Disney = Evil?
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Thursday, March 27, 2025 16:25
VIEWED: 4974
PAGE 2 of 6
No, my theory is that many of these "men" don't mind making the kids, they just mind taking care of them. Or, they think they are "gifting" the mother with their seed. Or, the mothers are so god-awful crazy that the guy doesn't/can't stick around.
My point, however, is that children need BOTH parents. Those that grow up without BOTH are usually worse off (in ways too numerous to count).
As to "progrees"... I was making a snarky remark against our society.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Naw, they just need good parents & role models- two losers is WAAAY worse than one loving mom or dad.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My point, however, is that children need BOTH parents.
Your cartoon depiction of the issue manifests your ignorance of the nuances, but whatever.
The detailed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Your cartoon depiction of the issue manifests your ignorance of the nuances, but whatever."
Whatever you say Chrissy.
Although I agree with your remark that both parents should be loving...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It usually is, Wulfie.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Whatever you say Chrissy.
Quote:All ya need is love....
Although I agree with your remark that both parents should be loving...
The 60's Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, my theory is that many of these "men" don't mind making the kids, they just mind taking care of them. Or, they think they are "gifting" the mother with their seed. Or, the mothers are so god-awful crazy that the guy doesn't/can't stick around.
Then I'm confused how you connect such obviously awful situations with your alleged modern media representation of fathers.
Quote:
My point, however, is that children need BOTH parents. Those that grow up without BOTH are usually worse off (in ways too numerous to count).
I agree that ideally a child would have a GOOD parental figure of either sex in its life, just to have good adult-sized, real life examples to shape their view of the world and both men and women. (Note, they need not be married to each other.)
If one is lacking, the remaining parent should do their very best to replace it with another influential role model of the missing sex (uncle/aunt, close family friend, grandpa/grandma, whichever works). I think this matters a lot in how children understand their own future.
The key words here are 'GOOD parent' and 'role model', though. I had both parents around for 12 years of my life and most of those weren't good for me. A bad parent can mess up more than a missing parent, so I am not for keeping family "units" together at all cost, nor do I think that a child of a single-parent is necessarily worse off than a child in a two-parent family.
Quote:
As to "progrees"... I was making a snarky remark against our society.
But wouldn't that only make sense if society was happily defending parental abandonment as a sign of progress? I don't think there is anyone happy about it, really.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But wouldn't that only make sense if society was happily defending parental abandonment as a sign of progress? I don't think there is anyone happy about it, really."
Some segments of our society ARE defending it, or at least are not doing anything about it....
Yes, a family can be ANY mix of folks...but that is only after a catastrophic failure of the traditional one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
only after a catastrophic failure of the traditional one.
Bullshit.
Ever seen a hippie commune, Duuuude ?
*toke toke, choke choke*
(just kiddin)
Really though, a lot of communities, particularly Variant Christian and Alt-Religon folk practice communal child-raising and it works pretty damned well to be honest.
Your concept puts an artificial social structure higher than the importance of the childs well being, and that is unacceptable to me.
I think the highest priority should be the love, affection and (general) morality of the folk taking care of the child, whether it be one, or many, irregardless of belief, sexual preference or personal philosophy.
-Frem
PS - Ya got a good heart Wulfie, but I think you really would benefit significantly from an introduction to Mister Quaalude...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the hippie-communes failed. Why? When the hippies went thru their stocks of donated food (and momma and daddis cash) they got the munchies...they then realized that they would have to WORK to eat. Y'know, grow crops or have some marketable skill that could bring in cash.
Since playing guitar badly is NOT a payable skill, they soon ran out of food and money.
Sure, as long as the weed, food and cash lasted...they were "thriving". But as soon as it ran out, so did they.
DON'T get me started on the hippie type. I live with one and he annoys the hell out of me. No personal accountability or responsibility.
And,
he smells.
Its a daily struggle not to clock him upside the head.
But I digress.
Yes, a loving group of people can raise a child. But lacking structure and stability, which a traditional loving family provides, a child will grow strange.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a lot of respect for Disney. When I look at the Disney Channel kid shows, and Zac Efron's High Scool Musical movies I see something very positive and healthy in this sewer of a world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah...like Walker Texas Ranger? and other stuff they don't have to censor.
Originally posted by Hero: You forgot Hallmark which does some pretty good westerns.
Quote:I don't watch Survivior or porn, at least not porn on tv, not because I dissapprove, but because I'd rather watch PBS, or IFC to start with. See how you just had a prejudicial moment conselor! What psychic form of bigotry allows you to know what non censorship proponents are watching? Then...I'll be demanding what on ESPN??? Settle Down!
Originally posted by Hero:What's wrong with these channels catering to a target audience? Next you'll be demanding non-sports shows on ESPN and for white folks to run BET. Its cable...niche programming is what its all about. They can watch NASCAR and Hannah Montana, you can watch reruns of Survivor and porn. Its all good.
Listen...I understand my poorly phrased post didn't clearly state what will right now, and I apologize...
I watched no need to be censored Brady Bunch, Partridge Family values TV during the 70's. I didn't find my friend's dads Playboys till I was twelve. By the time I was 10, I'd used every bad word in the book, wished to God I'd have sex soon, gotten in fights, etc..
You cannott censor the world from your child. The more you think you have, they blinder you'll be when they go to spend the night at a friend's house, and that ain't where they went.
Furthermore...what I worry about is this church boy, goody goody, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, being standardized. O'Reilly has talked about it. It's the inevitable pathway of Christian involvement, and overly protective parents who have been seduced by unconditional blinding love for thier kids. I don't want my choices limited and censored because some parent is exhausted from holding one hand while covering thier eyes with the other.
See Hero...Hannah Montana, ESPN, Nascar, and TBN don't have anything to worry about. It's when Conservative hoidy toids aren't getting enough Wood by telling preganant women and gays how to live...and start telling me my swearing and violent shows aren't allowed because junior alter boy might see when the're not looking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME