Slashdot Mirror
Israel Passes Photoshop Law To Combat Anorexia
Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that the Israeli parliament has passed legislation that prohibits fashion media and advertising with models who fall below the World Health Organization's standard for malnutrition banning underweight models as determined by Body Mass Index. The new law also stipulates that any ad which uses airbrushing, computer editing, or any other form of Photoshop editing to create a slimmer model must clearly state that fact. Advertising campaigns created outside of Israel must comply with the legislation's standards in order to appear in Israel. 'I realized that only legislation can change the situation,' says Rachel Adato, an Israeli parliament member with a background in medicine. 'There was no time to educate so many people, and the change had be forced on the industry. There was no time to waste, so many girls were dieting to death.' The measure has been controversial within Israel for raising the question of where free speech bumps up against the fashion industry's responsibility — and its possible harm — to its customers' psychological well-being. Donald Downs, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on the First Amendment, says that it would be very tough to pass something like Israel's law in the US Congress. 'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
1) Pass laws to combat fashion model anorexia ...
2) Enforce regulations on non-educational reality television
238) Stop forcing Palestinians into walled-off ghettos.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I was going to post something about the inevitability of some anti-Semitic fuck posting hate shit about Israel.
Too late, crazyjj was too fast.
I think that fat is a thing that grows in coconuts and big fort og toe the pie sam!!!!!! It wasn't in hte the wheel chair the law, in that it the fisher is the scienceof switch, which you gojina too close balonoy!!!! In concoson the SLASH DORT is the website where I am the place to the internetwe say hello WORLD!!!!!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Cue all the unnecessary anti-semetic comments.
Encouraging fat fucks is deadly too. The medical consequences are debilitating and often fatal.
What BMI range will be acceptable for models?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So let's vilify thin models.
Why not? The government sees fit to utterly destroy Joe Public's privacy in the name of 'combatting terrorism', but they won't put a kink in the advertising industry's portrayal of an unobtainable ideal as a factual status quo? Who's running the US anyway? Oh, wait, silly me...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Those blonde shiksa with the skinny waists and the big boobs, Rachel, I can't keep my Baruch's eyes from wandering!
It would be hard to get passed in the US because we care more about a corporation's health than a citizen's. No other explanation is needed. In Israel, there is more respect for their citizens, probably due to the fact that every border they share is with a country that currently, or recently, has wanted them wiped off the face of the Earth.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've seen a paper about it: the most significant contributor to anorexia is social context, specially advertising. The fashion industry is, therefore, responsible for what they put on ads. I fail to see what's the issue here: it's common knowledge that "free speech" doesn't mean "free to say whatever you want". If they put an ad with underweight, photoshopped models, then they are harming everyone who's watching, in a medical sense, and must refrain from doing so.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Back in the glory days of super models a la Cindy Crawford and Tyra Banks, from what CC said the typical size for a model was 6. Now, they're 0s and 2s. Some of them are downright repulsive. There's a pretty nasty pic of Gisele Bunchken post-pregnancy and it looks like she was trying to starve off the weight. Might as well drape the clothes over a wire hanger if that's what they're aiming for.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
They are no more "human" and entitled to human rights, then this building I'm sitting in. The people inside the building have a right to free speech, but not the building itself.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'
Isn't this the reason we have warnings on boxes of cigarettes?
'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
The US already has a law that "paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term". It is the FDA law that prohibits unsubstantiated medical claims because it might cause people to ignore treatments that actually work. The issue of under weight and Photoshoped images is that they cause people to attempt to attain that standard and cause health issues. This has been proven to happen.
These 'photoshop' regulations and proposals generally require some sort of written disclaimer if a model has been photoshopped. However, that seems like a very questionable assumption about how this stuff works...
Does anybody seriously suspect that advertisements prove compelling because we are deceived by them in some trivial 'I believe that this advertisement is a representative depiction of reality." sense that could be refuted simply by a textual disclaimer?
The idea that this is an information problem, caused by people just not knowing certain facts, seems about as naive(or deliberately toothless) as believing that you can make somebody stop gambling or buying lottery tickets with a dose of stats 101... It's nonsense. Do people advance these proposals because they actually do believe that? Or do they submit them because the alternative of banning photoshopping is just too dire; but Something Must Be Done?
I can't readily find any data just for Israel, but I find the law's author's assertion that "We also know that the first cause of death in the age group of 15-24 is anorexia" to be highly suspect. In the US, 46% of deaths ages 15-24 are accidents (33% motor vehicles), then there's homicide, suicide, cancer & other illnesses. Anorexia is nowhere near the top as a cause of death. Israelis have cars and murders and cancer just like Americans (ok, probably less cars & murders, but still); I find it hard to believe that their stats are terribly different.
The article itself says that mortality rates are 4% for anorexia, which is bad, but surely all the 10% with eating disorders she cites don't have anorexia?
this kinda laws is gonna save the world ROFL.....ya know all those abuses going on and corruption and this is what the media pushes around a bunch a spoiled rich broads that have eating issues.
FAIL. If seeing images of thin people makes people want to become thin, then seeing obese people would also make people want to become fat. Therefore, seeing up-close and being around actual obese people on a daily basis would have a far greater effect than the occasional view of a rail-thin model in an advertisement. You can't even hear or observe closely the thin image for it to seem to be a real person, it is more like a mannequin or drawing. Therefore, we need to ban obese people from public view. The number of obesity related health problems is well documented and "growing".
captcha: ice cream !
I am very pro first amendment, but the idea of disclaimers on impossibly obtainable body proportions sounds as good as those white rectangles on the cigarette boxes. Women, and to a lesser, but increasing amount, men, are getting severely programmed by all the fake crap we do to our mass media people of fiction. I don't know if this is an American thing, or not even a thing at all, maybe I'm just out in left field here, maybe it's generational, I have no pattern - point I am making is that lots of women seem really put off by their body image, and they dont care that members of the appropriate gender think they look fine, or great, or even perfect. They just want to drop 30% of their body weight, to anorexic levels, stab their fellow with a rib, I dunno what the end goal is man, I'm just sick of cute girls crabbing about a little belly or having real thighs. So sick of it. This is probably my most ranty, less focused slashdot post in a long while, so I'm sorry about that. It's super frustrating to tell someone they look really beautiful and have them gaze off into the distance, miserable they aren't a jpeg and unwilling to ever embrace themselves or enjoy life until that day. We should all be extremely grateful that there's no great way to apply these photoshop techniques to moving images, yet. We'll be even worse off when that happens.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Of course. Ban something because someone might get offended by it/take it seriously. I honestly don't want to ban/censor something just because it might make a minuscule portion of the population want to do something harmful.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What if someone put out an advertisement about ice cream, and some insane person decided to kill themselves because of it!? Therefore, all advertisements should be banned because a minuscule portion of the population might decide to do something harmful because of them!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The same country which sexually mutilates nearly all of its male children has a law pushed through to kinda-maybe prevent underweight people from suffering from being underweight. What?
You're being intentionally dense. The problem is that all of the people presented in media as "beautiful" actually have bodies that would be unhealthy for the vast majority of the population (likely including most if not all of the models, especially after you count photoshopped images). The people you encounter in everyday life are generally not explicitly held up as examples of beauty.
Sure, a skinny model clearly pushes other people to starve until they rot. That is about as true as ads with over weight people advocate over eating and lack of exercise. Sure they do. But with anorexia it is a special circumstance. The poor don't get anorexia. Anorexia loves suburban females, often Jewish, and almost no one else. Seen any men with anorexia lately? How many black girls have anorexia? Now I know people just have to believe nonsense. Remember when the Center For Disease Control believed that HIV had gaydar and could spot a queer a mile away and climb right into their blood stream? Now my advice to Israel is that if you have young women so whacked out and blind dumb that they starve themselves to death that is one heck of a lot better than providing health care and therapy for a long life. Talk about a non starter. Let's all rush to keep spoiled teen girls from torturing their families until they drop dead.
'nuff said
This kind of thinking, laws that favor society as a whole over the individual reminds me of the zeroth law of robotics.
Woodstock "gimp!ing" the image be legal?
yes.. mommie dearest.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
Whereas in the US laws are passed on the effect they may have on contributors to those who are passing them.
I'm pretty libertarian, but I'm 100% OK with that requirement by itself. Labeling laws help consumers make informed decisions about their purchases, which is a basic requirement of a free market. For example, I fully support a store's right to sell ground beef containing "pink slime" as long as it's clearly labeled as such. Along those lines, let Israel require companies to state that their images do not depict genuine humans. I'd like to be able to show my daughter that I'm not just making this stuff up, that models in magazines really don't look like that in real life and aren't a reasonable standard to judge yourself by.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Advertising is not free speech. We already have tons of laws about what can be said in advertisements. We have entire categories of products banned from advertising via various forms of media.
And, besides that, fuck push advertisers. They don't inform. They don't help. They play upon human psychology and insecurity to make people feel inferior if they don't have The Product. They try to associate themselves with warm, fuzzy feelings to make people feel good about The Product. They do not operate on a rational level. The sooner we're rid of them entirely the better.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
This is the information age. Maybe we should let people who can't effectively process information just die out.
..is not at all opposed to U.S. law saying that advertisments with edited or modified depictions of models should dislose that fact, and plainly enough to be easily seen and understood.
The fashion industry pretty much depends on peddling fantasy, from the fantasy that what you wear will improve your life in any way, from the superficial to the profound, and shouldn't be too offended that we ask them to admit that.
Of course they won't like it, since that may break the spell, but hey - you abuse the magic, it comes back at ya.
So how do we institute ANY 'truth in advertising'? Seriously, the concept is pretty much nonfunctional. We regularly see ads promoting some supplement with the facetious disclaimer that it is not intended as a treatment for anything, despite the ad plainly stating that if you want to improve|enhance|support your immune|sexual|youth|whatever function, 'use this'.
Seriously? We wanna do that? Wow.
Israel, on the other hand, is free to do what they want. Their country.
ps - Any stats on how many girls are starving themselves to death in response to these altered pics in ads?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This might not be the typical Slashdot comment. I post it anyway because anorexia was part of my live for many years.
My daughter has had anorexia. As a dad I watched my daughter identify herself with wrong and manipulated social standards (mainly fashion / beauty magazines) For her the images of her idols were reality. Nothing could change her mind. Over a period of 2-3 years she gradually slided down into anorexia. As a parent we tried to help and we sought professional help but mostly in vain. She only became more careful with exposing her 'behavior'. Unfortunately the switch only came after she reached 81.5 pounds (37kg) and was hospitalized for over 8 weeks. Specialists say that a few pounds less and she would not have survived it .
How do you explain to an 15 year old that everything she reads about her idols is manipulated / orchestrated? Warning messages in beauty and fashion magazines seem like a good effort to me. I consider myself liberal, normally I am against (government) control and over legislation. Normally I would immediately condemn such a legislation. But I also don't want any parent to experience what we experienced. Don't make the mistake that it can not happen to you. We are a normal family, no family history of drugs or mental disorders. We are realistic, we all enjoyed higher education. And still anorexia was a harsh reality for us.
Lucky my daughter got better. She is now back on a 'normal weight' but her fight is far from over. >5 years after she is still selective in what she eats, she still counts her calorie intake. But she can now place what happened to her and detect warning signals herself. Next September she will start her final year at university.
They crushed Rachel Corrie to death under a bulldozer.
They deserve NO sympathy from anyone with a brain.
And here I was thinking that "Photoshop Law" meant they would photoshop too-thin models to make them look a little healthier. Then I went and RTFS and spoiled everything...
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
There should be no Free Speech for non-humans. A corporation does not have any political or human rights necessities for Free Speech because a) all the humans that make up the corporation already have that right and b) it isn't human, so human rights don't apply.
I understand the line needs to be defined and corporations will circumvent the issue by paying people to make their speech for them - but the law is pretty good at wiping the floor with people too obviously circumventing it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term."
You mean like, say, asbestos?
...models in magazines
Wait: what are these "magazines" of which you speak? Are the "models" radio controlled, or autonomous, like quadrotors?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Will be interesting to monitor print ads in Israel going forward. Most models are 5'9" or 5'10". I order to meet the 18.5 BMI requirement a 5'10" model would need to weigh 129 lb. This guy has some stats on how much various female celebrities (some of whom are models; no idea whether his data is accurate) weigh. He lists 5'10" Adriana Lima at 112 lb.
If the corporation is just a group of people, then it should be the individual people that have freedom of speech, not the corporation.
If the corporation as a whole is considered a legal entity, then if it is found to do harm it should be subject to similar penalties as people. If an individual would be put in jail for a similar offence, the corporation should be legally prevented from doing business for a similar period of time--and maybe the corporate officers should have to take turns being in jail.
In other words, if you pool your resources to gain the legal benefits of incorporation, you should have to share any legal penalties as well.
They're not advertising the model, so truth in advertising doesn't apply. There was a case where a mascara company got in trouble for photoshopping, but it was because they artificially enhanced the model's eyelashes, basically making it look like their product was better than it actually was.
When I was 16-24 I was 5' 7.5" and weighed 110 lbs. That is bone skinny. Try as might, couldn't eat my way to gain weight. I did gain some lifting weights.
So, someone comes along and says to me: because you are naturally skinny you can't have employment in a particular field as a model?
Should Jim Parson's not be allowed to star as Sheldon Cooper?
So by age 30 I was onto the gaining a few pounds a year, and at age 60 I am now obese. That disqualifies me from a lot.
Blah.
So, if you are naturally a genius (I'm not, with an IQ only in the 130 range...) should you disqualified from working as a physicist or MD because the normal kids and sub-genius feel bad?
Sound like a case of comparative self-esteem. An oxymoron if I heard of one.
The new law also stipulates that any ad which uses airbrushing, computer editing, or any other form of Photoshop editing to create a slimmer model must clearly state that fact.
Since airbrushing and/or computer editing will be SOP for any ad, and since it is going to be impossible to determine if this makes the model appear thinner, then we can predict likely outcomes:
1) All ads will start to contain the disclaimer. Especially far shots as lots of people look thinner from a distance. Blurry shots too (some blurry people in the background, they might look thinner or just fuzzier - why let a jury decide your fate? disclaim!). The disclaimer will be so common, it won't be noticed anymore. Expect to see it on pics of chubby babies too. That'll be worth a laugh.
2) If not 1), modeling agencies will demand thinner models. It will NOT encourage healthier models who can no longer have any perceived shortcomings fixed.
An awful lot of advertising is peddling fantasy. Look at the beer ads, or the Axe commercials, or the ads for shaving products.
As far as "truth in advertising", you could start by requiring that any claims in the advertisement (spoken or written, explicit or implied to a reasonable person) must be supportable with documentation available on request. Any ads found to contravene this would be banned and significant penalties applied. Make it easy for people to complain about violations, give it real teeth.
If some place claims, "we've got the most experienced staff in the business", they'd better be able to document relevent career experience for all their employees as well as all the employees of their competitors. If they say "the best burger in town" they should be able to back it up with independent polling.
Donald Downs, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on the First Amendment, says that it would be very tough to pass something like Israel's law in the US Congress. 'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
Who gives a fuck what the US congress would do? Last time I checked Israel had its own constitution and its own parliament, and it's not a US state no matter how some politicians try to act as if it is. Other countries choose to do things differently than the USA and we're surprised?
Hell there's plenty of laws that get passed in the USA that wouldn't stand a chance in Europe (death penalty, discrimination against gays, letting any eejit carry a gun etc.) but I don't see every post on American politics turn into a big discussion among Europeans about whether or not they approve. And somehow I don't think USAians would pay much heed to what the outside world thinks anyway. Why get hung up about what a sovereign democratic government decides to do inside its own borders? So in Europe and in Israel people have a different approach to free speech. So what?
One man's freedom of speech can have the power to deprive another man of his right to life. If the North American continent had been devastated by global war at the behest of a movement that abused its "freedom of speech" in the 1930s (as happened in Germany) then maybe the "all speech must be free regardless of the consequences" mantra would be a bit less of a convincing argument in the USA too.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Are they allowed to have unhealthy overweight women?
FAT CHICKS RULE!
Um, actually the problem is that thin people are presented as being beautiful and fat people are presented as being ugly. It's the business theory behind any weight-loss program or fitness centre. That's why seeing obese people doesn't make you want to become fat.
We've gone so long with that frame of advertising that obese people are now fighting back and saying that fat isn't ugly. So, over time whenever fat returns to being the ideal of beauty again, we'll have a new generation of teens killing themselves by overeating so that they can be beautiful just like the models they see everywhere.
Really, the biggest problem isn't the models themselves, although anorexic models should be forced into treatment because it is truly a slow suicide. It's the photoshop part that's the problem. At least anorexic models show that it's physically possible to meet that standard, for a small percentage of the population at least. Photoshop bypasses any physical requirements and allows the models to remain healthy while portraying them as anorexics to the children that want to be just like them.
To that end, the 1st amendment doesn't apply. Truth in Advertising laws are constitutionally valid, already exist, and are necessary because it prevents people from selling you "Not Poison" ice cream that isn't even ice cream.
Jew = follower of Judaism
Christian = follower of Christianity
Muslim = follower of Islam
Yeah, don't ask me why they chose that naming convention, but that's the way it is, so that last sentence should be
...and then eventually to Islam when the Ottomans took over...
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Fat women don't sell clothes because fat women don't get raped. One can down a bulk loader's amount of Viagra®. However, once that $STEREOTYPICAL_OPERATIC_FEMALE_VOCALIST comes into view, instant penile implosion and testicular atrophy--Eeeeeeeyyyyyyaaaarrrrrrooooouuuuuun!
Soon fashion advertisements won't look like they're using pre-pubescent boys in drag any more.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds ...
You mean a law which demands a rich person (corporation) tell the truth?
Says everything about Congress.
i didnt think that they allowed pictures of women in the first place per hasidic law
Therefore, seeing up-close and being around actual obese people on a daily basis would have a far greater effect than the occasional view of a rail-thin model in an advertisement.
Ah. That's why there's so much of an obesity problem. Too many fat people. Oh, wait, ...
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Israel can go and fuck right off.
This 'fluff' consideration does not weigh against the past 60 odd years of ethnic cleansing and murder and theft.
So, Mr Coward, help me understand what you're trying to say:
Are you saying that since Sunnis and Shia kill each other it is OK for Israeli Jews to kill Palestinians?
Or
Are you saying that we shouldn't care when Israeli Jews kill Palestinians?
By the way, border disputes are basically between two countries that recognise each other (generally) but have never formalised the drawing of their borders. Israeli settlements are built on land beyond the recognised borders, so it's apartheid, it's occupation.
What if a collection of companies put out hundreds of ads about smoking, and such a large number of insane people became terribly addicted to nicotine that painful externalities (eg, health care costs associated with emphysema rose and became a burden; and second-hand smoke from the increasing number of cigarette smokers caused problems for people who chose not to smoke) occurred!?
Therefore, we should place limits on the advertisement of cigarettes which manage the harm they are liable to cause.
What if a collection of companies put out hundreds of ads about smoking, and such a large number of insane people became terribly addicted to nicotine that painful externalities (eg, health care costs associated with emphysema rose and became a burden; and second-hand smoke from the increasing number of cigarette smokers caused problems for people who chose not to smoke) occurred!?
Good question. Those people sound pretty dumb. They can die of lung cancer if they want.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Under this logic, the government could censor pretty much anything. Some insane person went on a murderous rampage? Video games were the trigger. Ban video games!
This is extremely scary to me. Especially since we're considering banning/censoring things due to the stupidity of others. I don't care for such slippery slopes.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Some people are genetically that thin. I know a family like that. The mother is 5'11", and was incredibly skinny in her 20s. She has a really high metabolic rate, and spent years as a runner and endurance rider. She eats twice as much as I do. Her daughter is the same, but an inch taller, and, like mom, is a serious jock. Her day job is ocean rescue, her idea of a good swim is to cross Monterey Bay, and a good bike trip is Portugal to Italy. She's had people think she's anorexic.
Working ballet dancers are often like that. They look thin from a distance, but meet one and you realize they're all hard muscle. So are many horse people.
If a documented correlation existed between that class of advertisment and wholesale instances of self-starvation, psychosis and malnutrition, then YES, that class of advertisment should be curtailed by a sane society. Knowingly distorting the terms (substituting "some insane person" for a significant portion of the population and "all advertisements should be banned" instead of "conclusively-proven-to-be-harmful advertisments should be banned") does not change that fact.
What if someone put out an advertisement about ice cream, and some insane person decided to kill themselves because of it!? Therefore, all advertisements should be banned because a minuscule portion of the population might decide to do something harmful because of them!
Yes, that's a good example of what we call the "stupid dickhead" line of reasoning. Jesus tittyfucking Christ you're a retard.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What's the problem? You're still free to be as thin or fat as you like, how is it affecting your freedom? The models involved can still be stick thin if they want, they just can't inflict themselves through advertising on impressionable young people.
Do you seriously think that there should be no limitations on public advertising at all? Would you really want your granny or kids to see hard core animal porn (or whatever) on public billboards?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't see how requiring the warning to be printed on advertisements that were shopped is really any different than requiring cigarette ads to print the surgeon general's warning about lung cancer.
Banning the use and appearance of underweight models in the US might be a little trickier though.
The model in those magazine are not made to be attractive to male, but rather to female. let me summarize this : men like more women with "forms" showing fecundity : large hip, 8 figure, large breast. Women are more attracted to form showing youth, in other women, that is thin, small breast, young face. That is why the model are a-starving : they want to appeal to the people they are marketed at, NOT male, but female.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think there should be NO photoshop at all, how about that! Make it so the industry shows the picture for what it is, if the photographer is good and the model is good looking , it will be a good photo, instead of doing all sorts of photoshop to make everything look good. Makes me think that we have become so intent on fixing up things after the fact, instead of making it is good to begin with. I have seen many great photos without touchups, why cant they have those? Dont tell me the film is too expensive now!
Firstly I don't accept other country mistreating the Palestinian refugee. But even then it is NOT an acceptable excuse for Israel to mistreat palestinian. "the other guy is worst" is a slide to the bottom, and if you ask me the other surrounding country are not better than israel from that POV.
But even then , the legal situation is waaaay different. Palestianian territory are occupied by Israel, and at time military of Israel roll over there. That alone place at least a greater on israel responsibility of the palestinian situation.
Now if you ask my personal opinion ? Put all terrorist from hamas, and all radical from israel politics or religious in a pit with knife and attached by chains, then wait until there is only one single side survivor. free the poor Israeli or Palestinian average guy from their antics. My experience from the local politics is that both minority asshole groups are the one with an itnerrest with a continued conflict whereas the silent majority suffer through those fools.
So the only right you recognize is the one to exist like a pig. Because communicating like a human being has some effect on others. If granny and the kids are little piggies they should be locked safely away in pens someplace. "Political correctness" is more degrading to a man than living in a sty.
"The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
Seems like this says it all;
There was no time to waste, so many girls were dieting to death.
You're still free to be as thin or fat as you like, how is it affecting your freedom?
I care about other people's freedom, too.
The models involved can still be stick thin if they want, they just can't inflict themselves through advertising on impressionable young people.
Do you seriously think that there should be no limitations on public advertising at all?
I don't mind demanding warnings, since that isn't actually censorship (it just makes them include something extra and doesn't censor their original message). But that is all.
Would you really want your granny or kids to see hard core animal porn (or whatever) on public billboards?
Frankly, I couldn't care less. I don't believe in the right to not be offended.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I disagree. Since you provided nothing else, that's really all there is to say.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You're talking about a one-off case of "The vidja game made him kill!!!!!" What this deals with is mass advertising - modeling is pervasive in almost every corner of advertising. Those young people drinking Bud Light (eww), the couple who have herpes, the woman in the "great clothes for summer" all fall under a stereotype of beauty that our country, and others, push like crack to society as a whole. Someone recently did a "plus" size ad to show how accepting they were, but the only thing plus about the models were the boobs and butts - they were still skinny in the stomach, no flab, no reality.
Further, when this kind of thing has such a bearing on people growing up that we're constantly worried about our weight, what we eat, do we exercise enough, it builds a mental image of what we *should* look like - nothing in society teaches us to accept who we actually are. This is dangerous for the wrong people because they'll resort to fasting and purging - two activities that have serious consequences (purging moreso, unless it's long term fasting). I know a couple of girls who used to go out to lunch and see who could eat the least, or take turns puking, or brag about how much they've thrown up in the last day. It's disgusting and it's a facet of our everyday lives.
Not to mention, this kind of mindset is dangerous even after a person has stopped purging or fasting - if they notice they've gained any amount of weight from eating right, it can cause a cascade of depression that will either result in action (purging, fasting again) or inaction - more depression, overeating, etc.
An advertiser has no place modeling their clothes with a model shooting up heroine - they have no place modeling their cloths with a model whose lifestyle is threatening to the health of others.
Further, when this kind of thing has such a bearing on people growing up that we're constantly worried about our weight, what we eat, do we exercise enough, it builds a mental image of what we *should* look like
Such a shame. Perhaps they should stop for a moment and think. There is no magical entity that decides what you "should" look like, and fasting is simply a foolish solution to begin with.
This is dangerous for the wrong people
The "wrong people" can lock themselves away in their houses, then. I don't believe in the right to be offended, and I don't believe in the right to have things banned because you react stupidly to them.
It's disgusting and it's a facet of our everyday lives.
Maybe they'll eventually vanish from the gene pool.
Not to mention, this kind of mindset is dangerous even after a person has stopped purging or fasting - if they notice they've gained any amount of weight from eating right, it can cause a cascade of depression that will either result in action (purging, fasting again) or inaction - more depression, overeating, etc.
That mindset does indeed sound dangerous. Perhaps they, ones who are so significantly affected by mere advertisements, should get help.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If a documented correlation existed between that class of advertisment and wholesale instances of self-starvation, psychosis and malnutrition, then YES, that class of advertisment should be curtailed by a sane society.
I'll have no such thing. Your "sane," emotionally-driven society can go elsewhere. Casualties are acceptable to me if it's in the name of freedom. Especially when it's the person's own actions that are at fault. Sorry that there are people hurt by these advertisements, but they'll just have to get help.
substituting "some insane person" for a significant portion of the population
Would it be better to say that I find them foolish? Significant portion of the population? Really? Not that I care, but what is "significant"? I'd rather not let the actions of people I deem to be imbeciles decide whether or not things are censored.
We've already seen this kind of mentality with video games (although that isn't conclusively proven). If it was conclusively proven to be harmful, would you support censorship or the act of banning advertisements for those, too? What about things we know are perfectly innocent right now (such as advertisements about ice cream)? What if those kinds of advertisements were, for some reason, conclusively proven to be harmful to a "significant" (however you define that) majority of the population? And by "harmful," I mean they'd decide to do foolish things because they saw a mere advertisement.
Would you support banning or censoring those? If so (which is what I find likely), talking to you is a complete waste of time. If not, why?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Ditto.....In the USA we are already losing so many of our freedoms right now!
It's not about free speech, it is a law that ensure honesty. Yes you can still say and show whatever you want just you have to own up to the fact that its a lie. Evryone seems to forget there are TRUTH in advertising laws this just ensures the same.
I'll have no such thing. Your "sane," emotionally-driven society can go elsewhere. Casualties are acceptable to me if it's in the name of freedom.
I don't see how the society I advocate would be described as emotionally-driven, particularly given the fact that it's you who in this thread uphold abstract ideals as ends unto themselves. In contrast, my position is utilitarian in this respect; I find the notion of checks and balances on any power to be profoundly rational. Absolute freedom implies the freedom to impinge on the freedom of others, and as we see, this is exactly what tends to happen. The strong eat the weak unless somehow constrained. Social mores is soft power, but it's rank delusion to claim that it's somehow voluntary or nonexistent.
The society I advocate is one in which entrenched power structures are to some degrees prevented from running roughshod over the bottom percent in the name of unrestricted profit. It is functionally equivalent to preventing a company from welding the doors of its factory shut to keep workers from going home. Laws and restrictions stamped out such practices, and no doubt said companies must have chafed at this blatant disregard for their freedom to work their employees like medieval serfs. But that's the tradeoff you make when living in a society that is fundamentally interconnected.
Your acceptance of casualties in the name of freedom is also noteworthy in two other respects, in that (a) you're plainly not among those actually affected and (b) the wording of it strongly suggests that as long as the rallying cry is freedom, any excess could be justified. Do you really wish to take that position? It rarely ends well.
Especially when it's the person's own actions that are at fault. Sorry that there are people hurt by these advertisements, but they'll just have to get help.
You have not proven that their own actions are to blame in any way, shape or form. Racism inflicts measurable harm. Sexism inflicts measurable harm. And as stated repeatedly, pressuring others into self-torture inflicts measurable harm. If people are hurt as a matter of course by a phenomenon, then it is in the interests of society to address that issue, or society unravels. Most civilized countries have accepted this.
Would it be better to say that I find them foolish?
At the very least, it would be honest.
Significant portion of the population? Really? Not that I care, but what is "significant"?
Now you're bandying syntactics, and poorly.
We've already seen this kind of mentality with video games (although that isn't conclusively proven).
In the case of video games, no correlation between them and wholesale violent behavior has been established by any reputable study, so this is a false equivalence.
If it was conclusively proven to be harmful, would you support censorship or the act of banning advertisements for those, too?
Your use of the word "too" implies that I support either censorship or banning of photoshopped pictures. Had this been the case (as opposed to you putting words in my mouth, which is what you're now doing), then your argument would hold water. Predictably, I don't and it doesn't. I support restrictions, such as labeling. You know, as per the OP?
What about things we know are perfectly innocent right now (such as advertisements about ice cream)? What if those kinds of advertisements were, for some reason, conclusively proven to be harmful to a "significant" (however you define that) majority of the population? And by "harmful," I mean they'd decide to do foolish things because they saw a mere advertisement.
Ah, I see. You think this is a voluntary decision, much like depression after repeatedly being called a "fucking nigger" by everyone and his dog would be the foolish
Absolute freedom
No one mentioned anything about absolute freedom...
in that (a) you're plainly not among those actually affected and (b) the wording of it strongly suggests that as long as the rallying cry is freedom
Neither of those seem "noteworthy" to me (the former is just irrelevant as well as an assumption). As if I can't stand up for what I believe is "freedom" if I'm affected by something...
Do you really wish to take that position? It rarely ends well.
Yes, I do. And whether it ends well or not is subjective.
You have not proven that their own actions are to blame in any way, shape or form.
I can't think of anyone else who is at fault. Who is starving themselves?
And as stated repeatedly, pressuring others into self-torture inflicts measurable harm.
That could hardly be said to be happening.
then it is in the interests of society to address that issue, or society unravels.
Not really. Society is incredibly resilient. It wouldn't collapse because of a few people with anorexia. But then again, you seem to be pretending that your vision of society is the only way. It's merely one way.
Now you're bandying syntactics, and poorly.
No, I asked a question. One that you failed to answer.
In the case of video games, no correlation between them and wholesale violent behavior has been established by any reputable study, so this is a false equivalence.
Immediately afterwards, I described a situation where they were found to be "harmful" to certain individuals. And I even admitted what I'm quoting, so what was the point of repeating it?
I support restrictions, such as labeling.
Such as listing ingredients? I've said elsewhere that I have no problems with such a thing since it cannot be considered censorship as long as it doesn't censor the original message.
You think this is a voluntary decision, much like depression after repeatedly being called a "fucking nigger" by everyone and his dog would be the foolish decision of a black person in America during the sixties.
Nothing close (as direct) to the latter is happening, but yes, that's what I believe.
Btw, I once again note your attempt to reduce a multitude (the entire advertisment culture) into a single instance ("a mere advertisement") to bolster your position.
You're looking too far into things. That wouldn't bolster my position, that's simply my opinion. Maybe "slew of mere advertisements" would be slightly better? Just because I don't state the so-called problem exactly doesn't mean I don't understand it.
Because neither banning nor censorship was part of my position in the first place. You would know this, had you not been too busy erecting strawmen to actually read what I wrote.
Okay. That's slightly more agreeable if true.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
No one mentioned anything about absolute freedom...
The gist of your reply clearly was that freedom was a goal unto itself, in the service of which you'd accept casualties. In short, I have a hard time seeing the functional difference.
Neither of those seem "noteworthy" to me (the former is just irrelevant as well as an assumption). As if I can't stand up for what I believe is "freedom" if I'm affected by something...
Yeah, the former was a low blow, and I debated to myself whether to include it. In retrospect I should have been less harsh.
I can't think of anyone else who is at fault. Who is starving themselves?
This is my central beef with your position. I understand what you're saying, but I feel you reduce the argument to absurdity. True, if we go by the most reductionist interpretation possible, then everything a person does must be their (and only their own) complete responsibility, and any amount of coercion, compulsion, or what have you becomes irrelevant. I just can't see why that needs to be the favored interpretation. To me, it seems not just detrimental to a functioning society, but actively spiteful. It feels almost tailor-made to shatter cooperation between people.
Initially, I (wrongfully) assumed you chose that interpretation from a desire to harden your heart to the suffering of whoever you didn't personally appreciate. In light of what you wrote, though, I'm getting the sense you genuinely seem to approach it as an ethical standpoint. Is this a valid observation?
And as stated repeatedly, pressuring others into self-torture inflicts measurable harm.
That could hardly be said to be happening.
I disagree. I have far too much experience with the effects of trauma not to recognize it. I may have used emotionally charged words ("self-torture") for effect, but I stand by it. When people have been socialized to such an extent that their brains are literally wired to be unable to see themselves as anything other than grossly obese (even when weighing in at 80 pounds and reeking of ammonia from far-reaching starvation) then it's no longer a simple matter of choice, because given that skewed lens, of course they're going to ride that endorphin high of starvation and do all they can to reduce a bit more.
These are among the more grotesque examples, of course, but the extreme makes for a clear example of what I mean.
Not really. Society is incredibly resilient. It wouldn't collapse because of a few people with anorexia. But then again, you seem to be pretending that your vision of society is the only way. It's merely one way.
Rebuke noted; I'll have to admit to some amount of myopia. Anyway, I'm not talking about a few people with anorexia tearing down society. I'm talking about the entire shebang, whether it's racism or sexism or classism or whatever and allowing the fruits of those things to run rampant throughout a society. In short, I tried to clarify my position of what I feel is necessary for a functioning society.
I support restrictions, such as labeling.
Such as listing ingredients? I've said elsewhere that I have no problems with such a thing since it cannot be considered censorship as long as it doesn't censor the original message.
Allright. Then we're in less of a disagreement.
You think this is a voluntary decision, much like depression after repeatedly being called a "fucking nigger" by everyone and his dog would be the foolish decision of a black person in America during the sixties.
Nothing close (as direct) to the latter is happening, but yes, that's what I believe.
Then your position is internally consistent. I may not agree with it, but it's honest.
You're looking too far into things. T
The gist of your reply clearly was that freedom was a goal unto itself, in the service of which you'd accept casualties. In short, I have a hard time seeing the functional difference.
The functional difference is that I don't believe in absolute freedom. If I did, I'd believe that government shouldn't interfere with people's freedom to murder others.
True, if we go by the most reductionist interpretation possible, then everything a person does must be their (and only their own) complete responsibility, and any amount of coercion, compulsion, or what have you becomes irrelevant.
If we go the other way, then nothing anyone does is their own fault. Saw an advertisement and committed suicide? Their fault, no matter what it was. Murdered someone? Your parents' and society's fault.
I typically blame someone else if they're directly involved in some way. An example of that would be shooting someone with a gun. Not just displaying an advertisement (of which there are many) and indirectly causing certain people to starve themselves.
When people have been socialized to such an extent that their brains are literally wired to be unable to see themselves as anything other than grossly obese (even when weighing in at 80 pounds and reeking of ammonia from far-reaching starvation) then it's no longer a simple matter of choice
I don't see it as being anything other than their choice. Just because others (or advertisements) make them feel bad (or however you wish to describe it) doesn't mean it's not their choice. I can certainly choose not to starve myself, and I have.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
True, if we go by the most reductionist interpretation possible, then everything a person does must be their (and only their own) complete responsibility, and any amount of coercion, compulsion, or what have you becomes irrelevant.
If we go the other way, then nothing anyone does is their own fault. Saw an advertisement and committed suicide? Their fault, no matter what it was. Murdered someone? Your parents' and society's fault.
PRECISELY. Hence, such reductionism is a bad thing.
I typically blame someone else if they're directly involved in some way. An example of that would be shooting someone with a gun. Not just displaying an advertisement (of which there are many) and indirectly causing certain people to starve themselves.
It seems our principal difference can be illustrated by the trolley problem. My favored solution is the utilitarian one, whereas you I believe would see that solution as the greater evil. Right?
I don't see it as being anything other than their choice. Just because others (or advertisements) make them feel bad (or however you wish to describe it) doesn't mean it's not their choice. I can certainly choose not to starve myself, and I have.
What's that to do with the price of fish? For a comparison to be made, the two choices must be even remotely equal, and they are not. Your choice is trivial because there is little pressure on you to make one.
Shit, as of this moment I just scarfed down some food from yesterday, because I was hungry and I chose not to accept that. I purposely made lots of extra food last time, so it was just a matter of putting it in the microwave. Does that mean I get to sneer at some starving peasant in Burundi for failing to summon the fortitude necessary to do the same? Of course not.
Tl; dr: Of course we can make it all about personal choice if we reduce the argument itself to a caricature. The real world is much more granular.
yes, the beauty standard deals with the look of white women (though it's hard enough for them to live up to), so you could say it's racist as well as sexist.
"She does not know her beauty,
she thinks her brown body has no glory.
If she could dance naked under palm trees
and see her image in the river, she would know.
But there are no palm trees on the street,
and dishwater gives back no images."
- Nina Simone, Images
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Hence, such reductionism is a bad thing.
I agree, and I don't think I did such a thing.
whereas you I believe would see that solution as the greater evil. Right?
Yeah.
Your choice is trivial because there is little pressure on you to make one.
I still believe they have a choice. They're creating this pressure in their own minds (even if they were born more susceptible to it). Some people are quite obviously immune to it, or at the very least, they don't starve themselves because of it.
No one is really saying, "Starve yourself if you're not this skinny." They create that message themselves by interpreting the advertisements in a certain way and then making a decision. No one is holding a gun to their head, and no one could be said to be forcing them to do anything.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Hence, such reductionism is a bad thing.
I agree, and I don't think I did such a thing.
Fair enough. Seems like there were more than a few hasty assumptions made in this thread.
whereas you I believe would see that solution as the greater evil. Right?
Yeah.
Okay, then I understand your position. I don't share it (you may have guessed as much) but it's clear.
Your choice is trivial because there is little pressure on you to make one.
I still believe they have a choice. They're creating this pressure in their own minds (even if they were born more susceptible to it). Some people are quite obviously immune to it, or at the very least, they don't starve themselves because of it.
No one is really saying, "Starve yourself if you're not this skinny." They create that message themselves by interpreting the advertisements in a certain way and then making a decision. No one is holding a gun to their head, and no one could be said to be forcing them to do anything.
I think our ethical systems diverge here. I see the specific advertisement climate as intense social coercion and borderline brainwashing, and I don't consider the question of volition that clear-cut in the first place. We interpret everything that happens to us, because we really can't not. Since neural makeup differs between individuals, we interpret the same things differently. Logic suggests this will influence the outcomes, creating a different range of choices for each person.
...I could go on, but I get the sense we're both aware of the other's stance on the matter, we just don't agree with it. It sounds a bit dickish to say you're entitled to your opinion (because that's the sort of thing assholes tend to say when they really mean "your opinion is worthless"), but yeah. I suspect we'll keep disagreeing on this issue, which is OK by me. A world without differing points of view would be a pretty bleak place anyway.
I get it that Israeli government basically says, "Our women are so dumb they are basing their life-altering choices on the glamour magazine covers, we have to look after them". That's a bit insulting, I suppose, but unfortunately it's also true.
I also get the American First Amendment expert saying "this paternalistic shit won't fly in the US", even though it's rather easy to find examples of incredibly patrernalistic American legislature - that's what American First Amendment experts are for after all, to create an unrealistic (one could say photoshopped) image of the American Freedom.
What i don't get is why everyone's so cool with a democratic government passing a law that prohibits some women from working based on their physical appearance. Isn't it kinda, you know, exclusionary?