Shrek 2 is Wicked and Evil!! and is not good for us either ! it is "Bad-guy values!!"

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Shrek is EVIL



I knew it, First Tinky-Winky (T/W?) tried to infiltrate my child's brain with his/her EVIL TRANDENDER GAY LESBIAN STRAIGHT AGENDA

Now that Green Troll, obviously a DEMON!!! from HELL!!! is sliding not too subtle forms of influence . . . soon all men will be women and women will be men . . its sooo EVIL!!!!



Or is it?!



Maybe Shrek is not evil but maybe the hatred of sexual difference is what is evil?!
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    BEFORE:









    AFTER:









    See!!



    Clearly evil!!
  • Reply 2 of 42
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I never can tell the difference between the real 'traditional values' sites and the parody ones.
  • Reply 3 of 42
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    There so 'traditional': Two kids, boys of course, white, in front of a flag, where's the father . . . oh yeah, god's the father . . .

    I wonder if she's wearing shoes?
  • Reply 4 of 42
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Don't miss the blond hair, pfflam.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    . . .oh yeah, obviously the father is to her left . . . that protruding edifice of our 'Tradition', piercing the starry sky!
  • Reply 6 of 42
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Here we go:





    Traditional Values Defined: What Are Traditional Values?



    Of course, it's explicitly nationalist, patriarchal, capitalist, and heterosexist. I'd go as far as saying it's jingoist, puritanical, and theocratic as well. And since it's apparently based on the bible, it's also inherently contradictory. What can I say? Traditional values defined.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    where's the father



    Holding the camera?
  • Reply 8 of 42
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,122member
    Ridicule don't kill, obviously.



    These people are ridiculous, and worse, they are pervet. Finding sexual allusions, where there is none, is a proof of mental illness. I wonder what will say a psycholist on this one ?
  • Reply 9 of 42
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    That site is hilarious.
    Quote:

    In another scene in the movie, Shrek and Donkey need to be rescued from a dungeon where they are chained against the wall. The rescue is conducted by Pinocchio who is asked to lie so his nose will grow long enough for one of the smaller cartoon characters to use it as a bridge to reach Shrek and Donkey. Donkey encourages him to lie about something and suggests he lie about wearing women's underwear. When he denies wearing women's underwear, his nose begins to grow.



    The horror!!! They're all going to hell I tell you.
    Quote:

    An earlier scene in the movie features a wolf dressed in grandma's clothing and reading a book when Prince Charming encounters him. Later, one of the characters refers to the wolf's gender confusion.



    Amazing. I urge everyone to buy the DVDs when they come out and then burn them.



    Is this another one of those whacky sites provided by ...well, you know who?
  • Reply 10 of 42
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Ridicule don't kill, obviously.



    These people are ridiculous, and worse, they are pervet. Finding sexual allusions, where there is none, is a proof of mental illness. I wonder what will say a psycholist on this one ?




    Wow. You just criticized that article from the right-- perhaps unwittingly. There's nothing perverted about transgenderism and cross-dressing, and nothing perverted about looking for those things as well. And they're quite there in the movie. That article does not make anything up... It's the fact that that site encourages its readers to "beware" those things that's absurd-- which pfflam pretty effectively pointed with a bunch of capitalized words and exclamation points.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I'm sorry, but P Doccy is right.



    There's a pretty big gulf between *sexual* situations and cross dressing. Unless you're taking the conservative view that crossdressers all have to be homosexual?



    There's cross dressing. Whoo. Bug Bunny did it in the 40s. Whoop-de-doo.



    Equating that with sexuality, and therefore (in the puritanical viewpoint) 'badness' is two steps of inanity shoved together... and indicates a pretty oversexualized (and therefore kinda fscked up) view of the world.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    I'm sorry, but P Doccy is right.



    There's a pretty big gulf between *sexual* situations and cross dressing. Unless you're taking the conservative view that crossdressers all have to be homosexual?



    There's cross dressing. Whoo. Bug Bunny did it in the 40s. Whoop-de-doo.



    Equating that with sexuality, and therefore (in the puritanical viewpoint) 'badness' is two steps of inanity shoved together... and indicates a pretty oversexualized (and therefore kinda fscked up) view of the world.




    No, the article refers to the following scene in the movie: "During a dance scene at the end of the movie, this transgendered man expresses sexual desire for Prince Charming, jumps on him, and both tumble to the floor." To me, that's a generally sexual situation that bridges the gulf between cross-dressing and sex. Yeah, he's not poking him in the ass or anything-- and I'm sure Buggs Bunny jumped into Porky Pig's arms while in drag more than once-- but I think those are still sexual situations where someone expresses their sexual preference for another. I think there's nothing wrong with that-- and I think labeling those as "perverts" who interpret suggestive scenes in that way is regrettable. They are well within their interpretive bounds. But like you, I conclude with the same sentiment: "So what?"
  • Reply 13 of 42
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,122member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    No, the article refers to the following scene in the movie: "During a dance scene at the end of the movie, this transgendered man expresses sexual desire for Prince Charming, jumps on him, and both tumble to the floor." To me, that's a generally sexual situation that bridges the gulf between cross-dressing and sex. Yeah, he's not poking him in the ass or anything-- and I'm sure Buggs Bunny jumped into Porky Pig's arms while in drag more than once-- but I think those are still sexual situations where someone expresses their sexual preference for another. I think there's nothing wrong with that-- and I think labeling those as "perverts" who interpret suggestive scenes in that way is regrettable. They are well within their interpretive bounds. But like you, I conclude with the same sentiment: "So what?"



    I did not see Shrek 2, my comment are based upon Teletubbies, that my younger daughter used to watch one year ago. I did not find anything sexual in it.
  • Reply 14 of 42
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    That's not a transgendered man, that's one of the ugly stepsisters.



    The movie rocked, that Pinocchio scene was hilarious. They kind of messed it up though.They want his nose to grow so one of the 3 blind mice can run on it to get to Shrek. Donkey says "Say a lie, so your nose will grow! Uh, say you're wearing women's underwear!"



    He says it, and they all sit there in silence as his nose doesn't move. They he yells "wait a minute, something's wrong! I am NOT wearing women's underwear!" And of course his nose grows like crazy.



    The audience laughed like hell. If that's evil, then evil is good.



  • Reply 15 of 42
    Quote:

    The Super Bowl halftime show broadcast into our living rooms by CBS was offensive from start to finish. Justin Timberlake's exposure of Janet Jackson's breast merely concluded a purposefully lewd show filled with numerous indecent acts by P. Diddy, Nelly and Kid Rock that were just as damaging to children among the 89 million unsuspecting viewers.



    Don't let CBS wiggle off the hook! Make the network pay for its failure to protect America's families. Sign this petition urging the FCC to punish CBS to the fullest extent, slapping each CBS station with $27,500 fines for each indecent act. Then consider joining a lawsuit against all the companies that contributed to damaging our children with the indecent display.



    Protecting American families is what leads to kids that don't know anything about the real world. They go into adulthood thinking that the world is just a field of roses, and when they get out there, they're in for a real suprise. They think that there is nothing wrong with the world. The kids are raised behind a imaginary wall of saftey and protection, and that wall magically dissappears when they go out into the real world.



    Damaging our children with indecent displays? Bullshit. (I think this is what happened to the couple that thought if they just lie in bed together, a baby will magically appear ). Another example of protecting kids from the real world.



    That whole site is bull.



    (Oh yeah, they say that they endorse freedom of religion, but they condemn homosexuality. They endorse religions that may not have anything against homosexuality. How's that possible?)
  • Reply 16 of 42
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    That site is freaky. Down with evil cross-dressing Wolves!! BTW is that actually Pfflam in the teletubby outfit??
  • Reply 17 of 42
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,888member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by psgamer0921

    Protecting American families is what leads to kids that don't know anything about the real world. They go into adulthood thinking that the world is just a field of roses, and when they get out there, they're in for a real suprise. They think that there is nothing wrong with the world. The kids are raised behind a imaginary wall of saftey and protection, and that wall magically dissappears when they go out into the real world.



    Damaging our children with indecent displays? Bullshit. (I think this is what happened to the couple that thought if they just lie in bed together, a baby will magically appear ). Another example of protecting kids from the real world.



    That whole site is bull.



    (Oh yeah, they say that they endorse freedom of religion, but they condemn homosexuality. They endorse religions that may not have anything against homosexuality. How's that possible?)




    Do you have children?



    Your opinion could not be more misguided. You are assuming that "protecting children" is non-proportional (in other words, they are either "protected" or "not protected"). This is not true. Children can and should be taught about the world as is age appropriate. For example, a four year old cannot grasp the concept of death. It's simply too abstract, no matter how much it seems he/she understands it. He/she can use the word and appear to understand, but does not.



    Concerning values, there are certain things that I as a parent would not want my child to see at too young an age. This would include sexual references and images, use of drugs, graphic violence, etc. A 6 year old does not need to be "taught" about homosexuality. A 5 year old should not see a man get his head chopped off. Children's minds and personalities are resiliant, but also fragile and impressionable. When children become older, say 11 or 12 and up...they begin to be able to understand abstract thinking and can handle a little bit more of "the world". This does not yet mean they are ready to bear all the world's burden's either. By the time a child is in his/her teens, a previous solid foundation at home will help that child take on the "real" world.



    I agree that children, especially older children, should not live in a fantasy world. There are real dangers they should know about. However, many of the messages in movies, video games and TV...not to mention magazines and other media, are totally inappropriate for children to be exposed to. I have not seen Shrek 2, nor the orginal Shrek, but I have heard that there are inappropriate references in both (in the contexts I mentioned). One of the main problems we have as a nation is that our children are being exposed to things they are not ready for. A child of 8 is not ready to learn about sex. Yet, in our culture of Brittany Spears dressing like a whore and being idolized by screaming children and young teens, that's exactly what's happening.



    Let me be clear...I'm not talking about nudity per se. It depends on context. I would have no problem with my child seeing a nude painting or sculpture. I would, however, have a problem if she saw the SuperBowl "incident", with Timberlake ripping off Jackson's bra, after a show that basically screamed "fuck me". It's not about the nudity really...it's about the total over-sexualization of our society, not to mention a total lack of modesty, civility and respect for women.



    As a teacher and parent, I have seen what the results are. My daughter is not yet affected as she is very young. However, I have seen the results of my elementary students watching South Park at 10 years old (just for example). I have seen the references to drugs in children's movies and movies that are deemed acceptable for children. I have seen what happens when children watch shows with sexual references, disrespect for adults, cursing, driinking, sex and violence...all aired before 9 p.m. on netowrk television. I have seen what happens when my second graders listen to Eminem too.



    Children should be protected to a degree. If you don't understand that, then please...don't have children.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    psgamer0921psgamer0921 Posts: 393member
    Well, I guess I should've been clear in my post that I was primarily thinking of 10-11+ kids. Yes, I think that 9 and under kids shouldn't see much of what's going on, but they shouldn't be totally oblivious to the minor things going on (Not beheading, but wars and stuff)
  • Reply 19 of 42
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Do you have children?



    Your opinion could not be more misguided. You are assuming that "protecting children" is non-proportional (in other words, they are either "protected" or "not protected"). This is not true. Children can and should be taught about the world as is age appropriate. For example, a four year old cannot grasp the concept of death. It's simply too abstract, no matter how much it seems he/she understands it. He/she can use the word and appear to understand, but does not.



    Concerning values, there are certain things that I as a parent would not want my child to see at too young an age. This would include sexual references and images, use of drugs, graphic violence, etc. A 6 year old does not need to be "taught" about homosexuality. A 5 year old should not see a man get his head chopped off. Children's minds and personalities are resiliant, but also fragile and impressionable. When children become older, say 11 or 12 and up...they begin to be able to understand abstract thinking and can handle a little bit more of "the world". This does not yet mean they are ready to bear all the world's burden's either. By the time a child is in his/her teens, a previous solid foundation at home will help that child take on the "real" world.



    I agree that children, especially older children, should not live in a fantasy world. There are real dangers they should know about. However, many of the messages in movies, video games and TV...not to mention magazines and other media, are totally inappropriate for children to be exposed to. I have not seen Shrek 2, nor the orginal Shrek, but I have heard that there are inappropriate references in both (in the contexts I mentioned). One of the main problems we have as a nation is that our children are being exposed to things they are not ready for. A child of 8 is not ready to learn about sex. Yet, in our culture of Brittany Spears dressing like a whore and being idolized by screaming children and young teens, that's exactly what's happening.



    Let me be clear...I'm not talking about nudity per se. It depends on context. I would have no problem with my child seeing a nude painting or sculpture. I would, however, have a problem if she saw the SuperBowl "incident", with Timberlake ripping off Jackson's bra, after a show that basically screamed "fuck me". It's not about the nudity really...it's about the total over-sexualization of our society, not to mention a total lack of modesty, civility and respect for women.



    As a teacher and parent, I have seen what the results are. My daughter is not yet affected as she is very young. However, I have seen the results of my elementary students watching South Park at 10 years old (just for example). I have seen the references to drugs in children's movies and movies that are deemed acceptable for children. I have seen what happens when children watch shows with sexual references, disrespect for adults, cursing, driinking, sex and violence...all aired before 9 p.m. on netowrk television. I have seen what happens when my second graders listen to Eminem too.



    Children should be protected to a degree. If you don't understand that, then please...don't have children.




    And you 'understand death?



    'Taught' about homosexuality? Nothing wrong with children not being 'taught' the supposedly correct but actually constricting vision of genders that the 'Traditional Values' people believe in. In other words: nothing is wrong to exposure to people with different forms of desire expressed through their personality and their loved-ones. Our world is complex, and denying difference is more harmful than painting fantasy pictures of how people should be, and how widely different sexuality can be.



    I agree that children should be protected, especially from violent imagery. Gender difference though, is not something that needs to be shielded against: our notions of what constitutes 'normal' gendered identities is unrealistic if it cannot account for more than the 'Traditional' two . . . other forms of love-relationships are realities . . . and exposure to those realities need not be harmful. . . . harm comes when the actual act of sex is represented in negative or limited/constricting light and/or too early in life.



    Make no mistake, what I am talking about is not actual sex acts or even discussing the act till the child grows up, but rather, just exposure to other people as they live their different forms of life daily.



    For instance, my sister is gay, and she and her partner come to our family reunions. It makes me angry that some of my relatives do not like them to express affection to one-another . . . there is NOTHING wrong with LOVE!!!!

    I will not hide my daughter from exposure to homosexuality.

    Besides people aren't taught to be gay. . . if you believe that they are then you are wrong.



    Pinoccio: The idea that children old enough to be able to follow the sentences in a movie like Shrek are too young, or too niave, or innocent to get a laugh-riot out of the guy wearing girls underwear is in denial of the fact that children LOVE that kind of joke!! What better way to make someone feel silly?! and they love fart jokes too! are those immoral?



    If anything, PC folks should be up in arms about the Pinoccio dress wearing because it is making fun of someone by ridiculing his dress-wearing proclivities



    I do agree though, that modesty and a respect for sexuality needs to be taught, or at least, shouldn't be considered lightly, as it is by most forms of media these days: but I'm not looking for legislation . . . that would be like social-engineering . .. and that shouldn't be something that a self-respecting conservative would even consider.



    As for most of the stuff you mentioned . . . I simply don't watch TV and my girl is going to get exposure to higher standard stuff: books, so far, and good movies and media . . . when she gets old enough to be able to look for herself, I think that she will have developed a discriminating eye . .. and self-respect.
  • Reply 20 of 42
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    That site is freaky. Down with evil cross-dressing Wolves!! BTW is that actually Pfflam in the teletubby outfit??



    no . . . but it looks TANTALIZING . . . no?!
Sign In or Register to comment.