Harry Potter's affect on kids/teens turning to Wicca?
- Thread starter BassDave
- Start date
zapper said:
1. 'tinky winky' please remember that this programme is aimed at the under 5s.
2. The telly tubbies consist of 2 boys and 2 girls (i have a two year old girl, you get to know these things from the packaging of the toys) but no one in thier right mind could argue that the vioces are either male or female. Carrying a bag may be gay for an adult (david beckham carries one) but for children its different. Girls play with toy cars and boys occasionally play with girls toys. Its normal.
3. Under 5s wont recognise the existance of the gay-pride movement and are therefore highly unlikely to be influenced by it.
4. see point 3.
your argument is utter ********.
If the telletubbies came out with 2 girls in skirts with ponytails and lipstick and the 'men' with hairy chest and carrying 35lb lump hammers with tattoes people like you zapper would be bleating on about how anti-gay it was...
you can't win with TV enavgelists.
you can't win with TV enavgelists.
its all YOUR fault...if you had stayed this chaos wouldnt have happened...no use pointing the finger at us.FredC said:
A. it's not MY argument. B.Since under 5's are very absorbent (like a sponge)...they pick up everything you say or do. So according to your theory, you could have tinky winky shooting one of the other tubbies or how about just cutting off their head? Would that have a negative impact?MountainPro said:
The theory put forth is that such an early age they grow up thinking a male carrying a freakin purse is normal…It is not..it is as unnatural as wearing a skirt.
If you think conveying to toddlers that men can carry purses is going to influence their sexuality, you've got a very, very, very funny sense of what sexuality is.zapper said:
These characteristics--the color purple (not pink), a triangle, a handbag--have about as much of a relationship with sexual impulse as strained carrots do. Even if (and I think the suggestion is absolute garbage) Tinky Winky represented a gay male alien, nothing about his behavior, attire, accesories or antenna configuration could be shown to encourage homosexual orientation.
If you fear gay conspiracies, though, you're going to see them--in the darndest places sometimes. Egg's on you.
Point well taken however, I say again. I not convinced of such and have also stated that I was on the fence on this one...However, since we are splitting hairs...I have also stated that I don't buy into the "sponge bob" theory(Now we are really getting petty, glad I have some time on my hands)....There are others too. I just don't fancy a boy carrying a purse. Perhaps it may not lead to "homosexuality" but could promote "effeminate" behavior which is just a tad bit more feminine than a "metro sexual".. I do not possess the credentials to say one way or another for sure…lokstah said:
Tell me...you believe that "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" was written about A. LSD or B. Julian Lennon's drawing?
I like my eggs scrambled with cheese and onions if you are askin...
Ok, fair enough. If effeminate males are a peeve of yours, I can understand why Tinky Winky, with his temendous influence in toddler politics, may offend with his "it doesn't matter what color you are or how you accessorize, only whether you say THANK YOU and share your blocks" campaign. That's where Buzz is coming from; ok (though I personally couldn't care less how swishy the next guy is, or whether he carries a handbag or a whip).zapper said:
After years of wondering why anyone believed John in the first place, Paul exclaimed a few years back, "of course it was about LSD. What surprised us most, though, was that no one seemed to pick up that 'Got to Get You Into My Life' was about pot." It was a funny interview.
Status: TRUE, according to years of speculation, and a recent confirmation by Paulzapper said:Claim: John Lennon deliberately chose the song title Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds because the initial letters of key words form the acrostic "LSD".
Status: False.
Status false!...As much as I like Paul...he was just trying to pretend to be cool...the story has been consistent since day one...[Schaumburg, 1976]lokstah said:
. . . there is no reason to doubt Lennon's official explanation. The man has always been open and honest, if not always careful in what he says. He admitted to using drugs, he admitted to taking over a hundred LSD trips. Why on earth would he bother to deny one little story about the origins of a song unless it wasn't true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Schaffner, 1977]
. . . if the Beatles weren't pulling our legs -- and the reliably candid Lennon still sticks by his original story -- it would only be in keeping with the equally unusual catalysts for John's other contributions to Sgt. Pepper: a Victorian carnival poster, a T.V. cornflakes commercial, and a Daily Mail clipping about holes in Blackburn, Lancashire . . .
We need not rely solely on John's words to corroborate his explanation, however. His childhood and lifelong friend, Pete Shotton, who was a frequent guest at the Lennon home, verifies that John's son Julian actually did produce and name the painting that John claimed was the inspiration for the song's title:
I also happened to be there the day Julian came home from school with a pastel painting of his classmate Lucy's face against a backdrop of exploding, multi-colored stars. Unusually impressed with his son's handiwork, John asked what the drawing was called. 'It's Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Daddy,' Julian replied.
"Fantastic!" said John -- and promptly incorporated that memorable phrase into a new song.
Though John was certainly ingesting inordinate amounts of acid around the time he wrote "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," the pun was indeed sheer coincidence.
Zap, I'm totally aware of that story. Notice the dates on your piece.
The band always insisted, as you've noted, that "Lucy" was a harmlessly whimsical song riffing on a cute moment with Julian. That's old Beatles news, dead old. Caesar old. It was also incredibly hard to believe that the clever Beatles, writing at the dawn of psychedelia, weren't simply holding to the story for the hell of it. Perhaps it was a half-truth: Julian made the quip, and the boys thought, "hey, what a great launching point for a song about LSD!" In any case, you're right: they stuck to the story.
That is, until a few years ago (looking for a link, but I saw the interview, televised), when Paul said something to the effect of, "Of COURSE it was about LSD," and mentioned that he and John never understood why people bought the Julian explanation, drawing or no. He proceeded to explain that 'Got To Get You Into My Life' was about weed, and that the band never understood why that wasn't picked up on.
The band always insisted, as you've noted, that "Lucy" was a harmlessly whimsical song riffing on a cute moment with Julian. That's old Beatles news, dead old. Caesar old. It was also incredibly hard to believe that the clever Beatles, writing at the dawn of psychedelia, weren't simply holding to the story for the hell of it. Perhaps it was a half-truth: Julian made the quip, and the boys thought, "hey, what a great launching point for a song about LSD!" In any case, you're right: they stuck to the story.
That is, until a few years ago (looking for a link, but I saw the interview, televised), when Paul said something to the effect of, "Of COURSE it was about LSD," and mentioned that he and John never understood why people bought the Julian explanation, drawing or no. He proceeded to explain that 'Got To Get You Into My Life' was about weed, and that the band never understood why that wasn't picked up on.
Ok, wait, I've lost you. Without sifting through the many accounts, what's your ultimate contention? That the Julian story is completely true, and that "Lucy" was in no way a celebration of LSD?zapper said:
What I think I'm hearing from you is this: it was no secret that the Beatles were druggies like the rest of them, so it wouldn't make much sense to push a fish story about Julian and "Lucy."
I see the logic in that position, but then again: if the Beatles were, in fact, openly using every drug under the sun, it seems silly to suggest that Paul would lie decades later about a highly suspicious song for the sake of puffing-up his wild youth image. After all, the song was presumed by many to be an LSD anthem when it was released, for reasons we've already been over.
I saw the man say it with my own eyes and ears, and frankly, there's nothing suspect about the leader of a '60s band confirming that a psychedelic anthem of theirs was, in fact, at least in part about drugs.
I've always thought this seemed the most plausible explanation: Julian may very well have inspired the song initially. That's not hard to believe. He supplied an image and, possibly, a whimsical phrase. John thought, wow, slick, nice use of language, son. The band was entering a psychedelic phase and the concept fit well into John/Paul's writing process; the result was an odd song about LSD, inspired by Julian, and when it came time to explain the piece to the press, they went with the niftiest angle of the story. Why not? An artist being asked to explain a piece is always at liberty to spin the answer, because it's a question begging for ambiguity anyways.
Decades later, incredulous at being asked with any seriousness, Paul frankly admits, "well of course it's a drug anthem, you idiot."
Similar threads
- Davey Crockett
- Road Cycling
- Tony Raven
- UK and Europe
- Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
- UK and Europe
- Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
- UK and Europe
- Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
- UK and Europe