MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes  (Read 24598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: September 30, 2017, 14:06 »
+2
"And drug safety is a great example: how many had to die while waiting for FDA to approve some blood pressure drug, already available in Europe and elsewhere?" So are you saying there should be no Drug Regulation....or better Drug Regulation? I think most people agree there should be better laws

As I said, I never advocated for anarchy. We need laws.

But when someone desperately sick has to wait 10 years for a drug to be approved, only to eventually die before having the chance to try it, we have to admit that something is wrong with a law that was initially meant to protect us.

Like this Photoshop law, too many such laws are unnecessary, excessive and counterproductive. Too many voters are indoctrinated to believe that an abstract benevolent entity (i.e. "nanny state") is looking out for their safety and well being, better than themselves.

This is the fallacy I want to address through these maybe way too long explanations.

« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 14:21 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #151 on: September 30, 2017, 14:11 »
0
Thats more interesting territory although of course straying way off topic (The things I do to avoid key wording). One of my issues with UK membership is that EU bureaucrats can initiate legislation. In the UK that role is reserved for Parliament who theoretically at least represent the people. Yes there may be too much and poor legislation but that doesn't been all of it is bad.

« Reply #152 on: September 30, 2017, 14:19 »
0
Thats more interesting territory although of course straying way off topic (The things I do to avoid key wording). One of my issues with UK membership is that EU bureaucrats can initiate legislation. In the UK that role is reserved for Parliament who theoretically at least represent the people. Yes there may be too much and poor legislation but that doesn't been all of it is bad.

Sure! Agree.

And to stay on topic, after so many digressions, maybe we can also finally agree that this anti-Photoshop/skinny model law is one of the bad, unnecessary and counterproductive laws.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 14:22 by Zero Talent »

ShadySue

« Reply #153 on: September 30, 2017, 18:12 »
+1
You are making the assumption that all parents are loving...sadly that is not the case. If everyone were well informed and rational then your model works....it may be just my opinion but I don't think they are.
As a former teacher, I can very confidently say that not all parents are loving, and even of those who may be loving, not all make good decisions for themselves or for their children. I'll spare you the horrendous examples and just give an example of a pupil who was himself a father of a baby who loudly objected far and wide to a nutritionist suggesting he shouldn't put Irn-bru (the soft drink which often runs level with, or above, Coke in Scotland) in his baby's bottle instead of water.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 09:50 by ShadySue »

« Reply #154 on: October 01, 2017, 14:52 »
+1
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really dont understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I dont know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students arent that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasnt. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


Ive been told the rest of France doesnt necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. Its not like they dont know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.


« Reply #155 on: October 01, 2017, 16:22 »
+5
I am from Italy, which on this topic is much, much stricter than France (I have lived in France for about 12 years, so I know).
While leaving in Italy I always had a perfect silhouette, it is simply unthinkable there to be overweight: your friends would avoid you and your girl friends would laugh at you. Don't even think about it.
Now I have been leaving in England for about 16 years and I have put up a few kilos too many: who cares anyway, they are all obese here, I am still much thinner than most...
Recently I went on holiday in Italy and France and realised than I am not that popular anymore with my former friends, some of the good ones took me apart and told me: what is the matter with you? Why did you let yourself go, you used to be a legend around here.
Coming back to England I started going to the gym everyday and control again what I eat and drink and I keep losing weight.
Thank you Italy for once

Shelma1

« Reply #156 on: October 01, 2017, 16:30 »
0
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really dont understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I dont know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students arent that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasnt. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


Ive been told the rest of France doesnt necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. Its not like they dont know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Sometimes it takes more than talking about something to effect change. Obviously the French government felt that talking to fashion designers wasn't working, so they passed a law requiring models to have a healthier BMI...but if their images are then photoshopped to make it look as though they were just as skinny as before, it doesn't really change anything for all the other young women in the world who think that body is desirable and achievable.

I was skinny as a rail until my 40's and was approached to model for Elite Petites when in my early 20's (an agency for those of us under 5'8"). But I'd have to lose 10 pounds...even though I was already naturally underweight. You could see my ribs up to my clavicle and my hipbones could slice through a tin can, but I still was not thin enough to model for a minor agency. (I wasn't interested in modeling, so I didn't pursue it.)

That was 30 plus years ago, and the models are just getting thinner. It has to stop.


« Reply #157 on: October 01, 2017, 17:48 »
+1
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really dont understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I dont know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students arent that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasnt. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


Ive been told the rest of France doesnt necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. Its not like they dont know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Oh well... you persist in blaming the effect, instead the cause.

As per your logic, it's not the government of Venezuela starving its citizens with their failed laws and crumbling economic system, it's the greed of rich people, the evil foreign investors, etc.
Laws are good, people are bad!

Remove your horse blinders and look around. Getty would have never reacted like this in the absence of this stupid law.

Another clear example of an obtuse government hindering creativity.

Shelma1

« Reply #158 on: October 01, 2017, 17:53 »
0
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really dont understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I dont know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students arent that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasnt. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


Ive been told the rest of France doesnt necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. Its not like they dont know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Oh well... you persist in blaming the effect, instead the cause.

As per your logic, it's not the government of Venezuela starving its citizens with their failed laws and crumbling economic system, it's the greed of rich people, the evil foreign investors, etc.
Laws are good, people are bad!

Remove your horse blinders and look around. Getty would have never reacted like this in the absence of this stupid law.

Another clear example of an obtuse government hindering creativity.

As others have pointed out, Getty could have just added a line and a check mark to the model release.

Please don't drive dunk tonight, Mr. all laws are bad.

« Reply #159 on: October 01, 2017, 19:58 »
0
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really dont understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I dont know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students arent that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasnt. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


Ive been told the rest of France doesnt necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. Its not like they dont know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Oh well... you persist in blaming the effect, instead the cause.

As per your logic, it's not the government of Venezuela starving its citizens with their failed laws and crumbling economic system, it's the greed of rich people, the evil foreign investors, etc.
Laws are good, people are bad!

Remove your horse blinders and look around. Getty would have never reacted like this in the absence of this stupid law.

Another clear example of an obtuse government hindering creativity.

As others have pointed out, Getty could have just added a line and a check mark to the model release.

Please don't drive dunk tonight, Mr. all laws are bad.

I never said all laws are bad, as I stated on at least 3 occassion, so far.

This is you, being wrong again, because you make assumptions.

Your assumptions about who I am (when you didn't even read my statements, let alone be bothered to understand how I think), are as wrong your assumptions about the effects of this law.

If I'm not wrong, you live in the NY area.
If so, you must have been really pissed when that NY Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule was considered an excess of authority by the NY Court of Appeals.
Luckily for us, the American courts have a decent record in blocking such moronic laws.

So, please, don't drink too much coke, tonight! It is bad for your health, it drives obesity up, and there is no "nanny state" law to take care of you!  :P
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 21:10 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #160 on: October 01, 2017, 22:07 »
+1
I am from Italy, which on this topic is much, much stricter than France (I have lived in France for about 12 years, so I know).
While leaving in Italy I always had a perfect silhouette, it is simply unthinkable there to be overweight: your friends would avoid you and your girl friends would laugh at you. Don't even think about it.
Now I have been leaving in England for about 16 years and I have put up a few kilos too many: who cares anyway, they are all obese here, I am still much thinner than most...
Recently I went on holiday in Italy and France and realised than I am not that popular anymore with my former friends, some of the good ones took me apart and told me: what is the matter with you? Why did you let yourself go, you used to be a legend around here.
Coming back to England I started going to the gym everyday and control again what I eat and drink and I keep losing weight.
Thank you Italy for once

Yes, I remember my italian friends, I mean some of those girls they would literally live on 4 grapes, a bit of cheese, tons of coffee and lots of cigarettes. Didnt realise it was even worse than France, though.

I dont mind being nagged to a healthy weight, but to do it with cigarettes, coffee and genuine starvation, fainting often, looking weak and ill, i am sorry that is just not an alternative for me.

It is fascinating what you report how people start to avoid you, like you are constantly and loudly drunk, or have a terrible disease they might catch.

But it is mostly women on women, right?

How can they be happy and have self esteem if everything is judged only on their weight and their looks?

Being healthy, eating well, going to the gym and relaxing often is one thing.

But the people I met were unbelievably nervous, often seriously depressed and very insecure. And yet always asking their female friends to critize them. A bit like ballet, the "favorite" girl was always the one most heavily scolded by the teacher. If they critique you, they care, if they dont snipe at you, you are not worth their effort.

I really like France and French people, but I am glad I live in Germany, especially as a women it seems to be so much easier. Society expects you to work hard in your job but otherwise you can meet your friends in your pyjamas, enjoy eating large meals and relaxing in your hammock. At home you dont pretend. And you would never abandon your friends over their looks. If you do, it would be more than weird. Obviously friendships have their ups and downs, but I dont see weight issues being a problem. It would be like leaving someone because they changed their hair color, or preferred to wear jeans instead of skirts. Why would you do that?

French women seem to handle everything - their looks, the kids, the job, their family and their 5-7 affairs while looking perfectly slim, elegant and effortlessly floating on air. Literally super human. But home life was much stricter and more formal than what I am used to.

Its their country, but overall I am really not surprised that girls have low self esteem and serious body image issues.



« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 22:16 by cobalt »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #161 on: October 02, 2017, 02:53 »
+4
Quote
Yes, I remember my italian friends, I mean some of those girls they would literally live on 4 grapes, a bit of cheese, tons of coffee and lots of cigarettes. Didnt realise it was even worse than France, though.

I've lived in Italy for 3 years and have also spent a lot of time in France and can confirm that there's an irrational pressure on everybody to be slim, although it affects young girls (negatively) much more. In Milan, in particular, because it's a fashion centre, there's a lot of judging about the way you look/how you dress. I don't care much for all this and prefer to be a fly on the wall.

The good news is that the food in both these countries is generally balanced, inexpensive & fresh (more so in Italy imo), combined with a nice climate (compared to northern Europe), making it easier to be healthier. The climate is a huge factor since you spend more time of the year dressed in lighter clothes and your body is more exposed, in contrast with colder places.

This is interesting from an academic point of view. How beauty is viewed in different countries and why. Also, how standards of beauty change with time. I'm from Brazil and the women on there are generally curvy with big bums and muscular legs from doing squats. It's how that society views beauty and it's probably a healthier model to live by but like everything it's constantly changing. In Italy it's all about being super thin with long legs and no bum...not that attractive imo. 

I'll end this by stating the two following points:

1. Regulation is generally ineffective short-term solution to change society's views as it takes at least a generation. Although intentions by policymakers are noble, the cost / benefit ratio is skewed to too much cost and too little benefit in this case. The role of good parenting and well-rounded education system is paramount.

2. The obesity crisis is a considerably more harmful to public health than the anorexia / thin young women crisis and little has been said about this on here, which is unfortunate. In many western countries, the number of obese teenagers (or soon to be obese adults) far outweighs the number of underweight teenagers. This is a fact.

I would go longer and further with sources and evidence to fill some gaps, but would be far too long.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 03:02 by Brasilnut »

Shelma1

« Reply #162 on: October 02, 2017, 05:40 »
+3
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

It's possible to tackle both simultaneously. Saying one is worse so we should ignore the other is a false dichotomy. If you're concerned about obesity then do something about it, but don't tell others not to tackle the problem of models and young girls and women starving themselves.

It's much more important to save some people's lives and health than it is for a relatively small number of photographers to have to label some of their photos.

If you're angry with Getty for their reaction, I wonder why this, which will probably affect a small percentage of the photos taken by a very small percentage of their contributors, has you so much more upset than the million other nasty things they've done to screw us over.

After all, photographers can still shoot skinny people. They just can't "liquefy" them and submit to Getty.

« Reply #163 on: October 02, 2017, 06:34 »
+2
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

« Reply #164 on: October 02, 2017, 09:59 »
0
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 10:14 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #165 on: October 02, 2017, 10:38 »
0
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #166 on: October 02, 2017, 10:45 »
0
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!


« Reply #167 on: October 02, 2017, 10:56 »
0
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!
Good old Billy...

« Reply #168 on: October 02, 2017, 11:50 »
+2
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!
Good old Billy...

Beware of skinny people.

"Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."

« Reply #169 on: October 02, 2017, 13:16 »
0
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

Ha, Ha! What a great argument!
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end. But analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions.

Nevertheless, even without being gifted with this power, according to your logic, you must ask your "nanny state" tot issue laws regulating selling and advertising water, because you can really die from water intoxication. Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 13:27 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #170 on: October 02, 2017, 13:51 »
+1
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

Ha, Ha! What a great argument!
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end. But analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions.

Nevertheless, even without being gifted with this power, according to your logic, you must ask your "nanny state" tot issue laws regulating selling and advertising water, because you can really die from water intoxication. Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.

"analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions."

Says the genius who thinks alcoholism is created by drinking pure alcohol. And that consuming too much water is caused by it not containing alcohol.  ::)

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #171 on: October 02, 2017, 13:53 »
+1
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end.

You're not very good at these analogies are you?!

1. While the opposite of alcohol may be water (even though it isn't... see point 2), your analogy was on alcoholism. The opposite of alcoholism isn't water.

2. The opposite of 100% alcohol within a liquid, isn't necessarily water. It's just a liquid that doesn't contain any alcohol. Doesn't have to be water... could be lava. Obviously.   

« Reply #172 on: October 02, 2017, 14:08 »
0
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

Ha, Ha! What a great argument!
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end. But analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions.

Nevertheless, even without being gifted with this power, according to your logic, you must ask your "nanny state" tot issue laws regulating selling and advertising water, because you can really die from water intoxication. Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.

"analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions."

Says the genius who thinks alcoholism is created by drinking pure alcohol. And that consuming too much water is caused by it not containing alcohol.  ::)

Ok, take that, if you insist, since this was not the point. I admit alcoholism is not about drinking pure alcohol! Wow, how could I even think that?

Regardless of my "poor understanding"  :o of what alcoholism means and independent from the above paraphrase, to stay true to your logic, you still must ask your "nanny state" to issue laws regulating selling and advertising water.

You can really die from water intoxication. No metaphor, no paraphrase, no abstraction involved.

Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 14:14 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #173 on: October 02, 2017, 14:48 »
0
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

Ha, Ha! What a great argument!
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end. But analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions.

Nevertheless, even without being gifted with this power, according to your logic, you must ask your "nanny state" tot issue laws regulating selling and advertising water, because you can really die from water intoxication. Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.

"analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions."

Says the genius who thinks alcoholism is created by drinking pure alcohol. And that consuming too much water is caused by it not containing alcohol.  ::)

Ok, take that, if you insist, since this was not the point. I admit alcoholism is not about drinking pure alcohol! Wow, how could I even think that?

Regardless of my "poor understanding"  :o of what alcoholism means and independent from the above paraphrase, to stay true to your logic, you still must ask your "nanny state" to issue laws regulating selling and advertising water.

You can really die from water intoxication. No metaphor, no paraphrase, no abstraction involved.

Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.
I think if there were a major Public Health issue around people dying from water intoxication they would. I think in this never ending circle you did say some laws are necessary. Most people are pragmatic and don't take extreme examples and derive a manifestly absurd conclusion.

« Reply #174 on: October 02, 2017, 15:07 »
+1
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

Ha, Ha! What a great argument!
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end. But analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions.

Nevertheless, even without being gifted with this power, according to your logic, you must ask your "nanny state" tot issue laws regulating selling and advertising water, because you can really die from water intoxication. Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.

"analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions."

Says the genius who thinks alcoholism is created by drinking pure alcohol. And that consuming too much water is caused by it not containing alcohol.  ::)

Ok, take that, if you insist, since this was not the point. I admit alcoholism is not about drinking pure alcohol! Wow, how could I even think that?

Regardless of my "poor understanding"  :o of what alcoholism means and independent from the above paraphrase, to stay true to your logic, you still must ask your "nanny state" to issue laws regulating selling and advertising water.

You can really die from water intoxication. No metaphor, no paraphrase, no abstraction involved.

Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.
I think if there were a major Public Health issue around people dying from water intoxication they would. I think in this never ending circle you did say some laws are necessary. Most people are pragmatic and don't take extreme examples and derive a manifestly absurd conclusion.

True.

To follow your argument, I doubt there is a "major Public Health issue" for people looking at photoshoped models advertised without retouching disclaimers.

Yeah, too much "looking", might lead to death. We definitely have to regulate "looking".  :o

Therefore there is as much need for this anti-photoshop/skinny models law, as there is for laws aimed to regulate water intoxication, sunbathing, etc or other such innocent activities, which might lead to death, in case of abuse.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 15:18 by Zero Talent »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4126 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
4624 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 04:23
by FD
52 Replies
10482 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 18:40
by OM
2 Replies
1873 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
989 Replies
92434 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results