Petition to ban airbrushing images aimed at teens (UK)

[King Darkness]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

However, there are still children who can see through the bull____. Why can they do it without parental or similar guidance, and other cannot?

Only the strong survive.

 

[devilof76]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)



Unless, of course, it becomes illegal to be an independent mind, in which case, the ____ will rise to the top.

I think the only thing worse than banning independent thought outright would be to give special assistance to the weak minded.

Where are the ****** socialists on this board when I need them? I'm dyin' out here!

 

[King Darkness]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

I think the only thing worse than banning independent thought outright would be to give special assistance to the weak minded.

"Human intelligence MIA and presumed dead..."

 

[devilof76]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)



"...we found what appear to be its remains in a small village of idiot cannibals. Can't be certain. At this point, we're not even sure if there was ever even any such a thing..."

 

[Lejuan]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

It's a slippery slope once you start down it tho'

See I don't see it is. I think it's pretty black and white. Has an image that is marketed towards children been manipulated to present a version of reality that is not in fact real, but presented as such. Classification boards do this in relation to movies and video games and music, I don't see why regulating truth in imagery promoted to children should be any different.

There is no line. Once you've given the state power to regulate which images are truthful and which are false, it's only a matter of who is in power after that. What is true will be controlled by who holds the reins.

No good intention will survive that furnace.

Well yes, but why should this be a problem in a system of government that is based on elected representation? The electorate determines which governments hold the reins and therefore they determine which legislation they want enacted on their behalf.

At what point does the child's own mind become responsible for their choices?

...there are still children who can see through the bull____. Why can they do it without parental or similar guidance, and other cannot? It's because human's aren't cattle and conditioning is not how they learn.

Could be a number of things... different genetics, different stages of cognitive development, different domestic conditions, different life experiences. Simply because some children are equipped to discern bs from fact doesn't mean that all children shouldn't be free from exposure from contrived and sophisticated images that are essentially lying to them. When they can reasonably be expected to have a level of cognitive maturity about them is when they should become responsible for their own choices. In Australia this is set (somewhat arbitrarily) at the age of 18.

you are right, but manipulated images have been used even before computers had potoshop, either with lighting, make up, clothes, angles,

is like food, Food, is like, when they take pictures of burgers they spray paint them with hair spray, or they use motor oil for syrup sometimes, to make the food look better, is totally a lie, and i dont agree with it, i think is really bad they lie like that.
but is not new, you can't ban something like that,

Yes, though it is readily apparent to the child that the burger that has just arrived at their table looks nothing like the one on the neon menu. Similarly, the breakfast cereal in their bowl as opposed to the one pictured on the box. Fabricating a false version of reality by airbrushing models is not readily apparent to those who consume the images. At the very least a disclaimer ought to accompany images that constitute false representations of reality and specifically targeted at children.

 

[devilof76]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

See I don't see it is. I think it's pretty black and white. Has an image that is marketed towards children been manipulated to present a version of reality that is not in fact real, but presented as such. Classification boards do this in relation to movies and video games and music, I don't see why regulating truth in imagery promoted to children should be any different.

You don't see how giving the government power to regulate content is just begging to be abused? I'm sorry, but I don't trust any official, elected or otherwise, who seeks a position where they will have that kind of power.

Well yes, but why should this be a problem in a system of government that is based on elected representation? The electorate determines which governments hold the reins and therefore they determine which legislation they want enacted on their behalf.

Why does the majority have a right to determine the terms by which the minority who disagrees with them shall live?

Could be a number of things... different genetics, different stages of cognitive development, different domestic conditions, different life experiences. Simply because some children are equipped to discern bs from fact doesn't mean that all children shouldn't be free from exposure from contrived and sophisticated images that are essentially lying to them. When they can reasonably be expected to have a level of cognitive maturity about them is when they should become responsible for their own choices. In Australia this is set (somewhat arbitrarily) at the age of 18.

It's volitional, and we all have free will, regardless of genetics. A child decides on their own whether or not they will make the effort to determine truth or falsehood. Breeding can encourage or discourage, but the choice to submit to being led by the nose is their own.

Yes, though it is readily apparent to the child that the burger that has just arrived at their table looks nothing like the one on the neon menu. Similarly, the breakfast cereal in their bowl as opposed to the one pictured on the box. Fabricating a false version of reality by airbrushing models is not readily apparent to those who consume the images. At the very least a disclaimer ought to accompany images that constitute false representations of reality and specifically targeted at children.

Why are they capable of learning the true relationship between advertising and reality with one product, but not another?

 

[King Darkness]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

. At the very least a disclaimer ought to accompany images that constitute false representations of reality and specifically targeted at children.

A disclaimer for who, the children?

Job of the parent.

 

[Adoptedscot]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

Kids need to learn a little individuality and just be themselves, if they are trying too hard to be some star they obviously have low self esteem and a very low opinion of themselves. that is something that needs addressing directly rather than blaming others.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2STDrP5UvI&feature=channel&list=UL[/ame]

Disclaimer *No human's were harmed during the making of this footage. This is a music video, it is not real. Artistic license may have been used in some scenes and some adjustments to size and body shape may have been done, apart from the 'big boned' chick at the beginining. She just looks like that (as does the big guy in the nappy)

...wrong in all the right ways, that's me and proud of it . I love being a 'Dirty little Freak'
x

 

[shocktrooper_au]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

I think maybe a "disclaimer" stating the image has been altered could be appropriate, otherwise first we ban alterations, then its makeup then its plucking hairs, then is washing......you don't want to see those ads. I won't sign the petition I don't want to live in a nanny state. Too many rules in society now

 

[Lejuan]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

A disclaimer for who, the children?

Job of the parent.

Because it's absolutely feasible that they be aware of every teen magazine and billboard their kid is looking at?

You don't see how giving the government power to regulate content is just begging to be abused? I'm sorry, but I don't trust any official, elected or otherwise, who seeks a position where they will have that kind of power.

I'm not well up on my US system of government, but from what I know it seems pretty similar to what we have over here. So a bill requires passage through two houses of parliament, with the upper house determining the bill's passage - or not - and with or without amendments. That's enough checks and balances for me.

Why does the majority have a right to determine the terms by which the minority who disagrees with them shall live?

Well we're a bit more socialist over here - so my taxes help prop up a universal health care system for example. Someone who drains resources from that system by accessing, for example, medical care and services for a condition such as anorexia, is availing themselves of services that a) I help pay for and b) could be freed up so that others requiring different care can be better treated.

It's volitional, and we all have free will, regardless of genetics. A child decides on their own whether or not they will make the effort to determine truth or falsehood. Breeding can encourage or discourage, but the choice to submit to being led by the nose is their own.

True, though for any child to make an informed decision, some transparency in publicly accessible content is required. I see a regulation of content targeted specifically at children as being a social mechanism that a) dispenses of what I see as society's obligation to provide as transparent an array of images as it is reasonably able to and b) makes advertisers accountable for the content they produce.

Why are they capable of learning the true relationship between advertising and reality with one product, but not another?

Because of the immediacy of the consumption experience and the juxtaposition of image to product. For example I see the image, and a moment later I see the product - I can immediately discern the extent to which I believe I have just been bull____ted. When a model is used to promote an idea or product though, the link between not only the model and product is more obscure, but also the link between the product and my consumption of it. And a lot of this is barely at conscious level, so a child may not have their attention on the model - it might just be on the ice-cream being peddled. But the image has certainly been received by the child's brain, and is processed in a manner that is altogether different from the immediate context of purchase and consumption of an ice-cream.

I think maybe a "disclaimer" stating the image has been altered could be appropriate, otherwise first we ban alterations, then its makeup then its plucking hairs, then is washing......you don't want to see those ads. I won't sign the petition I don't want to live in a nanny state. Too many rules in society now

The point about this is that these images are not representative of reality. They are confected, fabricated, manipulated. This isn't a thin-end-of-the-wedge scenario. It's a question of government regulation of the extent to which advertisers are able to manipulate images in their dissemination of images that are targeted at children.

If we're talking nanny state, my pet peeve is crossing the road. I can see whether it's safe or not. But I need a little green man and a couple of white lines to tell me when and where I should cross? This irritates me infinitely more than legislation that might be passed to regulate the dissemination of bogus images to my kids. But I deal with it, because I'm sure it benefits the idiots in society who are incapable of safely crossing the road by themselves.

 

[Adoptedscot]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

Some kids may want the perfect body, physique or looks from a magazine but some kids also want to move to Pandora, it doesn't mean that it's gonna happen or that they will be psycologically scarred because it won't.
When I was a kid I wanted to be Wonder Woman but it doesn't mean I went and starved myself to look like Lynda Carter or got depressed because I didn't have a glass plane.

If kids have low self esteem or depression about their looks and/or personality because they are not like someone in a magazine, that is something that needs addressing by them as an individual and with their family, doctor, etc. Imo.

Magazines, telly and films have always used 'artistic license', that's the way it is. It doesn't mean that they are to blame for all childhood problems, again imo.
x

 

[King Darkness]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

Some kids may want the perfect body, physique or looks from a magazine but some kids also want to move to Pandora, it doesn't mean that it's gonna happen or that they will be psycologically scarred because it won't.
When I was a kid I wanted to be Wonder Woman but it doesn't mean I went and starved myself to look like Lynda Carter or got depressed because I didn't have a glass plane.

If kids have low self esteem or depression about their looks and/or personality because they are not like someone in a magazine, that is something that needs addressing by them as an individual and with their family, doctor, etc. Imo.

Magazines, telly and films have always used 'artistic license', that's the way it is. It doesn't mean that they are to blame for all childhood problems, again imo.
x

I can agree with the Evil Post Nazi, but I don't have to like it

Sick of the everyone needs to be protected from everything mentality.

 

[BadMoon]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

The fact that this is even being discussed makes me sad to be human.

 

[Lejuan]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

The fact that this is even being discussed makes me sad to be human.

I know right? Those crazy libertarians

 

[fosing]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

Some kids may want the perfect body, physique or looks from a magazine but some kids also want to move to Pandora, it doesn't mean that it's gonna happen or that they will be psycologically scarred because it won't.
When I was a kid I wanted to be Wonder Woman but it doesn't mean I went and starved myself to look like Lynda Carter or got depressed because I didn't have a glass plane.

If kids have low self esteem or depression about their looks and/or personality because they are not like someone in a magazine, that is something that needs addressing by them as an individual and with their family, doctor, etc. Imo.

Magazines, telly and films have always used 'artistic license', that's the way it is. It doesn't mean that they are to blame for all childhood problems, again imo.
x

precisely.

 

[nash]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

if youre ugly, youre ugly. deal with it.

 

[occulum]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

if you're going to stand up for this, then do it in all facets of teen media which includes the comic industry.
Time to do away with the sexy girls with super thin waists and giant ****s.
Dont cherry pick where you want to apply this ......

 

[Adoptedscot]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

I can agree with the Evil Post Nazi, but I don't have to like it

Sick of the everyone needs to be protected from everything mentality.

You always agree with me Dorkie, you just don't like to admit it

When I was a teen my friends used to read about all the sexy boys in Magazines monkey4), I am emotionally scarred from seeing the weekly copy of 'Smash Hits'.

There's no protecting everybody from everything, that's impossible and not to mention boring for the kids being raised.

x

EDIT: I would just recommend that any child or even an adult for that matter that has self esteem issues that they try Martial Arts. When I younger I started Karate and it helped with many aspects of my health, not just for physical capability but mental strength and confidence and I would highly recommend it to anyone.

If someone is so deeply affected by a little airbrushing/changing of a picture in some Magazine then there is more at fault with that individual than just the picture they have seen and they need to make changes for themselves to feel better. I personally don't think that any kind of picture altering procedure should be dissallowed by Law just because it 'may' make someone somewhere not like their own body. It just seems a little OTT imo.
...but that's just me.
x

 

[devilof76]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

Because it's absolutely feasible that they be aware of every teen magazine and billboard their kid is looking at?

If they're taught to understand the principle, they have all the tools they need to apply it to every case under the sun. This is assuming, of course, that their capacity for rational judgment has not been crippled by their willingness to subordinate their first-hand comprehension of the world to the opinions of their peers, or some other manifestation of the hive 'mind'.

I'm not well up on my US system of government, but from what I know it seems pretty similar to what we have over here. So a bill requires passage through two houses of parliament, with the upper house determining the bill's passage - or not - and with or without amendments. That's enough checks and balances for me.

So if a law requiring all members of a particular demographic to wear patches identifying them made it's way through those checks and balances, you would consider that legitimate?

Just an example, but I'm sure you can see the pattern. Without a guiding principle of the proper function of government, and a fundamental legal code to articulate its application, checks and balances are meaningless.

In this country, the principle underlying the fundamental law has been lost. The result is an interpretive free for all that has yielded a million laws that violate the country's legal foundations. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the foundation was compatible with the natural needs of human society. What do you think the consequence of such wholesale contradiction of that nature would be?

Well we're a bit more socialist over here - so my taxes help prop up a universal health care system for example. Someone who drains resources from that system by accessing, for example, medical care and services for a condition such as anorexia, is availing themselves of services that a) I help pay for and b) could be freed up so that others requiring different care can be better treated.

Which is the main argument against such programs. The more people are involuntarily dependent upon each other for survival, the more convinced they become that they have a right to control each other. Where exactly does that stop?

True, though for any child to make an informed decision, some transparency in publicly accessible content is required. I see a regulation of content targeted specifically at children as being a social mechanism that a) dispenses of what I see as society's obligation to provide as transparent an array of images as it is reasonably able to and b) makes advertisers accountable for the content they produce.

What if the models in these advertisements were real, and only a scant 1% of the population had the genes for physical perfection? How would this be any different?

A child is just as likely to come to the conclusion that the esthetic shortcomings of their anatomy is cause for self-contempt, whether the ideal is real or not. (And who's to say that there are not people as flawless as the photoshopped models, or that people are capable of perfecting their appearance to such a degree?)

The point is that they do not have to accept that physical perfection is important enough to condemn themselves to a life of futility and depression. They have the capacity to make those judgments through their whole lives and their experiences and perceptions as a child do not have to control their adulthood. Once they have fully developed their cognitive abilities, they have all the power they need to prioritize rationally. What's more, no one can do that for them.

Ultimately, not learning to discern between the idealized pictures they see in magazines, etc. and what can be expected based on the people they see around them every day will leave them helpless in the face of more serious deceptions. Sheltering them from the need to figure it out will guarantee that they'll be helpless when it counts.

Because of the immediacy of the consumption experience and the juxtaposition of image to product. For example I see the image, and a moment later I see the product - I can immediately discern the extent to which I believe I have just been bull____ted. When a model is used to promote an idea or product though, the link between not only the model and product is more obscure, but also the link between the product and my consumption of it. And a lot of this is barely at conscious level, so a child may not have their attention on the model - it might just be on the ice-cream being peddled. But the image has certainly been received by the child's brain, and is processed in a manner that is altogether different from the immediate context of purchase and consumption of an ice-cream.

How often do you think they're aware that the discrepancy between the pictured product and the product they receive is not important? Do the cheesburger and fries taste any less awesome because they were prettier in the doctored ad?

The only issue here is the degree to which a child's mind is active. A sloth will swallow anything whole. An attentive, focused child will evaluate relentlessly. Take away the need to judge independently, and what do you think will happen to the sharper child?

The point about this is that these images are not representative of reality. They are confected, fabricated, manipulated. This isn't a thin-end-of-the-wedge scenario. It's a question of government regulation of the extent to which advertisers are able to manipulate images in their dissemination of images that are targeted at children.

Better start banning all art that presents reality in a manner that a majority deems unrealistic as well. In one shot you will have successfully destroyed the ability of humans to project their hopes, dreams, and ideals because ultimately, the best will always be a future prospect and the present is all any of us have. Think of how many visionaries would have never taken that first step if they were forbidden to actualize anything that was not already a part of the global populace's mundane experience of reality.

 

[wofford29]

Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)

Actually it was a girl who starved herself for years and had health scares as well as body dismorphic issues trying to emulate something that can't be emulated.

Feel like a douche now? Good, you should

Not at all. It actually sounds exactly like what I had envisioned sans who started the petition. However it does make more sense that the mother would be absent from parenting again to allow her daughter to get to the point she felt the need to start a petition to blame others for her problems. Perhaps if she showed the same initiative to lose weight by eating right and excericising to become healthy we w....wait, nevermind that would require the same brain that would have stopped her from thinking if she starved herself she would look like a celebrity.