161–170 of 184 posts
I'm disappointed and appalled how this headline is in gross violation of Adobe®'s General trademark guidelines ( http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html ). It should read "Is her image enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software? [...]" Maybe that's the next thing that should be legally enforced somewhere in this world.
How absurd. Virtually every single photo of every male or female that is printed is photoshopped. A lot of people photoshop their pictures before posting to Facebook even. Should that all be declared too? What about those filters on social media apps that make peoples eyes bigger and clear the complexion? And why the emphasis only on pictures of women when pictures of men have just as much photoshopping? Seems a bit…
Where do you see this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But has is also a function of decisions, which is also related to knowledge / awareness. No doubt, lower income areas have less / worse selection. But that kinda doesn't explain why the better off don't choose and consume those same things as they are just as available to them.
Like I said: It's complicated. I am a strange mix of privilege and poverty. I was in gifted programs in public school and I have six years of college. I also am a woman and I have serious health issues. I am getting healthier and I am getting more well off as a consequence. I think a lot about the details of the very complex relationship between health and wealth. It is a really complicated thing that cannot be pinne…
Good, now if only they would do the same for male models who use illegal performance enhancing drugs to achieve their physiques. According to many male fitness models, anyone who earns money based on their body is almost guaranteed to be using them. I find it really strange how the topic of "enhanced" male models never comes up, but these articles about women pop up several times a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said: It's complicated. I am a strange mix of privilege and poverty. I was in gifted programs in public school and I have six years of college. I also am a woman and I have serious health issues. I am getting healthier and I am getting more well off as a consequence. I think a lot about the details of the very complex relationship between health and wealth. It is a really complicated thing that cannot be pinne…
I do agree with you. There's no magic bullet. But I still have a hard time comprehending why soda is a good choice. Even juat switching to water would make a difference. I think.
A couple of excerpts from my food blog:
I basically live on diet coke. Coca cola products contain extract from the coca plant. This has medicinal benefits. No other cola products have this. Other cola products tend to be mostly sugar water -- though I do sometimes drink ginger ale because ginger helps with nausea.
http://miceats.blogspot.com/2016/09/diet-coke.html
Plain water has been gradually creeping into my diet here lately. This is noteworthy because I rarely drank plain water for quite a few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a kids' cartoon from the U.K. I think, where one of the episodes was about how spiders are our friends and you don't need to be afraid of them, etc. When the show was broadcast in Australia they left that episode out, because all the spiders in Australia probably will kill you. :)
Yes, it was an episode of "Peppa Pig". https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/sep/05/peppa-p...
I don't understand, this seems like someone never bothered to learn about anchoring. Is there research that I've missed which shows anchoring doesn't apply in body-image situations?
how do you feel 'anchoring' applies in 'body-image situations'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other individuals were being photoshopped to have. You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine…
> You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not. Problem solved. That sounds like an infringement on the freedom of speech, in countries where it applies. It also seems ridiculously difficult to judge and enforce. The government would n…
Bah, sounds as totally irrelevant to the "freedom of speech" as not allowing cigarette ads and other such things.
And of course not every country considers marketing drivel and fashion as parts of such protected speech worthy of freedom.
>It also seems ridiculously difficult to judge and enforce. The government would need to do periodic surveys of height/weight in the country
Which countries do already, and is not at all difficult (plus it's good information to have for medical, policy advice reasons too).
>prove data is correct
That doesn't make much sense as a separate "problem". They already gathered the data with a certain approved methodology. They don't need to prove they are correct any more than they do for any other kind of data the government measures and uses to determine law policy.
>set up an office that reads magazines all day, tries to judge the heights and weights of the people in the pictures by looking at them...
Or, you know, just sample and fine (or not). The same thing we do with restaurants and many other kinds of establishments and businesses. Health inspectors don't eat at a restaurant 24/7 either.
>EDIT 2: No seriously that would be quite funny. "Sorry Bill we can't do that feature on the Indian women's volleyball team, we got Shaq on the cover this month. We're over our height budget"
It's only silly if you exaggerate it for comedic effect or for slippery slopism. It can be applied with certain tolerances (which I already mentioned in my original comment).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The food we have in the U.S., particularly in low-income areas is atrocious. However there are a lot of excuses being made about obesity, including that it's caused by poverty. Yes poverty is a component, but the obesity epidemic is striking all income groups, with no particular correlation to income [0]. It's more about the diet and exercise choices that people choose to make, include the middle class and upper clas…
Almost everyone in the US is a prisoner of their car. Our built environment presumes that you have a car. We make it very challenging to live without one. And then we have to listen to Stephen Hawking be judgy about how we "choose" to not be active, which he can't understand from his wheelchair. Most Americans are confined to a wheeled chair for many hours a week. We just call it a car, but good luck getting free of…