Upload
Login or register
Back to the content 'Childhood Saved' Leave a comment Refresh Comments (126)
[ 126 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
#51 - typeonegative
Reply +2
(07/10/2013) [-]
#119 - payseht
Reply +1
(07/10/2013) [-]
Humans are apes...
#124 to #119 - thereclaimer **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#128 to #119 - spanishninja ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
#44 - nimba
Reply +1
(07/10/2013) [-]
Pinocchio was a dirty bastard though
#33 - nosleep
Reply +1
(07/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#27 - furiousmarshmellow
Reply +1
(07/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#125 - truthisyou
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
the original sleeping beauty, the prince was going to have sex with her because he thought she was dead
#123 - anon
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
"raised by ******* monkeys" [url deleted]
#118 - anon
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I like how it's instantly assumed that the first one is a slut.

And going against arranged marriages in places where it's entirely legal and a big part of culture is still rebelling. Sure, not to us here in the modern west.

And rebelling against your masters as a slave is rebelling
#120 to #118 - majortomcomics
Reply -1
(07/10/2013) [-]
You think a girl in an arranged marriage created that rebelling post? I can guarantee it was a whore.
#112 - donaldducksdick
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#104 - anon
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
However, little mermaid still teaches that girls don't need to talk, as long as they look good.
#101 - warlikebliss
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I ******* lost it at Tarzan was raised by ******* apes
#85 - teseus
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
But some of the points raised in the first one still stand. I agree, he/she is using those points to justify being a douche, but Robin Hood was a thief (even if he stolen from the rich in order to provide for the poor). Even if the taxes are unfair, it's still called thievery. If you had a very successful firm which sold expensive TVs and your employees couldn't afford them but someone would break into your store, take some of the TVs and offer them as a gift to your employees and other people who can't afford them, you wouldn't like it, would you?

Tarzan walked indeed without clothes on. That is a true fact, plain and simple.

Sleeping Beauty was kissed by a stranger. She did not know who her true love was before she woken up from that comatose state. She could've been kissed by all kinds o strangers, but that would be kinda ****** up. It's not her fault for being asleep, but it is kinda twisted.

Snow White lived with seven men. That's entirely true since the dwarfs were men. That doesn't mean anything, most certainly that she was whoring all day long. But yes, I see nothing inaccurate with the first statement.


Let the sluts be sluts. If that's what they learned from those childhood tales, that's their problem. But that post uses the most insignificant facts about each story and they are kinda true. But that doesn't mean that's the lesson in them.
#116 to #85 - amuro
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
And you are a whore.
#62 - andovaredoras
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
so Tarzan was raised by apes who were *******. Okk..
#61 - andovaredoras
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
That Sleeping Beauty one.. i heard that the original version was that the prince raped her and she had kids (while still in a coma) and then one of the kids sucked her finger and that needle or whatever it was came out so she woke up.
#86 to #61 - pridefulmatthew
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
That is what the original entailed. It's ****** up, right?
#47 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
About taxes.

Ever heard of the Social Contract?

Works pretty good, because it prevents people from being enslaved by the government.
I pay taxes, you provide a relatively safe place to live so that I am not invaded.

I'm not saying that the American government is purely good and isn't trying to **** people over at times, but a country can't run without taxes.

Maybe the government in Robin hood was overtaxing the population so much that they lived in poverty combines with a possibly ****** economy anyway.

Moral of the story? Taxes aren't bad, as long as they aren't excessive, or unless you think we can live on a government that ONLY prints money, or an anarchy. Also unless you live by yourself in the wilderness.

Red thumbs inbound.
#48 to #47 - argoniansrule
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
robin hood is set in medieval england, during the reign of richard the lionheart, while he went to fight in the crusades, he left his brother in charge who was incompetent and taxed everyone into oblivion, crime grew, especially when it involved stealing from rich people, and so the poor saw this as a good thing and the criminals were good people
#52 to #48 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
The more you know.

Yeah I knew it was England, but I didn't know those other details.

That's what you get when a guy that has never experienced any hardships gets out into power. He has no clue what to do, but as a human, specifically a male, he tried to keep his ego afloat by pretending to know how to run the government, either that or he was just a greedy asshole. Probably both. Correct me if I'm wrong about the beginning of the paragraph.
#53 to #52 - argoniansrule
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
i'm not entirely sure myself, all the media surrounding that time period makes him out to be greedy and cowardly, apparently he even attempted to take the throne from his brother by force though with a mercenary army he made from the money, that being said, I don't think there is any real evidence of his involvement in the scheme. all I do know is robin hood is obviously written from the perspective of a young man who lived in poverty and saw the bandits as good people, so if any of the robin hood tale is true at all, it would be suprising
#54 to #53 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Yeah, we don't exactly know how it happened. It's subjective. We like to assume that Robin Hood was good.

I have a feeling that the version we all know is more accurate than a pro-government one, because we know even these days that governments unchecked WILL go bad. That's why America was conceived.
#55 to #54 - argoniansrule
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
to be fair, it wasn't a government, it was a monarchy without it's monarch
#56 to #55 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
The word government doesn't only mean modern "governments". Is there a difference between the very very broad word "government" and monarchy? I'm pretty sure monarchy is just a type of government.
#57 to #56 - argoniansrule
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I was more pointing towards the second part of the statement, as a monarchy is a form of government, but I meant that the monarch, the man who knew how to lead, had learned from his father, had control of the throne and was well loved by the people of his land, was away fighting a religious war, and his younger brother, who didn't know a thing about leading [although many historians believe their father wanted prince john on the throne in the event of his death, but everyone gave it to richard anyway] was left in charge, essentially, I believe that richard's advisors took this as an opportunity to get rich off of his departure, and by using the inexperienced prince as their ticket and scapegoat
#58 to #57 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
That's a good explanation.
#64 to #47 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Which Social Contract speaks to you most, as it is also my favourite political agenda? (if it can be labelled as such).

Rousseasu is one of my most revered philosophers, but I have to take my hat off to John Rawls, whom improved upon the SC with the "Veil of Ignorance".
This is essentially a social contract, but when it's being written up it is done so by, say 100 random people, who are all denied knowledge of where they'd be in the social "hierarchy". This is to remove the utilitarianism that can infect a society (where a society's stability is measured on 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number", which means there has to be some impoverished in order for there to be more happiness for others).
The idea is that because you don't know where you're going to be in society when you're drawing up the contract, you're going to ensure that there's equality for everyone, as you could actually end up being at the bottom of the pile.
Some argue that one would gamble, to try and guess that oneself would be at the top, but Rawls argues that this would be ignorant and selfish.

What's your take?
#65 to #64 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I agree with that, but it seems like people ho signed it should be granted a guaranteed non bottom part of the hierarchy, but then again that would seem unfair, but then again, not everyone can be on equal ground in a hierarchy, because that'd be like communism if I'm correct. Could we get everyone to sign it, if so, then who would be at the bottom if anyone who signed it wouldn't be at the bottom.

It's pretty tricky.
#73 to #65 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I'll explain why you missed the point.
Firstly, everyone in the contract is going to be in the society; everyone has to be able to agree to sign it who will be a part of that community.
Secondly, when thinking of things to put in the contract Primary Liberties (liberties that everyone needs, i.e. freedom of speech/association/free press), all these need to be guaranteed to all members, not just some. These could include Secondary Liberties, such as agreeing that no man can earn in a month what another man cannot in a year.
Thirdly, when you're behind the "Veil of Ignorance" you don't know where you are in society, you are already a person with your skill set, but you jsut don't know what it is. You could be a builder or a doctor, bin-man or footballer. The point is that you don't want to **** over yourself by gambling on the liberties and denying some to others, who could turn out to be yourself.
Fourthly, while there must be some sort of hierachy, it wouldn't be the one we're made to suffer under in this capitalist system. The idea is to look after those on "the bottom" as much as possible, so that if you were forced to live their life, it wouldn't be uncomfortable, or even impossible.

Also, I don't think you've got a very good understanding of what Communism is. (As a hint, Communism involves ZERO State functions as there is no State).
#77 to #73 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Okay I get your first paragraph now, your emphasis is the "veil of ignorance". Everyone signs it, no one knows who will get what role, including themselves.

I think socialism would have been a more appropriate word to use. Communism is basically the final stage of how a country would run according to Karl Marx, right? First, capitalism, then socialism, and then communism.

Are you suggesting communism? Because it's nearly if not impossible to not have people in poverty in a capitalist or even socialist state to my understanding.

If you were suggesting communism, are you aware that the current way humans' brains work wouldn't allow "Ideal" communism, but only "actual" communism; which would be full of corruption, which seems to cancel out the pros of having communism in the first place and that you might as well have capitalism.

Oh and I apologize if you weren't suggesting communism.
#79 to #77 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
In the initial response I was not refering to any political stance, just outlining John Rawls' philosophy, the fact that you identified equality with communism speaks for itself though.

Capitalism requires that some be at the bottom, not domestically, but universally. This could include the Third World Countries, the Asian Tigers, China, etc. Look at how rich and (over)powerful the Rothchilds are, and look how impoverished Nigeria/Tunisia/etc. is.

If we were more punitive of greed, instead of rewarding it, we could condition it out of humanity. If we reserved capital punishment purely for those who steal/kill for financial gain, i.e. The American Government (especially the Bush & Obama DJ 4DM1Nistrations), all the World Bank leaders, especially those in charge of the Federal Reserve, then surely after generations being a banker would be as redundant as being an 18thC Chimney Sweep.
#81 to #79 - doodogger
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Yeah I see your point, but because we have greedy people in power and they are backed by greedy (lobbyists, they are all in bed together) it's not very likely that that'd happen in America (which would be awesome and I agree that it'd really help the problems we have here). It'd take some very very moral founding fathers status people to slowly come into power for that to happen in my opinion. Either that or a violent revolution, which probably would be much more difficult in these times.

Yeah it's a shame that most people think the federal reserve is a federal agency, which is just too powerful.
#66 to #65 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
You've missed the point.
It's not the tricky.
There doesn't need to be anyone at the bottom.
#22 - fizzor
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
#40 to #22 - AvatarAirBender
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I feel like Steve-O has too many teeth.
#20 - foxyloxxy
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Apparently this person didnt know the movies, cuz sleeping beauty definitely knew the person who kissed her...
#12 - zoidz
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
Wasn't Pinocchio's original story at the end he skinned his grandpa or something like that?
And Snow White was on some drug hallucination or something?

(Not completely sure just remember the original stories being dark and stuff like that The Hunchback of Notre Dame where the guy went and rotted in the sewers till he died and stuff.)
#19 to #12 - tittysugar
Reply -1
(07/10/2013) [-]
Check out the Brothers Grimm if you wanna see the original stories. Don't have a proper reaction to telling you this info, so have a mesmerizing .gif
Check out the Brothers Grimm if you wanna see the original stories. Don't have a proper reaction to telling you this info, so have a mesmerizing .gif
#17 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
actually pinocchio is the only semi innocent story in the whole lot.
#35 to #17 - anon
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
actually Pinocchio was written by Carlo Collodi and doesn't have anything to do with the Brothers Grimm's stories ...
#37 to #12 - Furubatsu ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
He didn't skin his father/grandpa.
#9 - bandoslootshare
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
that was so sweet it made me cry a little
#2 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Actually both colorectal to some degree that funny thing
#4 to #2 - scarytown
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
I know what you mean. When both actually can put hear go sweet trilly Putin.