25 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Seriously? Is this posted under the ‘Category’ Humor? I watched the video of Tigger supposedly punching the kid and it looks like that kid was messing with that tiggers back. See how Tigger wraps his arm around the kid? A normal reaction of anyone when someone wraps your arm like that is to pull the hand away. This idiot kid keeps his hand back there like he is up to something…maybe trying to unmask tigger in front of the camera. Maybe then the family could sue for mental trauma when their kid finds out tigger is just another adult in a felt costume. The thinking behind this is a little over board. /rant |
Hey now … I like bears and I love honey. Don’t be dissin’ on the honey. |
Barney is the real threat to society. Damn communist dinosaur! |
I don’t think it gets worse than Teletubbies. |
danithew I don’t know boohbah certainly comes close. LOL! |
You forgot the biggest reason: it sucks. |
Blasphemy. First, on philosophy and logic I point you to the following books: The Tao of Pooh, The Te of Piglet, and (for a more western than eastern audience) Pooh and the Philosophers. To the particulars. It’s not a tautalogy. The first phrase, “the most wonderful thing about Tiggers” asks for a property (either intrinsic or extrinsic) about Tiggers. The second phrase tells not a property but a judgment. (“Tiggers are wonderful things.”) To draw an analogy, “what do you love about me? That I love you.” That makes perfect sense and can’t be considered a tautalogy. In the one case we ask about a property and the answer is a relational property (that I love you) However loving the person and love as a property need not be considered the same thing. So what we have Tigger asserting is that the most amazing thing that one discovers in encountering Tiggers is that people judge Tiggers to be so amazing. That amazement (or wonder) is itself amazing and wonderful. Second to say that Pooh (which had the meaning of nonsense) ought be treated as poo simply because they sound the same has some merit. However I have confidence that people can learn to distinguish the two. (Although one must note how the Scandanavian word “niggardly” has come to be associated with the probably Latin sourced N-word even though they are etymologically unrelated) So there is some basis in this (and we do have a brown bear after all). However I suspect if you survey even a small sample of children most will be able distinguish the bear from poo. Third, Pooh Bear is far from immodest. Indeed one may accuse him of covering up too much. Compare Pooh to any normal bear and I think you’ll have to admit he has more covering than native variety. Add in his fur to his clothing and his modesty becomes clear. Further, if we attack Pooh for this, must we not add in Donald Duck? And what about Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck who typically wear no clothing! Fourth, everyone should be able to tell the difference between honey and alcohol. Pooh, as can be seen from a quick perusal of the books, is a tee-totaler. Fifth, Tigger was not charged in this obvious case of a Tigger hater. (And the other charge you mention was acquitted) |
Oooh — if you keep that MSN video running it shows a video if a cow eating a live baby chicken! |
Thanks for teaching me the truth about Winnie the Pooh! |
Ben: You mention your wife dislikes W the P “for no apparent reason.” Your wife is a wise woman and intuits that there is something wrong about W the P– she probably hasn’t thought it through enough to put her finger on it. But her instincts are right. Please refer her to this post– I bet the arguments presented will resonate very soundly with her. Susan: That is an excellent point. It does suck. I like the profundity, yet absolute simplicity, of your argument. My four-year-old made the best argument I’ve heard in favor of W the P one time when I refused to read him a W the P story. I asked him why he liked W the P, and he replied, “Because he’s nice.” This is a good argument. I will not dispute that W the P is nice. But I would counter that there are a lot of nice people who do stupid things and teach things that aren’t good for children. danithew: Honey is good, but we should consume it responsibly. W the P’s reckless consumption of honey unquestionably violates the spirit of the W of W. |
Speaking of deviant bears from children’s books, I used to hold Paddington Bear in high regard. Then I saw him depicted in a less than flattering way on MadTV a while back. I could link to it, but it would drag down the good name of this blog. Curious readers who are ready for a vulgar bear with lots of bleeps can find it easily on Google. The two or three relevant key words are in this comment. |
My wife is wise but your reasons and hers are madness :) I think it is because when I was growing up I was told I looked like Christopher Robin and I am somehow bonded to W the P… I will show her this post. One thing that does bother me is when people put W the P or eeyore all over their cars, like they are a babies crib or something. I like W the P, but haven’t seen, read or done anything with that childrens tale for about 15 years…I liked it but have since grown out of it. |
I’m fairly sure I started drinking because of Winnie the Pooh. |
Winnie the Sh#% I’ll try this out at home tonight and see how it goes with my wife and kids. |
Ah, you youngsters who think Winnie the Pooh is something to watch! No, Winnie the Pooh is something to read. Specifically, when you are wearied by the Gallic Wars in your Latin classes (you *do* study Latin, don’t you?), there is little that is more refreshing in life than turning to a few pages of “Winnie Ille Pu:” “Ecce Eduardus ursus scalis nunc tump-tump-tump occipite gradus pulsante post Christophorum Robinum descendens. Est quod sciat unus et solus modus gradibus descendendi, nonnunquam autem sentit …” |
Let me point out that in the Winnie the Pooh books, one can learn about philosophy, about Taoism, and about problem-solving. Really, how can anyone resist stories in which characters go looking for a Heffalump, and say things like “I’m feeling a little eleven-o-clockish?” |
ROTFLMAO |
Lynnette: Yes– and Playboy magazine has good articles. |
Playboy does have good articles. At least they used to. The reason I voted against Richard Nixon in 1972 (I think that’s the date) is because of a really good article by Jack Anderson comparing Nixon and McGovern. It proved to be prophetic. |
I’ve honestly never read an article in Playboy. |
Clark (#7): A very thoughtful response. I contend the following: I’ve read the Tao of Pooh. It’s a very creative way to explain Taoism, but it does nothing to negate the points I’ve made. Regarding logic: I’m going to insist it is a tautology. You’ve provided a clever interpretation that is far too generous to Tigger. Clearly, a more accurate paraphrase of Tigger’s song is: “Why are Tiggers wonderful? Because they’re wonderful.” That’s tautological. Regarding “Pooh v. poo”: I’ve actually done a pretty good-sized (albeit non-scientific)sampling, and kids do not distinguish. If I can round up some funding, I’ll get some legitimate data on this. Regarding modesty: Yes, we should throw in Donald Duck as another problematic character. As I pointed out in the post, animals should wear clothes or not– it’s a matter of consistency, which is why Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are not problems. Regarding criminal charges: Tigger was not charged likely because the family was being harassed by Tigger apologists. Same reason he was acquitted of the sexual abuse charge. Those of us committed to exposing the truth about Winnie the Pooh, et al walk a lonely, treacherous road. |
Too funny! I personally think the characters in “Toy Story” are problematic, ever since I babysat my nephew who was obsessed with the show, and I told him it was time to go, and he said “Ok, let me just grab my Woody!” and later “I need my Buzz!” I do not think that is a coincidence. The Pooh books are way better than the movies, and Disney has destroyed it the way they destroy many things. I had W the P in my first nursery, but none of my kids have really grabbed onto it, they seem to prefer Dora. Is there anything wrong with her? |
Tagore, you’ve been snarked. It’s an honor to be noticed this early in your blogging career. |
I love Winnie the Pooh. It’s Curious George that I have a problem with. |
I realize this is an old post but I am commenting anyways. :) Personally I don’t see anything wrong with Winne the Pooh, and it seems to me that arguing about something like a simple children’s show is a bit of a waste. There are so many other things that are far worse! And “so many quality children’s programs”? Are you serious? Have you seen the cartoons kids watch these days? Pooh is so much more wholesome than the majority. (I have always hated Spongebob, but most are even worse). Also, anyone who thinks that people start binge drinking in college because they watched Winnie the Pooh when they were young must have a pretty low opinion of human intelligence. If my children are going to be affected by Pooh in that way then I don’t think there is much hope for them no matter what they watch. Oh and have you actually read the book or are you only referring to the cartoon on tv? Because the tv version, though harmless, certainly isn’t fabulous either. It’s the book that’s a classic. |