immoral moral jack stalk

 the story of jak beanstalk is a fascinating legend. just a story... not a "fable to teach us to steal from giants" just a story. in the story he stole... just kuz kids see people driving cars on tv no danger the kid will mimic and drive. idea in family guy. 

or no giant existed so nobody stole idea in a disney version.

u.s. versions ADD stuff to justify the seeming crimes indicated even 1902 people were troubled by immoral details: in 1902 the fairy SENT him to take it like giants are animals who dont own so can steal from bears and ogres.

other versions ADD the harp was stolen by giant  in mickey mouse znd other versions so reclaim different from stealing the harp of giant. had he made it? no a human msde the harp that guant stole in at least 3 versions and similarly hen or goose in several versions. donsld wsnted to "get a refund" like regret buying a profuct and regret... dome stores omly allow if damaged but ikea and others allow regret if not damaged by buyer. ohers only if yes damaged when purchased.

in 1917 version it was a RESCUE mission to save a life. threw rock to stop a murder then murderer giant threatened him so needed to kill it and needed  to draw chase before it killed a girl. 

the attacks "western legends are immoral" complained that he crime stole and the death was caused by stealing which led to murder that would not have happened if he had not stolen... all accusing jack but what if jack was a good guy? 

as if arab legend are moral? ali baba had theives and sticky cup to steal gold coins. or aladdin stole for hunger and jasmin stole to give to kid. arabian nights. but bad westerners. dont read western legends only... holy books that say sinners deserve death is that less problematic? religions teach the actions GET influenced by holy books but legends are stories as zbove not fables to mimic nor encourage in contrast to the greater harm of bad holy books. 

in 1950 version jack was orphan kuz giant killed pa and stole hen so jack was not stealing he was reclaimed his own family hen that was how pa fief. the option of not causing murder if not tresspass was not an option AFTER giant was ALREADY involved with humans killing pa and abducted princess an element also  in 1927 version so the BIG PICTURE is more than simply crime steal. in other words the SAME action can be interpreted either as crime as accused or can be DEPENDENT  on circumstances as the proper reclaiming of his own hen as above.

the murder of giant was not caused by stealing as accused by small minded accusers who did not consider possible circumstances that redefine the action as moral if it was reclaimed jack hen or rescue princess or save girl all elements added in 1917 and 1933 and 1950 versions  kuz even then and earlier in 1902  westerners cared about morality and the SAME action of taking DEPENDENT  on circumstances. 

a kiling is harmful evil therefore the SAME act killing is good when stopping the killer. think about That.