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...
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.
[i]Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo 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.
there are days when even the BEST fasters, and BEST restricters fail. i personally dont get hungry anymore.
Right? Right??
Today was a binge. i dont know how it started... but i hadn't eaten anything the whole day except coffee and water.. then it was slow at work... usually when im bored i preoccupy my hands with something (knitting), but i had run out of yarn today... so what did i do? i ate 12 mini snickers from the bag my coworker brought. then i had tuna pasta salad. then i ate 7 of the day-old cookies from work, then it was 1/2 a egg sandwich, and i just came back from dinner with some co-workers and we had a buttf*ck load of lobsters at red lobsters.
I like the fact that she actually started eating food that was off.
I sense media hype, and hysteria.
but i went to the gym and burnt 225 on the treadmill and then i did a bunch of other exercises that must have been at least 25 cals so i pretty much broke even for the day!!! im so excited!
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 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.
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.