• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

France latest country to ban use of excessively thin models

Now that this whole "I am Charlie" think has blown over lets get back to banning some expression!
 
Now that this whole "I am Charlie" think has blown over lets get back to banning some expression!

Glorifying ill people is 'expression'?

Are you seriously going to argue banning pictures of thin people isn't banning expression?

If you wanted to ban being thin that might not be an expression issue, but certainly banning pictures is.
 
Glorifying ill people is 'expression'?

Are you seriously going to argue banning pictures of thin people isn't banning expression?

If you wanted to ban being thin that might not be an expression issue, but certainly banning pictures is.

From my understanding, it's not the photos that are banned - you can take all the photos of thin people you want. It is hiring them for employment or as a contractor to work as a model that is banned.

Do you believe that a ban on paid bum fights is a ban on freedom of expression? I'm obviously not saying that the two situations are equivalent, but I'm trying to determine they way you classify things.
 
Yes, its too bad those kids don't have decent parents and have to rely on pop culture to raise them.

Yes, because decent parents hide clothing magazines from kids and don't let them watch ANY TV.
I know you meant it sarcastically but that's exactly correct. If you let media conglomerates whose sole purpose it to manipulate people into consumers be the major influence on your children then yes you're not a decent parent.
 
I
Are you seriously going to argue banning pictures of thin people isn't banning expression?

If you wanted to ban being thin that might not be an expression issue, but certainly banning pictures is.



From my understanding, it's not the photos that are banned - you can take all the photos of thin people you want. It is hiring them for employment or as a contractor to work as a model that is banned.

Do you believe that a ban on paid bum fights is a ban on freedom of expression? I'm obviously not saying that the two situations are equivalent, but I'm trying to determine they way you classify things.

He gives the game away when he says the problem is creating pictures "glorifying" something. The problem is the content or the idea. This is not banning fights but banning pictures of fights because you don't like the glorification of fights -- while fights themselves are legal.

This is the banning of the expression of ideas.
 
Did these people become anorexic because they were models, or did they become models because they had anorexia, and hence also had the sort of body structure modelling agencies wanted? If the latter, then a ban on very thin models wouldn't necessarily have had any affect on whether they died - it would just have meant that they would have been among the hundreds who die of anorexia without being relatively famous.
 
Did these people become anorexic because they were models, or did they become models because they had anorexia, and hence also had the sort of body structure modelling agencies wanted? If the latter, then a ban on very thin models wouldn't necessarily have had any affect on whether they died - it would just have meant that they would have been among the hundreds who die of anorexia without being relatively famous.

Probably a bit of both - they had eating disorders or were prone to it before becoming a model, but the pressures of modeling and staying ultra thin plausibly fueled the anorexia and dissuaded them from treatment.
 
Yes, because decent parents hide clothing magazines from kids and don't let them watch ANY TV.
I know you meant it sarcastically but that's exactly correct. If you let media conglomerates whose sole purpose it to manipulate people into consumers be the major influence on your children then yes you're not a decent parent.

"ANY" was the operative word.

Major influence? Sometimes it only takes a single comment to influence a child. You can be the best parent in the world, but your child will not be influenced by ONLY your worldview. In fact, I think last time I read, it was around high school that friends start being a bigger influence on kids than parents.

So according to your argument, unless you're ready to chain your kids in the basement and not let ANYthing influence them at ANY time, you suck as a parent.

- - - Updated - - -

Glorifying ill people is 'expression'?

Are you seriously going to argue banning pictures of thin people isn't banning expression?

If you wanted to ban being thin that might not be an expression issue, but certainly banning pictures is.

Thin people? No. People forced into anorexia to keep a job, yes.
 
Did these people become anorexic because they were models, or did they become models because they had anorexia, and hence also had the sort of body structure modelling agencies wanted? If the latter, then a ban on very thin models wouldn't necessarily have had any affect on whether they died - it would just have meant that they would have been among the hundreds who die of anorexia without being relatively famous.

People who are most prone to anorexia are perfectionists and feel insecure and people who look to authority figures and try to please them, things like that. It's in the literature.

Not all of the become anorexics because not all of them become involved in an industry that focuses on those self-same insecurities.
 
Sometimes it only takes a single comment to influence a child.
An unsupported assertion. People's behavior is influenced from their lifetime of interactions. Major events might change someone dramatically but a single comment won't undue proper upbringing.
In fact, I think last time I read, it was around high school that friends start being a bigger influence on kids than parents.
This is true but a good parent will enforce beneficial behaviors and not let their children dictate lifestyle choices. And part of being a good parent is providing children with enough incentives and activities to develop properly. Neglectful parents that have allowed media to frame their children's habits have long since dropped the ball on influencing their kids. Proper parenting has to start when their toddlers.
So according to your argument, unless you're ready to chain your kids in the basement and not let ANYthing influence them at ANY time, you suck as a parent.
That's not my argument at all just a silly strawman characterization of it. Severely limiting if not outright banning TV and unhealthy magazines is not equivalent to chaining someone in the basement.
 
I
Thin people? No. People forced into anorexia to keep a job, yes.

I am ok with laws against forcing people to become anorexic or forcing people to become models. I somehow doubt any of these women were forced to do either.
 
Sometimes it only takes a single comment to influence a child.

An unsupported assertion. People's behavior is influenced from their lifetime of interactions. Major events might change someone dramatically but a single comment won't undue proper upbringing.

From today's Yahoo News
"...first memory of body insecurity goes back to age 3 and a casual comment from her dad..."
https://www.yahoo.com/health/heres-your-daily-dose-of-inspiration-courtesy-of-115070054212.html

- - - Updated - - -

I
Thin people? No. People forced into anorexia to keep a job, yes.

I am ok with laws against forcing people to become anorexic or forcing people to become models. I somehow doubt any of these women were forced to do either.

If they wanted to keep their jobs they were.
 
From today's Yahoo News
"...first memory of body insecurity goes back to age 3 and a casual comment from her dad..."
https://www.yahoo.com/health/heres-your-daily-dose-of-inspiration-courtesy-of-115070054212.html

- - - Updated - - -

I
Thin people? No. People forced into anorexia to keep a job, yes.

I am ok with laws against forcing people to become anorexic or forcing people to become models. I somehow doubt any of these women were forced to do either.

If they wanted to keep their jobs they were.

So you agree no one was forcing anyone to do anything?

I understand many people lead happy productive lives without ever working as models.
 
From today's Yahoo News
"...first memory of body insecurity goes back to age 3 and a casual comment from her dad..."
https://www.yahoo.com/health/heres-your-daily-dose-of-inspiration-courtesy-of-115070054212.html

- - - Updated - - -

I
Thin people? No. People forced into anorexia to keep a job, yes.

I am ok with laws against forcing people to become anorexic or forcing people to become models. I somehow doubt any of these women were forced to do either.

If they wanted to keep their jobs they were.

So you agree no one was forcing anyone to do anything?

So you agree a single statement can influence children?

If modeling is their only vocation and they're thin enough, the agency forcing them to lose even more weight so that's it's unhealthy to keep their jobs shouldn't be allowed.
 
From today's Yahoo News
"...first memory of body insecurity goes back to age 3 and a casual comment from her dad..."
https://www.yahoo.com/health/heres-your-daily-dose-of-inspiration-courtesy-of-115070054212.html

- - - Updated - - -

I
Thin people? No. People forced into anorexia to keep a job, yes.

I am ok with laws against forcing people to become anorexic or forcing people to become models. I somehow doubt any of these women were forced to do either.

If they wanted to keep their jobs they were.

So you agree no one was forcing anyone to do anything?

So you agree a single statement can influence children?

If modeling is their only vocation and they're thin enough, the agency forcing them to lose even more weight so that's it's unhealthy to keep their jobs shouldn't be allowed.

1) What affects children is not relevant to my arguments. I do not accept that we should stifle free expression based on what may or may not affect children.
2) Modeling is no one's "only vocation". No one is entitled to earn a living as a model.
 
2) Modeling is no one's "only vocation". No one is entitled to earn a living as a model.

Isn't that like saying, "Hey, you've been an accountant all your life and in order to keep your job, you now have to work 365 days a year and if you don't...well, you're not entitled to earn a living as an accountant."
 
2) Modeling is no one's "only vocation". No one is entitled to earn a living as a model.

Isn't that like saying, "Hey, you've been an accountant all your life and in order to keep your job, you now have to work 365 days a year and if you don't...well, you're not entitled to earn a living as an accountant."

- - - Updated - - -

So you agree a single statement can influence children?

If modeling is their only vocation and they're thin enough, the agency forcing them to lose even more weight so that's it's unhealthy to keep their jobs shouldn't be allowed.

1) What affects children is not relevant to my arguments. I do not accept that we should stifle free expression based on what may or may not affect children.
2) Modeling is no one's "only vocation". No one is entitled to earn a living as a model.

No, but you said I made baseless claim. I just proved you wrong.
 
2) Modeling is no one's "only vocation". No one is entitled to earn a living as a model.

Isn't that like saying, "Hey, you've been an accountant all your life and in order to keep your job, you now have to work 365 days a year and if you don't...well, you're not entitled to earn a living as an accountant."

No, it's not. Model is not a job that I just decide I want to be and the money flows in for the rest of my life. Models are in demand because they look a certain way. If you can't make a living as a model based on the way you look that puts you in company with pretty much 99.99% of people in the world.

You are not entitled to work as an accountant or a model if no one wants to hire you because they don't think you are a fit for the job.
 
Back
Top Bottom