



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Not everything that appears sexual is sexual. This is especially true of small children who often engage in behavior that would be highly sexual if adults engaged in the behavior, but is innocent and asexual when children engage in the same behavior. For example, my 2 year old niece runs around the house naked. Her nudity is completely devoid of sexuality. Small children also may take baths together. Two small children bathing together is not sexual, while adults bathing together can be sexual.

If Disney is guilty of anything, it is foisting banal and insipid entertainment on the masses. If anything, Disney has eliminated entertainment that adults could enjoy (I am not talking about porn, but movies and television shows which dealt with complex and sophisticated subject matter) and replaced it with "family entertainment" which is really just dumbed down garbage.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
1. Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs -

In addition to Snow White's biological mom being killed during Childbirth (?), Snow White is persecuted for being more 'attractive' than her evil Queen Step Mother. She is eventually 'killed' by her Step Mother, and then resurrected after approx. 9 months by the kiss of a Prince.

Strange...
I could go on down the list with other tasty tidbits, but don't have time today.

DocMoreau



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Exactly, Sometimes a Duck is a Duck, and a child a child, and sometimes when you take a Duck and a Young Maiden, put them together and represent them in a sexual position, they are actually symbolically having sexual coitus.

Thanks for proving that sometimes what you see is actually what is being presented.
DocMoreau

Edit to Add... In this case, Disney is guilty of Dumbing Down the MOST POPULAR sexual symbolism of the Old Masters, and presenting it as entertainment for children. They label this as family entertainment, because "Entertainment to distract your Kids" is too outwardly derogatory towards their customer base. Then, hypnotized gatekeepers defend its merits, while Disney is making more money in 1 hour than you or I will make in a lifetime. Seems strange to me that anyone would be willing to defend such acts without getting paid by Disney, or a subsidiary at the very least.

[edit on 11/1/2008 by DocMoreau]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Just imagine how many parents give in to let there kids ride the duck and than realize when the duck starts moving and than embarrassed, pull them off the ride with the kid screaming.

I would be more concerned if there was some guy video taping the kids riding it also. Than there's the curious teens riding it just for a laugh. I personally think those rides are lame anyway and just spread germs like the shopping carts.

I have no doubt that there's adult humor hidden in cartoons as this seemed to be the norm long ago with the Tom and Jerry cartoons playing before the movies started.

I used to hate the 101 dalmations and still do becuase of the um witch or whatever wanted to make a coat out of puppies and it was my daughters favorite movie.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Not everything that appears sexual is sexual. This is especially true of small children who often engage in behavior that would be highly sexual if adults engaged in the behavior, but is innocent and asexual when children engage in the same behavior. For example, my 2 year old niece runs around the house naked. Her nudity is completely devoid of sexuality. Small children also may take baths together. Two small children bathing together is not sexual, while adults bathing together can be sexual.

If Disney is guilty of anything, it is foisting banal and insipid entertainment on the masses. If anything, Disney has eliminated entertainment that adults could enjoy (I am not talking about porn, but movies and television shows which dealt with complex and sophisticated subject matter) and replaced it with "family entertainment" which is really just dumbed down garbage. [/quo
te]


That's the whole point! This stuff is made by adults, wich means they know what they are doing. They are deliberately putting this stuff in there, IMO, how can this slip through any quality or moral check?
Why would you expose children to this, even if they don't understand, rationally?
It is wrong, and it stinks!



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 



thanks for the snow white bit i cant remember the movie, i didnt think she had a mother but its been such a long time since i watched the movie



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
If you think the Disney variations of these popular childhood fairy tales are disturbing, I might recommend you look deeper into the orginal stories - as they were ORIGINALLY WRITTEN - and tell me then if you still think Disney is nothing more than a creative storyteller bent on traumatizing children.

I love Disney movies, and I grew up with them.

In fact, my first movie ever was "Bambi" and I didn't even understand the fact that his mother had been killed. It never even registered. I was, however, quite terrified of the fire and my mother informs me that I had to be taken out of the theatre because I was crying so loudly.

So I guess this means I was "programmed" from an early age to recognize and respect the power of one of the most basic elements of nature?

Or wait -

Maybe it was just trying to "associate my mind with the demonic flames of eternal damnation and subsequently traumatize me beyond all comprehension."

Regardless - I've never burned my house down.



To wit - "101 Dalmations" was probably the reason I don't advocate animals for fur production, am a bit of the animal rights activist and tend to my furry bretheren as sentient entities.

Who knows?

And in response to this "ride" every one is so up in arms about - might I just add that if the child does not want to ride the ride or becomes uncomfortable about the experience is probably a sign that that child has had an unhealthy premature sexual experience at the hands of someone that child actually KNOWS as opposed to the Disney Corporation itself.

Are you going to continually blame an outside agency for the discrepancies of the genuine sexual deviants out there?

And considering that none of us has ever MET Disney himself and/or the people making these assumptions to the contrary of his (and the company) reputation, isn't a bit odd to give their written "testimony" so much weight?

The internet is a wealth of resource, true - but relying on this third and fourth hand information to form and guide our perceptions is akin to reading somehting casually scrawled on a bathroom wall and taking it for the Gospel of the Highest Order.

A bit ridiculous if you ask me, but hey - we're all entitled to our respective opinions, pet causes and personal smear campaigns.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by GENERAL EYES]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I think this wasn't mentioned before, I just found out that Walt Disney was a 33 degree mason.
I'm not surprised at all. People, if you look a bit deeper into this you have to conclude that something fishy is going on here.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   



Who are the zealots that you are speaking of? It sounds to me like you are trying to imply that those who find the actions of Disney to be less that honest as the zealots.



Oh, I never imply anything...
Overwrought zealots are just what the expression says; and they are to be found all over the world (although, in all fairness, the USA seem to be slightly ahead in that regard - no offence to anyone), in all kind of occasions... why, I am sure I could find a few right here at ATS.


But if I were to find them - and name them - I would have to wade through a morass of messages, some of which are actually offensive to me personally. (No, not yours, not particularly.)

It just ain't worth it.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
I think this wasn't mentioned before, I just found out that Walt Disney was a 33 degree mason.
I'm not surprised at all. People, if you look a bit deeper into this you have to conclude that something fishy is going on here.


That is indeed one of the claims out there, and seeing as how Disney HIMSELF is not here to clarfiy his actual affiliations and refute the testimony of these accusations - I shall, as an artist myself - retire back to my drawing board in an attempt to create more fictional friends with rational priorities.

Enjoy your thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Yeah, Disney is not trying to get your money by manipulating you child's innate, immature sexuality. I think they would rather lose money, so long as each child in the world is emotionally and mentally balanced. Yeah, Thats it...
DocMoreau


Exactly. Than we all step onto the naivety ferris wheel and round and round we go.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GENERAL EYES
 


Have you ever met Walt Disney? I don't think so. What makes your perception of him true?

I"ve never met him, he isn't here to defend himself. Does that mean I can't talk about him?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join