Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I have heard aboot such movements in Judging Amy.

Pretty sick..but well if they think that's a good idea, why should I tell them it isn't. (I know that those are probably mentally very unstable people, but to forbid them to make websites and visit them is pretty fascist)

Because it factually isn't a good idea. It's dangerous and to encourage it to impressionable young girls who may stumble upon their horseshit website is even more dangerous.

That is true, but personally I'd rather allow free speech in this instance than worry about someone seeing a website and then actively pursuing a clearly bad lifestyle choice. Weird idea though.

Something like this could do a lot of damage to someone who is recovering from anorexia, though...I can't say I've ever heard of this before, but it's pretty messed up.

I heard of these websites, along with the ones which help and encourage people to commit suicide. They give them means and ways, plan the suicide notes and the like...

I have visited few journals of the girls who are persuing this, and i can also say that I was rather disturbed.

They also keep a list of how much weight they have lost and how much they are hoping to lose and frankly its scary.

It is very dangerous - today's youth does not need a lot of encouragment to do something stupid. Self-hate potrayed in beauty magazines may not be blatant, but its certainly there.

Keep in mind the people/companies that own the web servers have every right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their business. They don't want something like this, which would cause a large amount of negative press and negative reactions by the general public to be located on their private servers and related to their company. It's not like the government is shutting the websites down or anything.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind the people/companies that own the web servers have every right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their business. They don't want something like this, which would cause a large amount of negative press and negative reactions by the general public to be located on their private servers and related to their company. It's not like the government is shutting the websites down or anything.

Precisely - the people who own the servers themselves can remove whatever they want at their own discretion. When you sign up for hosting, whether or paid or free, you have to agree to their terms and if you don't and they find it, your site is gone.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind the people/companies that own the web servers have every right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their business. They don't want something like this, which would cause a large amount of negative press and negative reactions by the general public to be located on their private servers and related to their company. It's not like the government is shutting the websites down or anything.

It would only move to blogs anyway.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind the people/companies that own the web servers have every right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their business. They don't want something like this, which would cause a large amount of negative press and negative reactions by the general public to be located on their private servers and related to their company. It's not like the government is shutting the websites down or anything.
Well and that is totally fair. But I think the government shouldn't tell them what to say.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It would only move to blogs anyway.

Which are still hosted on webservers which are subject to the rules and the people who own those servers can still remove them at their discretion.

They aren't.

Originally posted by Lana
Which are still hosted on webservers which are subject to the rules and the people who own those servers can still remove them at their discretion.

Indeed...I'm not really sure where we are all going with this point anyway.

Originally posted by BackFire
They aren't.
and they shouldn't

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Indeed...I'm not really sure where we are all going with this point anyway.

Hell if I know.

The only way sites like this can stay up is if the people who own the buy and run their own servers....which is expensive as hell.

What are people's views on the censorship of a personal blog detailing someone's own anorexia in a non-negative way?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What are people's views on the censorship of a personal blog detailing someone's own anorexia in a non-negative way?

Again, it's the right of the owner of the website that hosts the blog to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their site. If they think it's glorifying it to the point of danger then I think it's fine if they remove it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, it's the right of the owner of the website that hosts the blog to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their site. If they think it's glorifying it to the point of danger then I think it's fine if they remove it.

Obviously...if they don't it is too.

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, it's the right of the owner of the website that hosts the blog to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their site. If they think it's glorifying it to the point of danger then I think it's fine if they remove it.

Well, we are going to have a tough time completely protecting the people that would emulate an anorexic because her (or his) blog said it was a good thing to do.

Yes, but the company in ownership is still helping matters by taking such an idiotic notion off of their blog page.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, but the company in ownership is still helping matters by taking such an idiotic notion off of their blog page.

Score one for idiots who copy blogs; minus one for free speech.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Score one for idiots who copy blogs; minus one for free speech.

Though it again goes to the right of those who own the servers to decide what can and can't go on them. Webservers are privately owned, not public domain. My hosting service states that illegal files aren't allowed, and were I to upload some to my space and they be found, then they'd have the right to terminate my service and not even have to give warning or refund.

It really has nothing to do with free speech. If they were to purchase and manage their own server and THAT got shut down - then it would. But so long as you use other people's servers for that....it's their decision, not yours.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind the people/companies that own the web servers have every right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their business. They don't want something like this, which would cause a large amount of negative press and negative reactions by the general public to be located on their private servers and related to their company. It's not like the government is shutting the websites down or anything.

That's not as clear cut as it seems- if they unreasonably ask for material to be removed they are in breach of contract from their side. It's not totally discretionary when they are taking your money. If a hosting company decided to remove a lesbian website, for example, it would get caned pretty hard.

I think we might find this will become a big grey area as time goes on.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It's not the government deciding, it's a privately owned company deciding what they want to be connected with.

Also, it's more then idiots that may be effected, as I said, many young, impressionable girls who think poorly of themselves may find this and think that the "bloggist" (is that even a word?) may have a good idea and copy it.

Originally posted by Lana
Though it again goes to the right of those who own the servers to decide what can and can't go on them. Webservers are privately owned, not public domain. My hosting service states that illegal files aren't allowed, and were I to upload some to my space and they be found, then they'd have the right to terminate my service and not even have to give warning or refund.

See Ush's reply regarding the legal aspect. You cannot unreasonably terminate a site- but in any case, I'm not really talking about whether or not someone is able to close a site; it's whether or not they should.

Originally posted by Lana

It really has nothing to do with free speech. If they were to purchase and manage their own server and THAT got shut down - then it would. But so long as you use other people's servers for that....it's their decision, not yours.

I don't really follow the logic- it's always someone else's decision to circumvent free speech.

Originally posted by Lana
Though it again goes to the right of those who own the servers to decide what can and can't go on them. Webservers are privately owned, not public domain. My hosting service states that illegal files aren't allowed, and were I to upload some to my space and they be found, then they'd have the right to terminate my service and not even have to give warning or refund.

It really has nothing to do with free speech. If they were to purchase and manage their own server and THAT got shut down - then it would. But so long as you use other people's servers for that....it's their decision, not yours.
But Ush's got a point.
If you have a contract with them only aboot illegal pics and contend then they can't just shut down your page cause they want. And Pro- Anorexic is not illegal to my knowledge.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's not as clear cut as it seems- if they unreasonably ask for material to be removed they are in breach of contract from their side. It's not totally discretionary when they are taking your money. If a hosting company decided to remove a lesbian website, for example, it would get caned pretty hard.

I think we might find this will become a big grey area as time goes on.

It would basically depend on the websites "terms and conditions". They probably say that they hold the right to delete anything they don't deem as appropriate blah blah blah. In which case, it's entirely within their jurisdiction to remove something that promotes a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle to an audience that may consist of many young girls who are looking to become more attractive.

If the website doesn't make it clear that they hold that right, then they may be in trouble if they try to delete something like this.

Nah, a legal challenge to 'what they deem inappropriate' would be easy in a lot of circumstances. You pay for a service, no matter what you sign you have rights. They can't terminate it just because they don't like what you write.

Originally posted by BackFire
It has nothing to do with free speech. It's not the government deciding, it's a privately owned company deciding what they want to be connected with.

That's irrelevant though. If the net is entirely owned by private companies, and they all ban certain things, then there is a factual circumvention of the subjects which are able to be discussed.

Of course they may have the right to do so; that's neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, a legal challenge to 'what they deem inappropriate' would be easy in a lot of circumstances. You pay for a service, no matter what you sign you have rights. They can't terminate it just because they don't like what you write.

It would be simple in most circumstances; very simple in these ones.

Unless there is something illegal going on, censorship isn't a good route to travel when a contract is at stake.

Well the reasoning for deleting such sites would surely be more then "we just don't like it". It's promoting a dangerous lifestyle that is alluring for many naive young girls.

(in reference to VVD)

Oh, I dunno- I reckon the web hosters can currently make an argument that these sites are inciting others to do harm, and that would come under their terms and conditions.

I was just saying it's not a universal get out.

On a personal note though... I don't think censorship is a good way to handle this issue. I think the people pulling the sites are just panicking.

No-one is gaining personally from these sites. They are not flogging drugs or encouraging crime. They are skewed, certainly, but they are a genuine expression of a very complicated psychological area. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending it is not there... I think it will cause more harm than good.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I heard of these websites, along with the ones which help and encourage people to commit suicide. They give them means and ways, plan the suicide notes and the like...


If you sift in this forum, you will find a thread i had opened. Last I saw it had the odd 1 reply.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well the reasoning for deleting such sites would surely be more then "we just don't like it". It's promoting a dangerous lifestyle that is alluring for many naive young girls.

As do alcohol and tobacco companies.

Anyway to return to what I actually said, someone writing their own blog about their own anorexia, without actually describing it as a bad thing. Is that fair game for censorship?

Well, it all depends on what their TOS exactly says. For example, mine says this (it's just a part, but it's the relevant bit):



Anything they deem to be racist, obscene, violent, or malicious they can request removed, and remove themselves if the request isn't complied with.

And honestly, I would think that losing that one contract wouldn't be so much a concern as the fact that people who find such a site offensive and use the same hosting service may not want to be associated with it and might cancel their contracts. And yes, that does happen.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
As do alcohol and tobacco companies.

Anyway to return to what I actually said, someone writing their own blog about their own anorexia, without actually describing it as a bad thing. Is that fair game for censorship?

That, no, I wouldn't think.

Though really, the average blog is read by only a handful of people....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
(in reference to VVD)

Oh, I dunno- I reckon the web hosters can currently make an argument that these sites are inciting others to do harm, and that would come under their terms and conditions.

Sure, they could. I was simply referring to the presence of a case in terms of breach. However in the case I posited, it wasn't a matter of incitement; more a case of not condemning anorexia.


Originally posted by Ushgarak

On a personal note though... I don't think censorship is a good way to handle this issue. I think the people pulling the sites are just panicking.

No-one is gaining personally from these sites. They are not flogging drugs or encouraging crime. They are skewed, certainly, but they are a genuine expression of a very complicated psychological area. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending it is not there... I think it will cause more harm than good.

Certainly.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
As do alcohol and tobacco companies.

Anyway to return to what I actually said, someone writing their own blog about their own anorexia, without actually describing it as a bad thing. Is that fair game for censorship?

Probably not. It depends on how they're portraying the act. If they're saying "I got AIDS today, it's not as bad as people say really, oh well, I'm fine". That isn't grounds for reasonably censoring something, because they're not actually promoting something dangerous as a positive. It's not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not showing it falsely as a good thing.

Though if that person said "I got AIDS today and it's awesome! I love it. You should all do the same thing because..." then I could see a company reasonably deleting that because it is promoting something extremely dangerous and unhealthy as a positive that others should attempt to achieve.

Originally posted by BackFire
That isn't grounds for reasonably censoring something, because they're not actually promoting something dangerous as a positive. It's not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not showing it falsely as a good thing.

it is promoting something extremely dangerous and unhealthy as a positive that others should attempt to achieve.

What about fat people saying how much they love to eat?

Doubtful that that would be censored. The dangers of anorexia are more immediate than overeating.

But again, it's probably more about promoting something then just saying "you like it". As in trying to convince others that they should do the same harmful act you are doing.

Originally posted by BackFire
Doubtful that that would be censored. The dangers of anorexia are more immediate than overeating.

Without treatment, up to twenty percent (20%) of people with serious eating disorders die. With treatment, that number falls to two to three percent (2-3%).


Being overweight or obese increases the risk of many diseases and health conditions, including the following:

Hypertension
Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
Type 2 diabetes
Coronary heart disease
Stroke
Gallbladder disease
Osteoarthritis
Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
Some cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)

Censorship regarding 'harm' can turn into a minefield once you start.


Originally posted by BackFire

But again, it's probably more about promoting something then just saying "you like it". As in trying to convince others that they should do the same harmful act you are doing.

People do encourage over-eating though; advertisements do it all the time. In fact, they also perpetuate the myth of the desirable skinny body.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'd say Shut them down. They're not providing any informational material for anorexia. What's next? Pro-suicide sites? This is nothing but false propaganda and as we all know there is a sucker born every minute.
I find pro-suicide sites less pointless than pro-anorexic, but I don't think it is good to cut on Freedom of Speech.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom


Without treatment, up to twenty percent (20%) of people with serious eating disorders die.
Let me go even further, I'd say at least 100% of people with eating disorders die.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I find pro-suicide sites less pointless than pro-anorexic, but I don't think it is good to cut on Freedom of Speech.

Wait a minute....come to think of it...this IS a pro-suicide site. They're supporting unhealthy eating habits. Which could lead to death. No Freedom of speech here....this should be illegal.

Yeah, I didn't say that the dangers were worse, I said that they were more immediate. Someone who starves themself will **** up their body much faster then someone who eats too much. The results will happen much sooner. That's what I meant.

Also, the fact is, the audience who would listen to someone promoting anorexia is much larger then the audience that would sincerely believe the person promoting overeating. At this point in time, there are many young girls, who are incredibly self concious about their bodies, all the magazines that show perfect bodies, gorgeous thin women, it leads them to believe that that's how they must look in order to be attractive. They become desperate to lose weight. These are the people who may stumble upon these promotional websites for anorexia, and fall for their lies because they want to be skinny, and want to believe that this will work for them. Where as hardly anyone WANTS to be fat.

Advertisements don't encourage over-eating. They encourage eating their product, which generally is BAD eating. They don't say "Hey, go eat 6 meals today. Show me a commercial that promotes specifically over eating and I'll retract this statement.

However, I don't disagree with your point, VVD. If one danger is allowed to be censored, then they all should be. Another big attribute is what's socially acceptable. There are lot's of fat people in the world these days. So it's become "okay" to be fat.

I'd say, that if someone who was obese, like morbidly obese, was promoting their lifestyle to others while ignoring the obvious and factual dangers of said lifestyle, then I'd be just as understanding towards a server company if they shut them down as I am towards those companies that shut down anorexia promotional sites.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Wait a minute....come to think of it...this IS a pro-suicide site. They're supporting unhealthy eating habits. Which could lead to death. No Freedom of speech here....this should be illegal.

Well it is not the same...and why should pro-suicide sites be prohibited anyways?

Like your avi by the way, that's from the Dwarves Army Book right?

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah, I didn't say that the dangers were worse, I said that they were more immediate. Someone who starves themself will **** up their body much faster then someone who eats too much. The results will happen much sooner. That's what I meant.

Indeed, but once you start talking about censoring for causing harm, as I'm sure you are aware, people will start censoring for any old shit.

Originally posted by BackFire

At this point in time, there are many young girls, who are incredibly self concious about their bodies, all the magazines that show perfect bodies, gorgeous thin women, it leads them to believe that that's how they must look in order to be attractive. They become desperate to lose weight. These are the people who may stumble upon these promotional websites for anorexia, and fall for their lies because they want to be skinny, and want to believe that this will work for them. Where as hardly anyone WANTS to be fat.

Nobody wants to be too skinny though, it just becomes that way.

As you said above, the media perpetuates the myth- then we are going to censor the people that suffer from the problem, rather than the causes? Seems a little unfair to me.

Originally posted by BackFire


Advertisements don't encourage over-eating. They encourage eating their product, which generally is BAD eating. They don't say "Hey, go eat 6 meals today. Show me a commercial that promotes specifically over eating and I'll retract this statement.

Well let's not get into the semantics of 'over-eating'. If bad food is advertised, then that's promoting harm.

How far do we go with this?

I think these sites are a bit too influencing for teenage girls. The 100 lb girls are always blabbering about how they always think they're fat, that's all I ever hear.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
I think these sites are a bit too influencing for teenage girls. The 100 lb girls are always blabbering about how they always think they're fat, that's all I ever hear.

Are you a teenage girl?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Are you a teenage girl?
I am. But I do not complain about how I think I am fat. I am a healthy 120 lb 5'7 girl.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
I am. But I do not complain about how I think I am fat. I am a healthy 120 lb 5'7 girl.

Then shall we not patronise teenage girls in general, and worry more about those who will do something stupid because of a blog they read?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Then shall we not patronise teenage girls in general, and worry more about those who will do something stupid because of a blog they read?
How am I patronising? I see no problem with coming on here and stating my own opinion on an eating disorder such as anorexia. It's a very serious thing that affects millions of people, generally women and teenage girls.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it is not the same...and why should pro-suicide sites be prohibited anyways?

In many jurisdictions it is a crime to assist others, directly or indirectly. Thus they're breaking the law.




Thanks Bardock!

Yup! is from the old Dwarves armies book cover.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
How am I patronising?

Would you start under-eating because of one of these sites?

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever

I see no problem with coming on here and stating my own opinion on an eating disorder such as anorexia.

Nor I. In fact, that's my whole point, isn't it?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Would you start under-eating because of one of these sites?



Nor I. In fact, that's my whole point, isn't it?
No I would not. I love food too much.
Well you told me to worry about myself instead of someone elses blog..or something or other.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
How am I patronising? I see no problem with coming on here and stating my own opinion on an eating disorder such as anorexia. It's a very serious thing that affects millions of people, generally women and teenage girls.

Why should they be banned? You're acting as though they force whoever views them into anorexia.

As pointed out, you are a teenage girl without anorexia who knows that these sites exist and I dare say you've visited some of them out of curiousity, so you are living proof that if you don't want to be anorexic, you won't be. You saw those sites and didn't come away wanting to be dangerously skinny did you? No.

All it takes is sense to prevent being "influenced" by these anorexia sites and we shouldn't be catering for those with none. Before you or anyone retorts with "Don't be so heartless", think about it. If someone wants to do something dumb, they're dumb. If you think dumb idiots deserve help, welllll guesssss what?

Would you go out of your way to attempt to help someone who willingly walked on an electrified train track? The answer should be no, because it's a dumb action and if you do it then you are dumb and deserve everything you get.

-AC

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever

Well you told me to worry about myself instead of someone elses blog..or something or other.

I actually said 'we', not 'you'.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why should they be banned? You're acting as though they force whoever views them into anorexia.

As pointed out, you are a teenage girl without anorexia who knows that these sites exist and I dare say you've visited some of them out of curiousity, so you are living proof that if you don't want to be anorexic, you won't be. You saw those sites and didn't come away wanting to be dangerously skinny did you? No.

All it takes is sense to prevent being "influenced" by these anorexia sites and we shouldn't be catering for those with none. Before you or anyone retorts with "Don't be so heartless", think about it. If someone wants to do something dumb, they're dumb. If you think dumb idiots deserve help, welllll guesssss what?

Would you go out of your way to attempt to help someone who willingly walked on an electrified train track? The answer should be no, because it's a dumb action and if you do it then you are dumb and deserve everything you get.

-AC
Yeah, I wont deny it, I've viewed some sites on eating disorders. But as far as helping, I mean there ARE people that take up professions and some of them are mainly for Eating Disorder purposes, like counseling, stuff like that. So I guess obviously they want to be the ones to help the girls that have the EDs.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I actually said 'we', not 'you'.
Okay, okay.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
Yeah, I wont deny it, I've viewed some sites on eating disorders. But as far as helping, I mean there ARE people that take up professions and some of them are mainly for Eating Disorder purposes, like counseling, stuff like that. So I guess obviously they want to be the ones to help the girls that have the EDs.

Not the point.

The point is not catering for idiots who will commit idiotic acts for the self-satisfaction of "Oh they need help".

If there's a CD out there saying "Kill your mother", do you ban the CD? No. Why? Because if someone is dumb enough to do it, think about the mentality.

-AC

That's indirectly the point, I think.

If you're going to start judging harm by the criterion of harm to someone who is that easily influenced, you're on a very slippery slope.

Seeing skinny girls in the media- potential trigger. Fat girls? Potential trigger. Workout dvds?

If it is people harmed in that manner you're catering for, it's going to be a very big payout.

This is quite possibly one of the most disgusting and disturbing things I've ever seen. You guys remember that Mad Magazine thing a little while ago? Lean Girls, I think it was called. A parody of Mean Girls starring Lindsey Lohan, Hilary Duff, Nicole Richie, and Jessica Simpson "Unsatisfied with their image of full bodied, healthy young women and trading that for lanky, boney frames. They probably think they look drop-dead gorgeous, when they really look like they're about to drop dead." I agree. But, JESUS! Who the hell would promote this kind of thing?! It's absolutly revolting to think that impressionable girls are buying into "bulimea puts the B in Beautiful." Sick...

this thread is the fist time i have ever heard of such a thing existing. personally i think they should be banned because although it may be restricting personal freedoms, it puts into danger those who are unaware of the consequences of such a condition as anorexia

Originally posted by Mr. Bacon
this thread is the fist time i have ever heard of such a thing existing. personally i think they should be banned because although it may be restricting personal freedoms, it puts into danger those who are unaware of the consequences of such a condition as anorexia

So we should restrict personal freedom because some idiots out there are dumb enough or uninformed enough to try it?

Should we go ahead and ban Steve Irwin's Crocodile Hunter shows incase someone thinks it's ok to dangle meat infront of giant reptiles?

-AC

These sites should be banned and the webmasters charged with endangering life. Anorexics are vunerable, and instead of getting well, they are having their heads filled with filth, they are brainwashed into believing they are fat, and that they need to lose weight. These sick people do not help them, they make the problem worse.

Free speech my arse. Everyone has the right to free speech, but when that free speech offends anyone, or has the potential to endanger someones life, it is no longer free speech.

...And Jesus said, "Forgive them Father, for they know not that they are stupid idiots."

Or something.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

So we should restrict personal freedom because some idiots out there are dumb enough or uninformed enough to try it?

By 'idiots' I hope you don't mean anorexics. Personal freedom should be restricted, these people encourage anorexics to starve themselves. An anorexic can't recover with these people telling them to lose more weight, that skinny is 'sexy' etc.

People have far too much freedom of speech as it is, we say whatever we like nowadays, and no one cares if it causes offence.

With 'Freedom of Speech', I should be able to say that I wish I could kill the President. If I said that, I wouldn't get away with it. What happened to my free speech?

If I were racist, isn't it my right to call a black person the 'N' word, without having to be dragged into court? Where's my personal freedom of speech? I don't have it, but these sick people who run these websites do.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Should we go ahead and ban Steve Irwin's Crocodile Hunter shows incase someone thinks it's ok to dangle meat infront of giant reptiles?

-AC

Personally I'd like to see Steve Irwin's shows banned just because they are quite irritating. That, and it's a shame he is one of Australia's cultural mascots. CRIKEY! (Sorry to anybody who likes him, tell him hi from me next time you visit his zoo)

And it's a sad world were there are people who get taken in by sites like this, or any other site, book, magazine that advocates a lifestyle that is quite harmful and potentially lethal. However, I question whether banning them will solve or at least limit the problem. Recently on the current affairs programs here they looked at this issue, and they indicated that many people who utilise such sites are those already in the anorexia spiral, or those prone to it, actively seeking it out. As in those actively seeking out advice in order to be better anorexics and seeking advice from others who are harming themselves from it about getting started

Now, removing the sites, as unpleasant as they are, wouldn't inherently affect anorexia statistics then. However, perhaps there should be some sort of law governing such subversive things. Perhaps, if in the interests of free speech and personal freedom they can't be banned (I disagree with what you say entirely, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it? Great quote, though not sure if I always agree with it) but maybe they should be made to have warnings displayed, something saying "Doctors consider what we're advising both incredibly dangerous and incredibly silly, and we have no proof skeletal is more attractive, in fact many experts view it as an illness. If you'd like to save your life and health please call 1800 NO ANOREXIA" - similar to warnings placed upon packs of cigarettes and the like. And maybe like the tobacco warnings a list of things that can happen if you follow this path - fatigue, weakeness, nausia etc etc etc kidney failure, brittle bones etc etc etc death.

Originally posted by Makedde
By 'idiots' I hope you don't mean anorexics. Personal freedom should be restricted, these people encourage anorexics to starve themselves.

Guess what? Anorexics already starve themselves. Kind of comes in with the package.

Originally posted by Makedde

With 'Freedom of Speech', I should be able to say that I wish I could kill the President. If I said that, I wouldn't get away with it. What happened to my free speech?

Slight difference between actively threatening the life of the country's leader, and telling people that it's good being very skinny, isn't there?

Originally posted by Makedde

If I were racist, isn't it my right to call a black person the 'N' word, without having to be dragged into court? Where's my personal freedom of speech?

Slight difference between racial assault, and telling people that it's good being very skinny, isn't there?

Samura, I get the general impression we agree. So I see no reason to enter another impasse with you.

Originally posted by Makedde
By 'idiots' I hope you don't mean anorexics. Personal freedom should be restricted, these people encourage anorexics to starve themselves. An anorexic can't recover with these people telling them to lose more weight, that skinny is 'sexy' etc.

People have far too much freedom of speech as it is, we say whatever we like nowadays, and no one cares if it causes offence.

With 'Freedom of Speech', I should be able to say that I wish I could kill the President. If I said that, I wouldn't get away with it. What happened to my free speech?

If I were racist, isn't it my right to call a black person the 'N' word, without having to be dragged into court? Where's my personal freedom of speech? I don't have it, but these sick people who run these websites do.

Hahahahaha.

"People have far too much freedom of speech as it is, we say whatever we like nowadays, and no one cares if it causes offence."

It's actually depressing, first off, that you think this is a bad thing.

Secondly, there is no debate. I refuse to have my freedom restricted just because an idiot chooses to act with idiocy and dangerous consequences happen upon them.

If someone watched Silence of the Lambs and decided murdering for cannibalism was good, I don't see why I should be stopped from watching it, or anyone else for that matter, just because some idiot might take it literally or the wrong way.

"Can't watch that mate." "Why?" "Someone might do it." "I won't." "....."

-AC

http://community.livejournal.com/proanorexia/

Here's one. The girl eats more than I do.



Right? Right??



I like the fact that she actually started eating food that was off.


I sense media hype, and hysteria.



Yes, this is what we in the real world call, 'a diet'.

"Everyone has the right to free speech, but when that free speech offends anyone ... it is no longer free speech."

That's one of the funniest definitions of free speech that I ever heard.

Makedde, you seem to be labouring under the impression that these sites are made by evil people trying to explit anorexics. You have even specifcally defended anorexics in your posts against the possible insinuation of idiocy.

As I pointed out earlier, these sites are NOT exploitative. They are being made BY anorexics, FOR anorexics.

Now, what they say might be dark and disturbing and especially unusual, but you cannot accuse them of specifically evil or exploitative intent. You say anorexics are not idiots? Fine. Agreed. And it is some of these not-idiots that are making these sites.

We would all like to live in a cosy little world where any viewpoint that massively differs from ours is wrong and should be banned and stopped. Well guess what- these sites are not the work of foul pervets, but the genuine opinions of sufferers. They are strongly held expressions from people whose point of view has been suppressed over time.

As I also said before, anorexia is a very complicated psychological issue. As part of the debate about it- because remember, we're still not sure what it is, why it happens, and really what to do about it- such voices must be heard, their existence acknowledged and their contribution towards understanding the problem accepted.

Yelling 'ban these sick people' will not help the problem one tiny bit.

As said many times before, the crux of the matter is this:

If you start BANNING things because some idiots (crucial terminology) might take it the wrong way or be dumb enough to not know it's dangerous, then you are essentially catering for the dumb, in which case you'll have a big workload ahead of you. For those of you saying "They're not idiots, or dumb" think about what you're saying.

How smart is someone who feels it's an appropriate course of action to starve theirselves to the point of danger? Not very.

"Ban South Park!" "Why?" "I don't want my kid watching that!" "Don't let him then. Why can't I watch it because your son/daughter can't do so responsibly?"

Same applies to these sites. I don't see why I should be deprived of the right to see something I might want to see just because someone saw it and couldn't take the sensible route.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Judging Amy.

LOL! you watch network television.

Impossible, the German's have no such thing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Impossible, the German's have no such thing.

-AC

What do the Germans have?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't see why I should be deprived of the right to see something I might want to see just because someone saw it and couldn't take the sensible route.

-AC

It's called legislating taste, and it is the biggest pitfall of supposed democracy.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
LOL! you watch network television.
lol you....hmm....ARE GAY. But I have to admit I loved the show

We only have a few Stations like 30 that ared reasonable to watch. And only 5 of them actually show anthign worthwhile....and...well it's basically the american shit plus some more german shit.

Hm I can't really contribute anything else cause...well most of my arguements have been used already and why state them again....no one will change their opinion anyways...me included.

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol you....hmm....ARE GAY.

Harsh words from a guy that watches Judging Amy!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Harsh words from a guy that watches Judging Amy!

Yes...well. I could say the amy person is hot...but who would I be kidding.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes...well. I could say the amy person is hot...but who would I be kidding.

You should say Tyne Daly is hot. But, only in her Cagney and Lacey days, right?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You should say Tyne Daly is hot. But, only in her Cagney and Lacey days, right?

I don't know what she looked like when she was younger..my dad says she looked pretty good though. I like her character on the show..as well as a few others...and there's nothing to do at 4 in the afternoon so why not watch some shitty American TV shows....

Tyne Daly has never been hot.

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/candl/cagney/dalyn6.jpg

Well..she's no George Clooney but alright anyways.....are we kind of off topic though?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Guess what? Anorexics already starve themselves. Kind of comes in with the package.

They do not need to be encouraged to kill themselves. If you encourage someone who is already very vunerable to kill themselves, and they do, you are an accessory to murder.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Slight difference between actively threatening the life of the country's leader, and telling people that it's good being very skinny, isn't there?


Threatening the countries leader is still my free speech.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Slight difference between racial assault, and telling people that it's good being very skinny, isn't there?

It is still free speech.

How is it possible that a human believes any of that?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How is it possible that a human believes any of that?

-AC

What? That these people could actually start websites such as this, or the people who believe their nonsense?

Originally posted by Makedde
They do not need to be encouraged to kill themselves. If you encourage someone who is already very vunerable to kill themselves, and they do, you are an accessory to murder.

Hahahaha.

You can't murder yourself, first off. Secondly, no-one is encouraging people to kill themselves, are they? How about tobacco and alcohol companies?


Originally posted by Makedde

Threatening the countries leader is still my free speech.


Free speech is always limited to the extent that it will cause unwanted direct harm to another. If you threaten someone's life, that's not a matter of free speech, it's intimating that you are about to commit a crime. The worst crime, in fact.

If you tell someone it's good to starve other people to death, and they do so, then you have brought about unwanted harm. If you tell people that starvation is good fun, and they try it- well, that's a whole other issue.

If someone told you to jump off a bridge, and cetera.

If someone told someone else to push you off a bridge- whole different ballpark.

These sites should be stopped.

There dangerous to impresionable minds.

The WWE is dangerous to impressionable minds.

Enough said. Literally enough said.

-AC

Check out this chick.
http://luartriste.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/mummy11.JPG

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You can't murder yourself, first off. Secondly, no-one is encouraging people to kill themselves, are they? How about tobacco and alcohol companies?

Smoking is a choice, anorexia is not. Tobacco companies don't tell people it's good to smoke.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Free speech is always limited to the extent that it will cause unwanted direct harm to another.

That's what these people do! They cause harm to vunerable people.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If you tell people that starvation is good fun, and they try it- well, that's a whole other issue.


They are placing someone in indirect harm.

Originally posted by Makedde
Smoking is a choice, anorexia is not.

Exactly. Anorexia isn't a choice.

Originally posted by Makedde

That's what these people do! They cause harm to vunerable people.

Stop condescending. No-one requires your help to make their choices, which apparently 'aren't choices'.

Originally posted by Makedde

They are placing someone in indirect harm.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Exactly. Anorexia isn't a choice.

So if isn't a choice, it's an illness, wy should these sick ****s be allowed to encourage these people to lose weight? They are the ones contributing to the persons ill health.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Stop condescending. No-one requires your help to make their choices, which apparently 'aren't choices'.

When these people are being deliberately targetted by these sick ****s, it isn't a choice for the anorexics who are sucked in by their brainwashing.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do you know how stupid that sounds?

I don't care. Why the hell would you think it's alright for these people to run websites like this? Obviously, you have never suffered from anorexia, or known anyone who has suffered from it.

Originally posted by Makedde
So if isn't a choice, it's an illness, wy should these sick ****s be allowed to encourage these people to lose weight? They are the ones contributing to the persons ill health.

That would be because we live in a society that values free speech.

Originally posted by Makedde

When these people are being deliberately targetted by these sick ****s, it isn't a choice for the anorexics who are sucked in by their brainwashing.

Have you been on the internet recently? Last time I checked, you go to websites; they don't come to you.

Originally posted by Makedde

I don't care. Why the hell would you think it's alright for these people to run websites like this? Obviously, you have never suffered from anorexia, or known anyone who has suffered from it.

I know several people that have had anorexia. This line of thinking is idiotic. I value free speech because it is the correct way to run a society; NOT because I happen to have avoided all things that I might want censored.

If this path of action were to be followed, you would be circumscribing free speech.

Now, let's look at the implications. To ban something because you perceive it as a risk to others means that anything that is a potential risk to anybody should be banned. It's a hysterical knee-jerk reaction that demeans the person involved.

If we ban something like this, and then do not ban everything that can conceivably cause harm to even the most fragile of people, it is an irrational, melodramatic and hypocritical response.

It is apposite that these three adjectives apply perfectly to every contribution you have left in this thread.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That would be because we live in a society that values free speech.


So if I say that that I hope the President gets blown up, I shouldn't get in trouble, because it's free speech, and if I want to call a black person a ******, I can, because it's free speech, right?

Serious lack of intelligence on your part, the likes of which I've never seen on KMC.

-AC

Originally posted by Makedde
So if I say that that I hope the President gets blown up, I shouldn't get in trouble, because it's free speech

Yes. New to all this?

Originally posted by Makedde

and if I want to call a black person a ******, I can, because it's free speech, right?

Yes. You seem pretty keen on that one, for some reason. You would also face the consequences of your actions, but no-one says you can't say that; although in some instances that would be an offence, in which case it would be dealt with appropriately.

Perhaps you should learn what free speech is before you charge in with your over-emotional reactions. It's a more valuable concept than simply giving someone the right to be racially abusive, which seems to be the impression under which you labour.

I am not in any way racist, I assure you of that. I just think that if these people are allowed to encourage young girls to starve themselves, and it's free speech, I should have freedom of speech to say whatever I like, as long I cause no one physical harm.

Oh no, he didn't...surely.

-AC

Originally posted by Makedde
I am not in any way racist, I assure you of that. I just think that if these people are allowed to encourage young girls to starve themselves, and it's free speech, I should have freedom of speech to say whatever I like, as long I cause no one physical harm.

You do, that is the point. As long as you do not cause unwanted direct harm, or breach laws.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You do, that is the point. As long as you do not cause unwanted direct harm, or breach laws.

So then, if it is a persons freedom of speech to call a black person a ******, and keep in mind that I am just using this as an example, why then do we get hauled into court? It's a criminal offence to call someone that. That isn't freedom of speech then.

Originally posted by Makedde
So then, if it is a persons freedom of speech to call a black person a ******, and keep in mind that I am just using this as an example, why then do we get hauled into court? It's a criminal offence to call someone that. That isn't freedom of speech then.

If you sign a confidentiality agreement, you are bound by law not to divulge the contents of that agreement.

If you then do so, you cannot claim free speech, because that is silly. Free speech doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore the law, it simply protects speech from becoming illegal per se.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because it factually isn't a good idea. It's dangerous and to encourage it to impressionable young girls who may stumble upon their horseshit website is even more dangerous.

I have to say I argee with backfire with this one.It is dangers if it supports eating disorders.A girl I work with is suffering from it.and she looks horrible like she is skulliton just walking around you can see every bone in her body.Scary!jm

That's so disgusting. I can't beleive someone would actually promote Annorexia, like it was a healthy lifestyle.

Wow, that is some crazy shit. I thought it was a joke... A bad one but a joke.

Let them eat cake.

I believe it is illegal to promote suicide, yes? If I created a suicide website, showing people the best ways to cut and bleed their wrist or the best combination of pills to take with alcohol, I would face criminal charges. Why then should promoting a mental illness that is potentially dangerous not also be illegal... because some people think it's fashionable?

Can you encourage someone to get a mental illness?

What I think you fail to realise, Rob, is that sites suggesting the best ways to commit suicide will not appeal to anybody who isn't willing to do it, will they?

Some guy or girl with a perfect life won't stumble upon it and think: "Ooh that sounds nice!".

If they're going to do it anyway, why does it matter how they do?

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Can you encourage someone to get a mental illness?

I said "promoting a mental illness", as encouraging people who already have this illness to seek it out further instead of seeking help.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What I think you fail to realise, Rob, is that sites suggesting the best ways to commit suicide will not appeal to anybody who isn't willing to do it, will they?

Some guy or girl with a perfect life won't stumble upon it and think: "Ooh that sounds nice!".

If they're going to do it anyway, why does it matter how they do?

-AC

Irrelevant... promoting and encouraging people to further indulge in a mental illness they already suffer over and one that is potentially fatal is the issue. Not I 'I was a healthy normal girl; I stumbled upon this site and it made me anorexic', which is silly.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe it is illegal to promote suicide, yes? If I created a suicide website, showing people the best ways to cut and bleed their wrist or the best combination of pills to take with alcohol, I would face criminal charges. Why then should promoting a mental illness that is potentially dangerous not also be illegal... because some people think it's fashionable?

any more info on this law?

Originally posted by inimalist
any more info on this law?

Well, assisting in a suicide is illegal, as per the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian and attempting suicide is illegal, as in if you fail, you can be held punishable under the law (I find this idiotic). I also said "yes?" as in asking/promoting the question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, assisting in a suicide is illegal, as per the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian and attempting suicide is illegal, as in if you fail, you can be held punishable under the law. I also said "yes?" as in asking/promoting the question.

oh, ok

I did a real quick Google and found many articles, including those coming from the British Medical Journal, saying this is a problem on the internet today, with no mention of the legality of it. Another one talked about a proposed Australian government crackdown on suicide sites, this was in 2003.

I don't think it is as controlled as you think it is. Child Porn and Security information is the only stuff I've ever heard of being sort of blanket banned from the web...

EDIT: I even think there are very few places where attempted suicide is illegal. They can hold you for clinical observation, but you haven't commited a crime.

People who say "Anorexia is a lifestyle!" need to be drawn and quartered with cheeseburgers.

Originally posted by Robtard
Irrelevant... promoting and encouraging people to further indulge in a mental illness they already suffer over and one that is potentially fatal is the issue. Not I 'I was a healthy normal girl; I stumbled upon this site and it made me anorexic', which is silly.

I don't think it can be considered encouragement.

It's an idea that basically says; "If you're going to do it, and have decided to, here are some ways.". Not "Do it, go on.".

Is it honestly a saving grace that someone who was going to do it ANYWAY, didn't get the idea off a site?

I doubt that's of any relevance.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't think it can be considered encouragement.

It's an idea that basically says; "If you're going to do it, and have decided to, here are some ways.". Not "Do it, go on.".

Is it honestly a saving grace that someone who was going to do it ANYWAY, didn't get the idea off a site?

I doubt that's of any relevance.

-AC

If it was a controlled conscious choice, you may have merit; anorexia is a mental disorder, no? These sites glorifying it, only serve to solidify and validate that mental sickness.

"Many of the websites clearly state that they are not about recovery, but regard anorexia as a lifestyle and conscious choice, not an illness or disorder" -I think that can be considered as a form of "encouragement".

Originally posted by Robtard
I said "promoting a mental illness", as encouraging people who already have this illness to seek it out further instead of seeking help.

Yeah.

I don't really care to be honest.

Do you?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yeah.

I don't really care to be honest.

Do you?

Then why did you post?

Not enough to lose sleep over, but yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then why did you post?

Not enough to lose sleep over, but yes.

Is caring the only possible motivation for a post?

Originally posted by Robtard
If it was a controlled conscious choice, you may have merit; anorexia is a mental disorder, no? These sites glorifying it, only serve to solidify and validate that mental sickness.

"Many of the websites clearly state that they are not about recovery, but regard anorexia as a lifestyle and conscious choice, not an illness or disorder" -I think that can be considered as a form of "encouragement".

I was referring to suicide, not anorexia, but as said by you and VVD, I honestly don't really care.

Go on, reply saying "Yeah." or something. I still think you lack the ability to not reply to anything.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I was referring to suicide, not anorexia, but as said by you and VVD, I honestly don't really care.

Go on, reply saying "Yeah." or something. I still think you lack the ability to not reply to anything.

-AC

LOL... What crawled up your ass and died? I replied to you directly, so there goes your hypothesis. Think anything you like though, if you have a problem with me, then don't debate with me, it was you who first replied to me. I think whenever you feel you're losing your footing in a debate you resort to petty jabs, maybe that's just me though.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Is caring the only possible motivation for a post?

No, I am certain there are others... Why though, if you "really don't care" did you reply? Indulge me.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I am certain there are others.

Let's leave it there.

Originally posted by Robtard
LOL... What crawled up your ass and died? I replied to you directly, so there goes your hypothesis. Think anything you like though, if you have a problem with me, then don't debate with me, it was you who first replied to me. I think whenever you feel you're losing your footing in a debate you resort to petty jabs, maybe that's just me though.

I haven't lost footing, you were talking about anorexia, I was talking about suicide as previously mentioned.

And it wasn't intended as a jab, it was just an observation I happened to make, not even in debates with me, with others. Don't take it so serious.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I haven't lost footing, you were talking about anorexia, I was talking about suicide as previously mentioned.

And it wasn't intended as a jab, it was just an observation I happened to make, not even in debates with me, with others. Don't take it so serious.

-AC

I don't take anything on a message board personally, that'd be foolish.

BTW, I respond directly when people ask me questions, "avoidance" isn't a tactic I use.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Let's leave it there.

No indulging Robtard, that hurts my feelings...

^ That's what I was referring to, but of course...I must be wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
^ That's what I was referring to, but of course...I must be wrong.

-AC

Hmmm... I think I should have used a " ", " " or maybe a " " at the end, but I thought my joking intentions were obvious, so I did without the 'smilie'. I pray Victor understood.

Cock.

Is it true pro ana sites are being shut down, for sure???

My guess is these same people are the ones who put together the petition to get Paris Hilton out of her "lengthy" "jail" sentence.