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

Originally posted by enigmania

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by enigmania

 

No there is questioning.
And then there is paranoia and seeing evil bad conspiracies in everything.

Exactly, and questioning is what I'm doing here. I'm sorry that it falls within your definition of paranoia in this case.
It's not my problem if you feel oncomfortable talking about this.
Deny ignorance.

Coming from the guy who took exception at people disagreeing and went off on this wonderful rant.

Excuse me? A dirty mind, I think not! Your mind is naive and innocent, and sick for not seeing anything wrong with that. Like someone already said, children know Donald's a duck, but an adult one.

If that duck ride was a methaphor for something, it would be the legend of Leda and the swan, like DocMoreau pointed out.

You base your statements on that one picture, did you check out the other sources?
Do you think if all this is true, they would mention in a documentairy that he was a pedofile, and destroy a multi billion dollar business? That's so naive.

And it's not even about Walt Disney alone, I say there were powerfull forces working behind him. Most of this questionable things were made after his death.

Come on think, it's the perfect front for all type of wrong stuff. Everybody swallows it, and if you are critical, you are attacked by endless hordes of Disney brainwash victims calling you a pervert.

And THEN goes on like more than a few of his type and chants "DENY IGNORANCE" with the assumption (it seems) that ignorance means not agreeing with them.
But you wanna know something? You could be wrong.
Yes, I hate to inform you, it is altogether possible. You are after all human and we are falliable no matter how many egotists want to say otherwise.

That being said I say, rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggghhhhhhhttttttttt.
Go back to your ivory tower.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by enigmania
[

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!

It is perhaps possible that adults are that designed the ride overlooked the sexual connotations of it. They may feel, and justifiably so, that there is no need to check for hidden sexual inuendo as children will not be able to pick up on sexual innuendo.

When adults put their babies in a bath together, they overlook the sexual connotations that bathing can have. They do not feel the need to check for the sexual innuendo of the situation. Similarly the adults that made the ride could have thought that they were just making a ride and did not think of the sexual inuendo of the ride.

Originally posted by enigmania
[

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!

It is perhaps possible that adults are that designed the ride overlooked the sexual connotations of it. They may feel, and justifiably so, that there is no need to check for hidden sexual inuendo as children will not be able to pick up on sexual innuendo.

When adults put their babies in a bath together, they overlook the sexual connotations that bathing can have. They do not feel the need to check for the sexual innuendo of the situation. Similarly the adults that made the ride could have thought that they were just making a ride and did not think of the sexual inuendo of the ride.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

It is perhaps possible that adults are that designed the ride overlooked the sexual connotations of it. They may feel, and justifiably so, that there is no need to check for hidden sexual inuendo as children will not be able to pick up on sexual innuendo.

When adults put their babies in a bath together, they overlook the sexual connotations that bathing can have. They do not feel the need to check for the sexual innuendo of the situation. Similarly the adults that made the ride could have thought that they were just making a ride and did not think of the sexual inuendo of the ride.

EXACTLY! Most people "normal" people don't often put the words sexual and child in the same sentence and even then when talking about parenthood (and has nothing to doing sexual stuff with the child but rather how it got there IE conceived) or when its time some sicko needs to be put down.



[edit on 13-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Here's a 10 minute video on the occult, more importantly Donald Duck. A lot of this is in the video series I referenced in my opening post as well. There seems to be a lot more to Donald than just a pantless duck. Cartoons with Donald involving the Twin Towers and their destruction, ancient Egypt and so on. There are very good arguments made for Donald being a representation of the Egyptian god Thoth. The Donald Duck part starts at around 5:00. Educate yourself.

I was willing to consider your opening post, but you lost me on this one. Donald Duck is a representation of the ancient egyptian Thot and involved in the occult and the 9/11 conspiracy? You´ve got to be kidding. I watched the video with the nauseating sounding speaker. Out of the thousands and thousands of adventures dreamed up for donald duck of course comic writers would also have him in ancient egypt and atlantis.

In fact, reading him as a child, I looked forward to the adventure type comics the most. Just because the comic authors put him in Indiana Jones gear, doesnt mean Donald Duck is a "searcher for the holy grail" as the youtube speaker puts it.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


You are damn right I could be wrong, I'm not saying I know it all. Look at yourself, you are calling me paranoid for not agreeing with you.

I said deny ignorance because I think you are reacting in an emotional way because of the subject.

reply to post by enigmania


Can we say projection?
Need I quote your response again?

And emotional response? Hardly.



[edit on 13-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

EXACTLY! Most people "normal" people don't often put the words sexual and child in the same sentence and even then when talking about parenthood (and has nothing to doing sexual stuff with the child but rather how it got there IE conceived) or when its time some sicko needs to be put down.

Exactly! Then why does Disney put sexual references in kid's movies. That wouldn't be "normal" either.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by enigmania

 

Can we say projection?
Need I quote your response again?

And emotional response? Hardly.



[edit on 13-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Projection? Of what?

Quote my response as many times you want, it wasn't a response to you. It was a response to someone who claimed I had a "dirty" mind because of my opinion.

When I say:

"Come on think, it's the perfect front for all type of wrong stuff. Everybody swallows it, and if you are critical, you are attacked by endless hordes of Disney brainwash victims calling you a pervert.", I am making an hypothesis.

Funny that right after that, you come in attacking my character, scaring of other posters that might feel there is something more to this.

Bring it then, call me paranoid, crazy, dirty, I don't give a F.

I think there is something sinister behind Disney, and I won't be scared of the subject because popular opinion will make me look bad.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I have read your last few posts, also in other threads, and I see a clear pattern of attacking people without bringing anything useful to the thread.

These are the words you used to adress people that don't share your opinion:

-delusional
-posterchild of deflection
-you are an unpayed disinfo agent
-egomasterbation
-paranoid
-go back to your ivory tower!
-projection
-all these stories need, are leprechauns

That's from your last six posts, way to deny ignorance!

Better change your avatar in: "attack on character, make people look bad, add nothing to the conversation".

Talking about disinfo agents, pfff.




[edit on 13/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 13/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 13/1/08 by enigmania]

inthink we are going off course abit and just haveing a slagging match.


anyway back to the subject.
has anyone found anything on the godess and the swan its very interesting

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint

It is perhaps possible that adults are that designed the ride overlooked the sexual connotations of it.

Of coarse it could be, never doubted it couldn`t be the case for one ride.Put a toddler on that ride and the picture would change quit a lot.Though I would also say when someone designed the ride and didn`t factor in that children not just toddlers will ride it, is questionable.

Must add that much of this post isn`t directed at anyone in particular.

As far as all the Disney stuff is concerned that is an eye brow lifter I liken it to this.
For example purpose only and not for off topic discussion........

IBM's role in WWII and the Holocaust

In 2001, author Edwin Black published IBM and the Holocaust (ISBN 0-609-80899-0), a book that documented how IBM's New York headquarters and CEO Thomas J. Watson acted through its overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with punch card machines that could help the Nazis to track down the European Jewry (especially in newly conquered territory).

Wiki

One would think IBM would in the future be very careful about their association with Nazi`s? well I would.

IBM unveils Xbox processor details
San Jose, California
October 25, 2005 - 3:10PM


Less than a month before Microsoft's Xbox 360 hits store shelves, IBM has revealed details of the microprocessor that powers the video game console.
Link

Xbox symbol when it was launched.

Now with all the sexual content that has been found within Disney over the years for what ever reason (prank,disgruntled workers etc) I`d think that those in authority of the Disney corp would go to great lengths to distant themselves from inappropriate content to minors.
If this particular Donald ride was made back in 1966 as its been pointed out to be by someone,then I`m less suspicious of the ride,if its still manufactured? then I am suspicious of them with the ride in question.

They may feel, and justifiably so, that there is no need to check for hidden sexual inuendo as children will not be able to pick up on sexual innuendo.

There`s a difference between toddlers and children and what they are aware of.I was aware when I was a child from about 6 onward and I know many others were of either gender more so girls for mine as well at the time of around the same age.Never heard of playing doctors and nurses? children are inquisitive, that will never change though obviously should go without saying adults shouldn`t be involved or encourage it as like its proven that some at Disney have,whether childen have picked up on it I dont know but its there,that is sick and an abomination,whether Disney himself or the corp endored/endorse`s it or not.

you guys are freaking idiots

the ride just depicts when a child is on the stomach of there "father or mother gaurdian etc"

its just a ride. END OF STORY

If the OP didnt bring up the subject of what the ride looked like, then i wouldnt have noticed.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by gtirlad2]

Originally posted by gtirlad2
If the OP didnt bring up the subject of what the ride looked like, then i wouldnt have noticed.

You mean you don't see anything strange about a girl sitting on donald ducks crotch.

Australians are $#&%ing weird

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Australians are $#&%ing weird

maybe to others.

Though we dont make those type of rides and cartoons

reply to post by enigmania



LoL!
Yea list fragments of my comments with no context of what was said before or after.

Nice basis for proof there.

*rolls his eyes*

Can't slam my logic so ad hominium for ya. Gotcha.
Good day.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I remember seeing a show on Walt several years back... it wasn't very flattering and it commented that Disney had a thing about rears and especially children's and that was why his characters were always shaking their asses at us. How true this is, I don't know but I remember the program though I forget the name.

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by WraothAscendant

 

Better change your avatar in: "attack on character, make people look bad, add nothing to the conversation".

Talking about disinfo agents, pfff.

Yes by disagreeing how dare I. I am so bad. And voicing it! **shock and horror**
How dare I have an opinion other than yours.
(Only to have people such as yourself go off the wall with basically "How dare you disagree you heathen ignorant sheeple!!!!???!!!???" I might add.)
Bad, evil me, I should be shot.
**sarcasm meter redlines**


[edit on 14-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

this is getting stupid all the name calling and fighting.
people have a right to beleive what they want its a discussion not a slagging match.

lets just keep to the subject some people agree that the ride is dodgy some dont end of story.
now lets all play nice and respect other peoples rights to opinions.

reply to post by kerrichin


I wouldn't put it past someone at Disney knowing this thread exists. I also wouldn't put it past someone at Disney sending someone else here to derail the discussion.

And as far as those talking about how moms and dads let their kids ride on them like that, fair enough, but the disturbing part is that Donald's staring at her crotch. Do all mommies and daddies stare at their child's crotch or stare at their face while they laugh being jostled about?

Peace