The Cartoon That Will Destroy America And/Or Entertain Some Children

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by JakiusFogg

 

Really? How long do you think that the suit and tie profile of masculinity has been definitive?

That's not even drag! That what a REAL man used to dress like!

edit on 20-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

THAT isn't what a 'real' man wore though is it.

A real man, the vast majority of men of that time at least, would have been dressed in dirty rags, scratching around in the dirt and filth trying to find something to eat..very few 'elites' could ever be catagorised as 'real men' in the sense you refer to, even these days.

Why are you turning this into an economic issue? Do you think that the "haves" are more gay than the "have nots"?



These men are wearing knickers, stockings, wigs and some of them are wearing girdles too!

The male construct, the image of a masculine man of today, is not the same as it was a couple of hundred years ago. Fashion is fleeting and judging a man or a woman on the fashion that they choose to express themselves with is just shallow.

Masculinity isn't based on conformity.

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with this show. I refuse to let mainstream media marketing pushed gender stereotypes dictate how I raise my children. Gender coded toys, shows, colors, and products are pushed by people with marketing agendas and ignorant pigs who want a clear line between male and female. I say bullocks. If my son wants to wear, play with, watch or do things that society say is for girls I'll let him. He'll find his own path. Letting him play with girl toys or watch transgender shows will NOT make him gay. If he's gay there's nothing I can do but roll with it and accept him for who he is. And if he's not I love him all the same either way. But people are not MADE gay.

When I was a kid my mother let me play with wigs and I even got into her makeup a few times. In fact she has a few embarrassing photos of such. My mom and dad did no wrong. And guess what? I'm as straight as an arrow, married, and have two fantastic children. And you know what else. I feel because I was allowed to play with gender roles as a kid I have a far better respect for women than most men do.

This Gay agenda that i constantly read about baffles me,

Gender Roles? red is for boys and pink is for girls? are we back to that issue?

who defined Gender roles? science? Nature? and who taught it and where did they learn it from? who is dictating what is and what is not?

reply to post by BO XIAN


I am consistant. Unfortunately, your bias does not allow you to see that.

Human habits evolve to suit and support their cultural environnement. Culture evolves in par with the physical environnement that stimulates cultural creation. Nothing is ever "good", if you define good as a moral absolute, because morals can not absolutely exist. Killing other humans is generally viewed as bad. The anthropophageous maori or cannibal tribes would disagree. Death penalty supporters would disagree, in certain cases.

Nothing as trancendant as "good" can possibly exist in a universe which is not trancendant. Only in the human mind can such things exist, and therefore these trancendant ideals can only ever be as pertinent as the minds in which they are born. Which is to say, if the universe is our scale, not very pertinent at all.

reply to post by windword


Did you ever notice though that there are less and less cartoons that promote masculinity? Every cartoon and new TV show has a gay character but the only masculine one is usually the bully, or the one that everyone does not like...

Just an observation....

Originally posted by supremecommander

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Been posted before, I see no problem with it, kids will love it, it will not make boys dress as girls etc.
Kids are more tolerant as others much more than adults.
When bugs bunny dressed as a girl did it make you want to be one? no thought not.

edit on 19-6-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Bugs Bunny was a rabbit. This cartoon is specifically about a boy running around as a girl. I don't know about ypu but I would not want my son running around pretending to be a woman. You seem to have no comprehension on the importance of gender roles in a society where males are becoming emasculated. This sick show purposely plays into that by DESIGN.

It may be a bit out there, but i think the reaction to this cartoon, is based on the general undertone is society that women arent as good as men.

If this was a girl dressing up as a boy to hide her identity it wouldnt be an issue.
But it's a boy dressing up as an "inferior" female to hid his identity that pisses off so many mysogynistic people.

the character isnt gay, or transgendered.
He's a bot dressing as a girl to HIDE his identity.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Glass

 

1. It appears that the paradigm shifting efforts of the oligarchy consistent with the reasons for the OP cartoon . . . have achieved their goals with regard to your constructions on reality--emphatically.

2. You have clearly bought-into a construction on reality that wholesale PREVENTS your even slightly considering the possibility that your construction on reality might be wrong.

3. I can detect no shred of a possibility in your reply to me that any hint of an authentic dialogue could remotely occur between us.

You believe so strongly that you must be right and I'm wrong. You're stuck in a right vs. wrong paradigm so you must rationalize your views in such a way that invalidates any view which contradicts yours even slightly.

Everyone forms their own subjective model of reality. Based on what they're told, should they choose to adopt the views of others. Based on what they experience, so long as they believe that their own senses are not deluded. I'm open to considering that my views may be wrong, but I refuse to adopt a belief based on fear. I cannot look at the world in your black and white terms. I have examined things from too many perspectives to regress into absolutism.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Glass

 

. . . in favor of a RATIONAL SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM WHICH IF PRACTICED IN GOOD FAITH WOULD MAKE THE WORLD A MUCH BETTER PLACE.

1. No individual and certainly no sizeable group of individuals CAN live strictly consistent with RELATIVISM.

2. Trying to dress pig poo up in "rational" is a farce. There's NOTHING rational about relativism.

You can't think of a single reason why relativism might be valid?

Look, throughout history there have been different cultures with different values. Morals and laws have been used to preserve social order to enable the progression of society. Now we are in an age where all cultures and societies are interconnected in various ways, still with different sets of laws and values, and conflicting values are causing great tension.

There are but two ultimate solutions for this: We accept that people are all different and are going to live their lives in different ways, or we utterly annihilate everyone who is different from us so that our way of life reigns supreme.

3. Relativism makes it more than plausible--actually "logically" sanctions--when internally consistent with the paradigm--actually sanctions person "A" murdering person "B" for dinner on a whim--because it's "right for person "A" at that moment, in that context . . . There is NOTHING to call that "wrong."

Ok, so it's "right" for person "A" to kill person "B", but is it in person "B"s best interest to be murdered for food? Probably not! In a situation such as this it is necessary to protect people from the selfish whims of others.

But you seem to think it would be perfectly okay if person "A" was offended by the lifestyle of person "B" and decided to murder him, citing some outmoded moral code.

5. WHEN there is NO "good" or "evil;" "dreadful" or "wonderful" . . . such terms RATIONALLY have NO MEANING. But go ahead . . . pretend you can live life congruent with relativism.

Good and evil are already very relative terms. Sure, there are things we universally agree are evil, like murder, because to kill a member of one's own species is harmful to the species as a whole. But then we turn around and sanction the murder of people in other countries for political and economic reasons and call it good and just. Maybe even call it God's will. Is that good or evil? On one hand, innocent people are benefiting indirectly from those killings, on the other, people are being killed!

Moral codes are failing us. What we need is compassion. We need to look at what we are doing to others, understand that from their perspective we are evil, and stop.

6. Sooner or later . . . you'll "pretend" fairly emphatically that being kind to a spouse, child or friend is MUCH more GOOD than being murderous and cannibalistic.

I don't need to pretend, it's the truth. Love benefits both parties. Murder destroys one party for a small benefit to the other, but often leads to the destruction of both parties.

7. You'll likely continue to "pretend" that being nice to children at the local fast food is BETTER than machine gunning them all down--even though--strictly speaking--given your construction on reality--there would be ABSOLUTELY NO RATIONAL justification for one over the other.

Yes there is a damn good rational justification for not killing children. If I kill them, I'm destroying a multitude of lives for no gain. +I will likely be killed for my actions.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Glass

 

8. Even though very convoluted and IRRATIONAL mental gymnastics are necessary to even pretend that such a RELATIVISTIC construction on "reality" works . . . you have the cheek to trash value systems and constructions on reality that have mostly worked for millennia.

9. Very 'clever,' that.

You want to talk about mental gymnastics

Tell me, how do you make the leap from "it's okay for boys to dress and act like girls if they want to" straight to "it's okay to mow down a room full of school children with an M249 and drink their blood?"

On one hand we have a completely harmless act. It literally harms no one if I wear a dress.

And on the other hand an act of extreme brutality resulting in a terrible loss of life, to please the whims of a psychopath.

You would say they are one in the same, they both violate your holy laws which are totally infallible and state that both the psychopath and the crossdresser should be executed. Which now means you are killing one evil person and one innocent person.

That is an amazing feat of cerebral contortion.

Originally posted by supremecommander

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Been posted before, I see no problem with it, kids will love it, it will not make boys dress as girls etc.
Kids are more tolerant as others much more than adults.
When bugs bunny dressed as a girl did it make you want to be one? no thought not.

edit on 19-6-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Bugs Bunny was a rabbit. This cartoon is specifically about a boy running around as a girl. I don't know about ypu but I would not want my son running around pretending to be a woman. You seem to have no comprehension on the importance of gender roles in a society where males are becoming emasculated. This sick show purposely plays into that by DESIGN.

Males are being emasculated you say? Have you been to the movies lately? Here's a quick snapshot of whats being sold in the media today:

Man of Steel

"A young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man, he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind."

Manly dude has super powers, saves the world. His skin tight suit shows off his muscles and crotch bulge.

World War Z

Manly Brad Pitt fights zombies to save the world. Lots of manly soldiers shooting guns at zombies. Brad Pitt protects his feeble wife and daughters against the infected hordes.

Fast & Furious 6

Manly men in car chases and shootouts with lots of violence and explosions. One of the characters happens to be played by a very manly homosexual man.

So when you say that all men are suddenly going to turn effeminate against their will because of some children's cartoons I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

reply to post by Glass


Superman - A child separated from his real family can make a difference

World War Z - A zombie movie about a man having to leave his family...

Fast and Furious - You to can be a criminal and drive cool cars...

Not even close...The father figure and family in American Film and TV is a joke. They are either not there or made to be an idiot. 80's TV was the end with shows like Cosby and Full House...Family Ties...Growing Pains....

Now we have Modern Family (Idiot Dad but the gay family is on point). It is all agenda driven...

It is not about gays...it is about destroying the foundation of the family so people HAVE only their government to go to and believe in...wake up The gay "agenda" is being used like woman in the 20's and blacks in the 60's...old closet white men rule the world.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Glass

 

Superman - A child separated from his real family can make a difference

That's a heartwarming message. Shouldn't orphans feel valuable?

World War Z - A zombie movie about a man having to leave his family...

To save them. From zombies. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Its a very masculine, family value sort of message. Plus a dramatic moment where he gives a tearful goodbye to his family makes for very good heart-wrenching cinema.

Fast and Furious - You to can be a criminal and drive cool cars...

Pff, its a mindless action thriller, pure entertainment, glorifying masculinity and cool cars. People become criminals because their circumstances force them to, not because movies persuade them that its cool. You can be a middle class family man and still have a cool car if you play your cards right.

Not even close...The father figure and family in American Film and TV is a joke. They are either not there or made to be an idiot. 80's TV was the end with shows like Cosby and Full House...Family Ties...Growing Pains....

Hank Hill (King of the Hill) was a great father figure, though he was a character which satirized the Republican mindset that things which are different are weird and scary. He was a working man, loved his job (a little too much maybe) and full of good common sense.

But see, nobody wants to watch a show about a perfectly functional happy family anymore. People want drama. They want entertainment. And besides, a show about an idiot father can teach you how NOT to be a parent. Even in those shows with idiot fathers and dysfunctional families, things usually work out in the end. Look at The Simpsons; Homer is "special" no doubt, but every episode ends with some kind of lesson and the family is brought together.

Now we have Modern Family (Idiot Dad but the gay family is on point). It is all agenda driven...

Eh, you may be right. But for those of us on the queer side of the fence, the agenda is to show people that we're not all immoral sex animals, that we can have happy families just like you. I don't want to destroy your family. Maybe some power hungry white industrialist wants to destroy your family for some messed up reason. Or maybe you're just deluded and paranoid.

It is not about gays...it is about destroying the foundation of the family so people HAVE only their government to go to and believe in...wake up

The gay "agenda" is being used like woman in the 20's and blacks in the 60's...old closet white men rule the world.

edit on 21-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

Yeah we're all just pawns, and that's reason enough to suppress our personal freedoms right?

And yet, people everywhere are losing faith in their governments. They are calling out for an end to corruption. Standing up for their rights. Perhaps you're not seeing this?

While certain people have disregarded the Bugs Bunny argument in this thread, I do have one other that I think is very appropriate. When I was growing up there was an episode of Rugrats called Clan of the Duck. In it Chuckie and Phil decide that since girls can wear shorts they can wear dresses. They come to find that dresses provide a lot of benefits over shorts such as keeping them cooler. Of course some older kids start bullying them because they are wearing dresses. In the end they overcome the bullies because they are wearing dresses.

Now this episode had enough of an impact on me that I remembered it as soon as I saw this thread. Now using the logic of some in this thread I should be wearing a dress right now. Instead I'm wearing a Megadeth shirt under a black polo and jeans. These episodes and shows aren't pushing some nefarious gay agenda. They're pushing an agenda of tolerance and acceptance. We might as well start teaching kids it's okay to be different since us adults are so dead set in our ignorant ways.

Clan of the Duck

If you all don't believe in gender roles, masculinity, femininity, etc, start dressing your male children in dresses and see how far it gets them.

Ridiculous.

reply to post by supremecommander


If and when I decide to have children, they will be allowed to express themselves however they feel, and I would be there to support them regardless of their choices. Their happiness would be my only concern.

If you don't believe your children should follow their hearts, try denying their feelings and see how far that gets them.

reply to post by Glass


What a splendidly effective way to rear little monsters.

Folks without SELF-CONTROL

typically do NOT get very far in life--certainly not very robustly and very overcomingly.

They typically have tons of anger and loads of addicted excesses in their lives.

However, the authors and sponsors of the OP Cartoon would likely cheer and approve.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Actually, one of the MOST INTOLERANT interest groups on the planet is the homosexual lobby.

Worse, they are complicit in helping establish the oligarchy in absolute tyrannical control over the populace to wit the PTB will be executing all who do not worship satan and his image and accept his Mark.

How's THAT for "tolerance?"

Soooooooo the OP cartoon seems all sweetness and innocence and freedom of expression to so many on this thread.

Wellllllllllll evil has many beautiful faces.
.
.

reply to post by Glass


Who said anything about DENYING their feelings?

Feelings are merely information. They may be vital and enhancing information. They can be deadly information.

Maturity is learning to discriminate between constructive and destructive feelings.
Maturity is learning how to sort and how to channel feelings growthfully, fittingly, productively, overcomingly, constructively to good ends.

Dr Spock was largely an idiot on such scores.

FEELINGS make TOLERABLE SERVANTS and extremely self-destructive SLAVE MASTERS.

reply to post by Glass


That is a big argument i have with people who do not have kids that pass judgement on parents or tell them what they should do or make rules for them. This is why I think all teachers should also be parents.

Until you have a child, you have no idea. I do not care if you watch you niece, nephew, etc, you do not. My sister did the same garbage. I am going to do this and I am going to do that.

You, as a parent, teach your children values and morals. Whether it comes from you, church or TV, they need that. The only thing a child needs is direction and discipline. That is it. Eventaully, in middle school, they define themselves but until then if you let you child do what it wants, 99% of the time you will have someone who DOES NOT respect you because they have no idea of the word. Then you will blame school, their friends, music and TV when it was you.

Will this show make kids gay, no, but i bet it gets a few beat up.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Ah but I didn't make myself totally clear, my apologies.

My future children will be themselves; gay or straight, male or female. They can develop whatever interests they want. If my son wants to take ballet or my daughter wants to play contact sports, I'll not only allow it but encourage them wholeheartedly.

But if you think that this means my children will grow up not understanding that their actions have consequences, you're mistaken.

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by supremecommander

 

If and when I decide to have children, they will be allowed to express themselves however they feel, and I would be there to support them regardless of their choices. Their happiness would be my only concern.

If you don't believe your children should follow their hearts, try denying their feelings and see how far that gets them.

edit on 21/6/2013 by Glass because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/6/2013 by Glass because: (no reason given)

Congratulations, you'll be rearing another spoiled, insolent brat. This way of thinking will lead you and your offspring into a world of trouble.