Lejuan
Super Freak
Re: Petition to ban airbushing images aimed at teens (UK)
That's the issue: teenagers do not have a developed, mature sense of self. Much of their identity is formulated in direct association with their peers. My greatest wish with respect to my child's education is not the quality of their class teacher or teachers - important as that is - but that the peer group with whom they associate is not a cluster if numbnuts.
Besides which, I have taught teenagers and I appreciate that some parents can't be entrusted with instilling in their children proper values because they themselves are idiots.
If any education on how to read advertising images is to be instilled in teenagers as a group, it can only reliably come from the formal education system.
Australia is a socially-progressive democracy with a representative system of government. Governance is predicated on a constitution that has as part of its regulatory framework an independent judiciary. So the checks and balances required for the successful passage of bills are pretty rigorous. If we did end up with people having to wear patches on their arms, the rot would have begun in the social sphere well before it was debated by the electorates representatives.
As far as the natural needs of a society goes, I think a great number of these needs are social constructs that tend to be fluid rather than concrete. The social needs of a couple hundred needs ago would have included a raft of needs that would appear either obsolete or abhorrent in the context of contemporary culture.
Well, most likely when people get fed up with it and demand a change - through their elected representatives. Australians live in a wholly different cultural context from Americans. 'Go West' to an American brings to mind hope, promise, aspirations fulfilled. When Australian pioneers did the same thing they died of thirst in the desert. We have a culture of reliance on our fellow citizens that naturally extends to a degree of socialism in our legislature.
I don't see it as sheltering young people. I see it as ensuring that they are bull____ted to as little as possible. I just can't see it as a bad idea that commercial interests are asked to represent what they are selling in a truthful way.
You're right - when your logic is applied to a level playing field. Doctored images presented as real doesn't present a level playing field with respect to a child's capacity to recognise it as fact or fiction. And unlike the burger and fries, they can't meet the model in the ad the same way they can directly experience the burger and fries for themselves.
It's all about context and the contract that exists between the creator of an image and the consumer of the image. An airbrushed model is fine if the context is one of fantasy - but when placed in a context that to a reasonable person is considered real life, this is a deceit which I believe needs to be disclosed so that a proper and informed opinion can be made about the inherent truth in that image.
That's the issue: teenagers do not have a developed, mature sense of self. Much of their identity is formulated in direct association with their peers. My greatest wish with respect to my child's education is not the quality of their class teacher or teachers - important as that is - but that the peer group with whom they associate is not a cluster if numbnuts.
Besides which, I have taught teenagers and I appreciate that some parents can't be entrusted with instilling in their children proper values because they themselves are idiots.
If any education on how to read advertising images is to be instilled in teenagers as a group, it can only reliably come from the formal education system.
Australia is a socially-progressive democracy with a representative system of government. Governance is predicated on a constitution that has as part of its regulatory framework an independent judiciary. So the checks and balances required for the successful passage of bills are pretty rigorous. If we did end up with people having to wear patches on their arms, the rot would have begun in the social sphere well before it was debated by the electorates representatives.
As far as the natural needs of a society goes, I think a great number of these needs are social constructs that tend to be fluid rather than concrete. The social needs of a couple hundred needs ago would have included a raft of needs that would appear either obsolete or abhorrent in the context of contemporary culture.
Well, most likely when people get fed up with it and demand a change - through their elected representatives. Australians live in a wholly different cultural context from Americans. 'Go West' to an American brings to mind hope, promise, aspirations fulfilled. When Australian pioneers did the same thing they died of thirst in the desert. We have a culture of reliance on our fellow citizens that naturally extends to a degree of socialism in our legislature.
I don't see it as sheltering young people. I see it as ensuring that they are bull____ted to as little as possible. I just can't see it as a bad idea that commercial interests are asked to represent what they are selling in a truthful way.
You're right - when your logic is applied to a level playing field. Doctored images presented as real doesn't present a level playing field with respect to a child's capacity to recognise it as fact or fiction. And unlike the burger and fries, they can't meet the model in the ad the same way they can directly experience the burger and fries for themselves.
It's all about context and the contract that exists between the creator of an image and the consumer of the image. An airbrushed model is fine if the context is one of fantasy - but when placed in a context that to a reasonable person is considered real life, this is a deceit which I believe needs to be disclosed so that a proper and informed opinion can be made about the inherent truth in that image.
