22 Words

Saved so far. Join the Cause!

If Dr. Seuss books were titled according to their subtexts

Feb 7, 2012 By Abraham





(from Buzzfeed)


      1. Will says:

        It’s nice to see the endangered creature, the grammar nazi (or anal retentivus maximus), is still surviving. Since these are such rare, original, and OH-so-respected beasts, seeing one in the wilds of the internet is quite a treat enjoyed by all. Not surprisingly, it simultaneously feigns superiority and ignorance as if it’s completely impossible to grasp what the original poster intended to convey in their post. On behalf of the internet, I would like to personally thank you Leslie for your substantial addition to this thread (and most likely several others across the internet) pointing out simple grammatical, usage, and/or typographical errors. Our lives are all truly enriched by your post(s)!

        (I neglected to denote sarcasm on certain parts of this post, since someone of your obviously superior intellect should be able to figure that out for yourself)

        Have a nice day :)

        1. OMG i no rite says:

          yore poent is soooo relavent!!! yur sach a funee pursun i see gramma nazzis all ova teh plase and i say frget thoz gaes thei dunno whad dey is takkin bout cuz tehys aktin leik dez sooo mach smatter ten otder ppls like OMG noobodee carz.
          liek srsly!!!!!!

          1. EUGENE_Florczyk says:

            *GIANT FACEPALM*
            Okay, ‘know’ and ‘now’, I can at least understand what a person is trying to say if they get that mixed up but seriously… I thought humanity was past the point where they didn’t at least try to spell words…
            Please tell me you are joking and defending the grammar ‘Nazi’.

        2. Jam says:

          Will, I think it is important to point out mistakes in spelling and grammar. The ironic part of this thread is that your spelling and grammar is very good, yet you are willing to ignore other peoples spelling mistakes or confront those who correct them.

        1. Yep says:

          Yep. Agreed. If harassing some stranger over a typo is important to anyone, they need a job. Or at least a hobby.

    1. Rioux says:

      No, actually not. Even Dr. Seuss’s widow dislikes the line from his book being co-opted by anti-abortion activists.

    2. Alex says:

      No, just no. All of his sub-texts that have political leanings are leftist, so do you really think he would just randomly throw an anti-abortion one in there? Also if you actually read the book instead of focusing on one line it is pretty clear.

      1. Maitiu says:

        Anti-abortion isn’t leftist? So… leftists shouldn’t fight for the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalized? Oh, do tell. I guess the true leftist stance is that some people aren’t really people at all… just untermenschen. Lives unworthy of life.

        1. Daybid says:

          Very well said. Today’s liberals are the most narrow minded of the entire political spectrum. I’m increasingly embarrassed to identify as one. Pro-choice should really be called pro-self, because that poor soul god allowed to live in a woman has no choice when they are violently murdered. (Ever seen an abortion on video? If you support abortion and haven’t seen one then you are a coward). Pro-self is what’s wrong with our entire society. Entitlement. We believe that we are the masters of our fate, thy it is our right to decide when and how each event unfolds in our life. We believe that Christmas is about self (recieving rather than giving). We believe we’re entitled to benefits from our government that we haven’t earned, basically that life owes us. That is the heart of pro-choice/pro-self. It’s only couched in terms of womanhood and empowerment.

          1. KentuckyKid says:

            My oh my, you are a self-righteous and superior one, aren’t you sonny? Ya ever get vertigo up there on your high horse? Pseudo-intellectual, supercilious, twaddle.

    3. LukeIZaDUMBASS says:

      Improperly capitalized sentences is actually about the public education systems declaring 1 minute each day as a “Moment of Silence.” That is 180 minutes each school year, about 3 hours each year, wasted on silence so Luke can draw erroneous conclusions from a Dr. Seuss book.

      1. luke says:

        Silence is never a waste. Just think about how much more intelligent we’d all still be if you had kept your mouth shut, Einstein. Improperly used ‘Z’s are all about… blah blah blah.. etc. etc. etc….

    4. RE says:

      No, it was a reply and apology for the treatment of the Japanese post WW2 and their internment during that time – also for his very racist propaganda cartoons to help the Allies war effort.

      Do some research and actually read about stuff before parroting off.

      The phrase and book has been co-opted by the ‘pro-birth’ movement, which has nothing to do with the author’s intent.

      1. F*uckyou says:

        Aside from the fact that they are the forced birth pro rapist movement (forced birthing is clearly rape, as deliberate violation of a woman’s body) this is correct.

  1. Luke says:

    hah a man who spent his life writing books for children, it stands to reason that he probably likes them. Is it REALLY that far-fetched to think he’d want to protect them?

    1. Luke says:

      nice one. like i said: is it really so hard to believe the most notable children’s author of the last century would advocate for the lives of children?

  2. Lucy says:

    arguing that people who are anti-abortion like children more than those pro is a pretty simplistic and ignorant view of things

    1. Luke says:

      well you can say that, but it definitely doesn’t make it true. people who are anti-abortion obviously value a child’s life over a mother’s choice. people who are on the other side of the argument value a mother’s choice over a child’s life. it’s as simple as that. that’s the argument boiled down to it’s barest, most unbiased terms.

      1. Ali says:

        And what about the fact that some children wouldn’t have a good life, if they were born instead of aborted? Are you really advocating that a low-income family with too many mouths to feed or a teenage girl would protect a “child’s life” by allowing it to be born? I argue that a “mother’s choice” is much more than just whether or not we women want to carry a baby for nine months.

        1. Luke says:

          no. the choice is made long before then. if you choose to have sex, with or without protection, you choose to accept the potential consequences.
          an if you’re saying that no life at all is better than having a difficult life. well, then i just feel sorry for you.

          1. B says:

            That’s really easy for a man to say, Luke. You have absolutely no idea the sheer terror that goes through the mind of a woman who skips or is late for a period who doesn’t want children nor could afford to have one even if she did want one. Until you have a uterus and the power to birth a child, you can’t sit on your high horse and say it’s wrong, etc. If you were a woman in the position of being faced with an unwanted pregnancy, maybe you would understand at least where the dilemma comes in. You may never agree with it nonetheless, but at least you could understand a little where the woman deciding on an abortion is coming from. I can understand that people will always disagree on the issue, but what i cannot understand is why the pro-life camp thinks the whole world should live their way. Why is it your right to tell a woman that she must birth a child? We pro-choicers don’t run around trying to convince people to abort; we are simply for a woman’s right to choose.

          2. A says:

            A women’s right to choose to kill her child?
            Answer this question: It’s alright to kill a baby in the womb when?
            Have you ever seen the 180 movie? It is a free movie on Youtube about abortion. You should totally check it out :)

          3. luke says:

            B, that may be true, but NO-ONE will ever have any idea what’s going through the mind of the child who is killed in the womb. Saying I won’t understand because I’m a man is, a complete cop-out, and is obnoxiously gynocentric. If someone is not prepared to have a child, they should not be having sex. that’s really all there is to it. Everyone is aware that the ultimate purpose of sexual intercourse is mating and reproduction, and to cry and play the victim when it actually happens is immature and pathetic.

        2. Joy says:

          I would argue, as a woman, that we do not have the right to choose life or death for a child. No one advocated that we kill the three year old in the home, why is the baby in the womb any different

          1. F*uckyou says:

            Correct. Fortunately it’s not a child you stupid dick. Stop encouraging forced birther rapists to rape women over a blob of cells.

      2. gene says:

        Actually, it is extremely biased. An abortion is a medical procedure performed on a woman to remove a nonviable fetus. Framing it like it is killing a “child” – which has connotations in everyone’s mind (it has a MEANING!) is called bias.

        1. Luke says:

          you’re totally right gene. abortions only take place when a physician has determined the “fetus” (which is a biased term, designed to dehumanize a human being at its most vulnerable stage of life) is “nonviable” or not likely to survive. it neeeever has anything to do with the parents’ unwillingness or reluctance to accept the consequences of their actions. you’re a gene-ius, aren’t you?

          1. Eric says:

            Question: when you eat an egg (keep in mind, some of these eggs are partially fertilized, there are plenty of stories out there about people cracking their morning egg to find a chicken embryo in some stage of its development, here’s one: http://youtu.be/LYdwTgPAvXg) do you say that you’re eating a chicken? Do you think that you just killed a chicken? How about looking at tadpoles in a pond, do you think of them as tadpoles? Probably, you think tadpole first, and then frog, so, no. A fetus is NOT a full human.

          2. tim says:

            Ahahahahhahahahahahahah. So true luke, so true. Those damned abortionists went back in time and altered the very fabric of the english language – ensuring that we would be using the word fetus to describe… fetuses. What do you call them? Mini me’s?

      3. Lucy says:

        According to Seuss biographer Phil Nel, Geisel threatened to sue an anti-abortion rights group during the 1980s that used the statement [“A person’s a person no matter how small.”] on its stationery, forcing them to back down.

        1. F*uckyou says:

          We get it. You’re a r apist. You thoroughly enjoy r aping women and get off on violent sexual fantasies. You are anti life and wish to destroy women’s lives and keep r aping them. And women are just going to keep having abortions. Hear that plopping sound? That was another couple of thousand wombs being emptied against your will as is the perfect right of the women who have absolute right of autonomy over their own wombs. But then, you already know all that despite your deviant r apist fantasies. Isn’t freedom grand?

        1. luke says:

          so it’s the magical passage through some woman’s labia that makes it from a fetus into a child? that’s, literally, just a gynocentric, semantic argument to justify not taking responsibility for the previous choices you’ve made. you might fool yourself. but not those of us who think.

          1. Darth Vader says:

            Luke, just shut up, ok?

            you don’t like abortion? THEN DON’T HAVE ONE.

            back off telling other people what they should or shouldn’t do.

            realistically, as a man, your opinion on the subject is less than meaningless anyway.

            (oh, and btw, i am your real father)

  3. redravin says:

    So a fetus that fertilized by rape or incest is a ‘person no matter how small’?
    Sorry, there is no way I could force any woman to carry to term under those circumstances.

    1. luke says:

      that’s the standard pro-abortion fallback argument, isn’t it. just how many of the pregnancies out there are the result of rape or incest. like one in thirty? one in fifty, maybe? probably less.

      1. Jane says:

        I think it’s less than 1% of abortions are because of incest or rape. There is an awesome website called “Abort73.com” and they are doing an awesome job exsposing abortion.

        1. F*uckyou says:

          So some r apists are telling women what to do on the internet and you are cheering them on. NIce.

    2. Joy says:

      So I child conceived through rape is less worthy of life? Should we round up all the children who have been born as a result of that and allow them to be killed if the parents do not want to take care of them or put them up for adoption? Yes, a person is a person. A child should not be punished for the crimes of his or her biological father

      1. F*uckyou says:

        They’re not children you ignorant pro r apist piece of filth. Look up internalised misogyny. Now shut the f uck up.

  4. Pasta says:

    Man this is fun. Im the biggest tard on earth, but I wouldn’t have an abortion if Jesus wasn’t having one guys, think about it.

  5. CDS says:

    When a doctor waits for pain killing drugs to reach the fetus via the mother before performing surgery on the fetus while in the womb…what does that tell you? When the mother has every intention of keeping the child, doctors take precautions to aviod inflicting pain on the 23 week old fetus…..when a woman doesn’t want the child…They burn it with acid or They rip it to pieces, its arms, legs being ripped from the sockets,.. So it can more easily be extracted. What sounds humane about this??? Do you guys even know how they get rid of the babies in the abortion??????? If you don’t know, shut up. If you do know, well more power to you, you are now a semi-heartless human being. A baby that would be otherwise treasured and fought for by the first mother is simply being murdered and thrown away by the second. A painful murder. No, no, everyone says. They don’t feel pain. Well, why oh why would doctors wait for the pain blocking medication to reach the fetuses’ bloodstream before operating if they weren’t afraid of inflicting pain on the fetus and later being sued for damages when the fetus is born? Because when the mother wants the child, hurting the fetus is a no, no. Dead babies can’t speak of the pain. They are just thrown away. And for all you skeptics a/b how evil abortion truly is…look up the surviver stories. How would you feel? knowing your mother tried her best to kill you. And worse if you are disfigured and/or disabled because of her selfishness. Not all abortion babies are stopped from speaking the truth.

    1. SantaFox says:

      Well, this has been a fun read, with all the relevancy and colorful language with perfect usages of logic. Just felt I should leave my mark on this small corner of the internet. Seems like there is a confusion between what is right and wrong and what should be punishable by law. Even if someone is going to Hell or somewhere for what they have done, they should at least get the opportunity to make their own decisions and earn whatever torment they receive. Sure, it’s wrong to kill a person and there is apparently a strong argument that a fetus is a baby which is a human which is a person and there are the problems of whether or not the mother has the authority to end the child’s life as if he/she was her “property” or something. Should the government forbid it, or should that individual be stoned to death by an angry mob? Depends on the decision of responsibility and how it should be dealt with, in my opinion. No personal judgments are necessary since none of us are objective-enough to be able to form cohesive and informed ones.

      P.S. The Dr. Seuss pics are hilarious xD

    2. F*uckyou says:

      Good grief, r apists really get off on violent fantasies don’t you? Enjoy slaughtering babies and r aping women.

  6. Will says:

    A baby exists as a parasite within the mother, she has the right to chose what happens to it
    Sex is not just a tool for breeding, it is an important part of society and how we relate to one another
    There are already too many people on the planet abortion slows down population growth so kinda helps with that
    And the whole argument of when an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a baby falls into fuzzy logic, so there is no discernible deadline of when one becomes the other but they are most definitely not the same. And the term fetus is not, as was eloquently put “a term used to dehumanize” it is the term used to describe an infant whilst in utero

    1. PS3Gamer says:

      A baby is not a parasite, it is a new life. Population growth is not a global problem. It is a problem in some urban areas, but not global. This is a very simple problem to fix: move out of the cities. There is enough arable land for every single person on earth to have an acre to themselves, not to mention the ability to live off of the oceans.

    2. bbweis says:

      Please read “The Unaborted Socrates”. It is a very good philosophical book addressing the problem of whether or not the fetus (I do prefer “child”) is actually a human, and whether or not abortion is actually murder. It was written by Peter Kreeft, a well known Socratic Philosopher.

      Also, I would tend to agree with PS3Gamer. Whenever persons such as yourself, Will, bring up the concept of overpopulation, your arguments have no weight. You show pictures of traffic jams, and New York City, but do you not realise that there are 9.27 persons per square mile in the country of Canada (http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/popdensity.htm)? You may say that Canada is a harsh and difficult environment, which is true. But in Wyoming, there are 5.851 inhabitants per square mile. Montana has 6.858 people per square mile. And D.C has 10,065 people per square mile.

      In other words, if you simply look at the facts, and see the vast inequalities between the population densities of various states, you’ll see that there is so much room for growth in this world.

      If you have read this through, Congrats!! and I would also like to add that Russia has 8.4 people per square mile, and 470,079 square miles of land in Russia is actually agricultural (utilised for farming, etc.). That brings it to a grand total of 13.9% of Russia. Think of the possibilities if that was even 20, or 30 percent. All my sources are from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/arable-land-hectares-wb-data.html.

      Of course, we would need a free market, but since that is actually a good idea and benefits people for the better, we can’t possibly choose that.

      Sorry for my little (not really) rant, but I have been waiting forever to utilise this information for the scholastic and/or economic enlightenment of

      1. mark says:

        It’s not about how many people we can squish into the space we have, it’s about having enough resources to divide between them. It takes one acre of land about a year to produce food for one person for a year. There are about 3.9 billion acres of arable land on earth, that is, not counting the desert, or the frozen parts that we can’t grow food on. That means the earth can support at most 3.9 billion properly nourished humans.

        Note that this is only counting humans, not our pets, our livestock, not the wild animals. It also assumes that we are living in an extreme state of socialism and are completely evenly diving the resources throughout all the humans living on the earth.

  7. Frimmy says:

    So…anyway…”Because a Little Bug Went Ka-Choo!” by Rosetta Stone (another pen name of Theodor Seuss Geisel) is all about chaos theory, or the butterfly affect.

  8. Mr. South says:

    Is there any way I can get these either already printed as posters or large, high-quality, formatted image files of all the covers to use in my English classroom? Also, will anybody who matters respond to this or am I just tossing this comment out into the wind?

  9. Billy says:

    Never thought I’d see the day that an article about Dr. Seuss would deteriorate into an argument about grammar and abortion.

  10. HeightsGirl says:

    *sigh… ignoring previous ridiculousness here in favor of the awesomeness of Dr. Suess…

    I grew up with Dr. Suess. I will carry his stories with me my entire life. The Lorax taught me to nurture and appreciate the world around me, the star-bellied Sneetches made me feel okay about not being like “everyone” else, and Yertle was a good primer against some of the ol’ 7 Deadlies. As an adult, I get a kick out of seeing the covers like this, but I feel like there are too many elements to these stories to ever try to summarize them into just a few words.

    And for even more Dr. Suess, his advertising art was great!

  11. tim horton says:

    So all you anti-abortion nuts have adopted children, then? Oh no you just want them to be born then they’re on their own. I see.

As seen on Huffington Post, CNN, BuzzFeed, New York Times, Scientific American, Mentalfloss, USA Today, Funny or Die, Gawker, Gizmodo, Laughing Squid, Boing Boing, Hot Air, Jezebel, Neatorama

About 22 Words

22 Words collects a blend of everything from the serious and creative to the silly and absurd. As your source for the crazy, curious, and comical side of the web, 22 Words can be counted on to share funny and fascinating viral content as well as more obscure (but equally interesting) pictures, videos, and more.

© 2016 | 22 Words

Privacy Policy