[allaboutauto.us]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...r-verbal-abuse

Not far back mentioned on state news was the idea of regular weighing of kids at school, and this is, to put it into context, unsurprising given how busy the media have been on the subject of weight.

Given the Ideological Apparatus, or the 'church' i'll label it, appear to be descending to a new low with regard manners in many areas for the apparent purposes of education, possibly their ethics need a look at.

My question is of the protections the law provides individuals of the public from abuses by the media. The church goes far for effect, while trying to have an influence possibly creating insensitivity, maybe further desensitizing.

Organized sport is a part of the church too in a way, the rules are some representation of broader culture's behavioural expectations, or learning to operate within norms and conventions. Well, you may bump into a theory like that if you were studying to be a social worker or something. The importance of group acceptance is in there somewhere, for sure.

If the media and TV shows are encouraging bad manners, where are the improvements really going to come from.

[Jjfotqse]

I read this five times, but still I cannot for the life of me gunstabulise the unfumpherfer of what you're trying to disbulate.

[hieklyintinee]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...r-verbal-abuse

Not far back mentioned on state news was the idea of regular weighing of kids at school, and this is, to put it into context, unsurprising given how busy the media have been on the subject of weight.

Given the Ideological Apparatus, or the 'church' i'll label it, appear to be descending to a new low with regard manners in many areas for the apparent purposes of education, possibly their ethics need a look at.

My question is of the protections the law provides individuals of the public from abuses by the media. The church goes far for effect, while trying to have an influence possibly creating insensitivity, maybe further desensitizing.

Organized sport is a part of the church too in a way, the rules are some representation of broader culture's behavioural expectations, or learning to operate within norms and conventions. Well, you may bump into a theory like that if you were studying to be a social worker or something. The importance of group acceptance is in there somewhere, for sure.

If the media and TV shows are encouraging bad manners, where are the improvements really going to come from.

Made me laugh

I promptly spotted the High Church, and the Low .. the Evangelicals and the sects.

I can see the same fervour, the same dedication to spreading the word, the same conviction about being right.
THAT wiped the smile off my face.

[regfortruegoo]

"Not far back mentioned on state news was the idea of regular weighing of kids at school"

This has nothing to do with "normality", per se. Elite athletes, for example, are outside the norm.

It's about the fact that if you're obese as a school child, you're likely to be obese as an adult, and more likely to die early of a stroke or heart attack. Some people ("normal people", I suppose) consider early death to be a bad thing.

[mirvokrug]

>>>This has nothing to do with "normality", per se. Elite athletes, for example, are outside the norm.

Not in the sense they are models of behaviour and involved in what people aspire to.

[elektikakass]

Fitter, happier, more productive
Comfortable
Not drinking too much
Regular exercise at the gym
(3 days a week)
Getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries
At ease
Eating well
(No more microwave dinners and saturated fats)
A patient better driver
A safer car
(Baby smiling in back seat)
Sleeping well
(No bad dreams)
No paranoia
Careful to all animals
(Never washing spiders down the plughole)
Keep in contact with old friends
(Enjoy a drink now and then)
Will frequently check credit at (moral) bank (hole in the wall)
Favours for favours
Fond but not in love
Charity standing orders
On Sundays ring road supermarket
(No killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants)
Car wash
(Also on Sundays)
No longer afraid of the dark or midday shadows
Nothing so ridiculously teenage and desperate
Nothing so childish - at a better pace
Slower and more calculated
No chance of escape
Now self-employed
Concerned (but powerless)
An empowered and informed member of society
(Pragmatism not idealism)
Will not cry in public
Less chance of illness
Tires that grip in the wet
(Shot of baby strapped in back seat)
A good memory
Still cries at a good film
Still kisses with saliva
No longer empty and frantic like a cat tied to a stick
That's driven into frozen winter shit
(The ability to laugh at weakness)
Calm
Fitter
Healthier and more productive
A pig in a cage on antibiotics

~ Radiohead

[TornadoPD]

There are, of course, real questions about the extent to which stigmatisation is productive or counter-productive in promoting behaviour change (let alone questions about what behaviours are usefully targeted). I wouldn't think those questions need to be wrapped up quite as much as they are in the OP.

[beckercpa]

>>>I wouldn't think those questions need to be wrapped up quite as much as they are in the OP.

Apologies for the lack of reassuring convergence of neural activities. Not much there to be learned of second-guessing intention.

When anyone puts information into the public field, and no less so for the purposes of education, there is an ethical responsibility for the effects and interpretations, or even possible effects and interpretations.

If media emphasis on weight in any way incited or legitimized any prejudice against, discrimination toward or mistreatment of larger people [kids inclusive], then the media is responsible for a form of abuse.

[Rx-Ultram]

...
I wouldn't think those questions need to be wrapped up quite as much as they are in the OP.

I enjoy what I see as a certain "playfulness" in the OP even as it doesn't disguise what appears to be an emerging "preachiness" in the general area .. in fact in a few areas of pubkic consciousness raising.

[unioneserry]

>>>This has nothing to do with "normality", per se. Elite athletes, for example, are outside the norm.

Not in the sense they are models of behaviour and involved in what people aspire to.

As all models tend to be ... for good or ill, they affect more than they (or their proponents) sometimes think.

*watches 10YO buffing her nails*

[namaikaimvputka]

I neither asked for nor expected reassurance or convergence.

When anyone puts information into the public field, and no less so for the purposes of education, there is an ethical responsibility Sure, but you talk as though causality here is mechanical, monolithic and well-understood. In fact people do bad things for good reasons and good things completely by accident (amongst other combinations).

even possible effects and interpretations I doubt this can be sustained in any meaningful way. Forseeable effects, sure. All possible effects? No.

None of the above is to suggest that media shouldn't be interrogated, these questions asked and improvements sought. But the way it is framed here seems to be an exercise in finger-pointing blame-giving of precisely the kind that the OP ostensibly eschews.

[DavidShreder]

this thread made my brain hurt...

[miel]

Some misrepresentation there, MB, not that it matters.

Love pandas. Skinny teddies are a worry.

[VrQsgM7c]

Some misrepresentation there, MB, not that it matters. Ah, but, see, you are responsible for the possible interpretations of material you put out into the public field...

All I can say is that I agree with at least a large part of what I see as your substantive point, but don't really agree with the way you've framed it.

[id2008]

This is an imperfect world, full of imperfect people. They say it takes all types to make a world. Societies without challenges stagnate and become vulnerable to those challenges-then they are destroyed by them. People must be free to make their own [pref. informed] choices, then be held responsible for the outcomes. Those whom cannot make an informed choice have to be carried/protected by the society until they become able to do so, and be considered innocent until then.

[AssinHT]

Ah, but, see, you are responsible for the possible interpretations of material you put out into the public field...

All I can say is that I agree with at least a large part of what I see as your substantive point, but don't really agree with the way you've framed it.

If was seeking to influence others attitudes with the authority of organizational backings and status that way you might have a point.

There are many ways to frame things, that it didn't appeal and that it was a departure from a consensus framing ought be significant.


>>>extent to which stigmatisation is productive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmatization

"Social stigma is the extreme disapproval of, or discontent with, a person on the grounds of characteristics that distinguish them from other members of a society. Stigma may attach to a person, who differs from social or cultural norms. Erving Goffman defined stigma as 'the process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity"


http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v1...y2008636a.html

"Obese individuals are highly stigmatized and face multiple forms of prejudice and discrimination because of their weight (1,2). The prevalence of weight discrimination in the United States has increased by 66% over the past decade (3), and is comparable to rates of racial discrimination, especially among women (4). Weight bias translates into inequities in employment settings, health-care facilities, and educational institutions, often due to widespread negative stereotypes that overweight and obese persons are lazy, unmotivated, lacking in self-discipline, less competent, noncompliant, and sloppy (2,5,6,7). These stereotypes are prevalent and are rarely challenged in Western society, leaving overweight and obese persons vulnerable to social injustice, unfair treatment, and impaired quality of life as a result of substantial disadvantages and stigma.

In 2001, Puhl and Brownell published the first comprehensive review of several decades of research documenting bias and stigma toward overweight and obese persons (2). This review summarized weight stigma in domains of employment, health care, and education, demonstrating the vulnerability of obese persons to many forms of unfair treatment. Despite evidence of weight bias in important areas of living, the authors noted many gaps in research regarding the nature and extent of weight stigma in various settings, the lack of science on emotional and physical health consequences of weight bias, and the paucity of interventions to reduce negative stigma"



Like this example, though'd caution restraint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser

"Despite its many institutional forms, the function and structure of ideology is unchanging and present throughout history;[52] as Althusser states, "ideology has no history".[53] All ideologies constitute a subject, even though he or she may differ according to each particular ideology. Memorably, Althusser illustrates this with the concept of "hailing" or "interpellation," which draws heavily from Lacan and his concept of the Mirror Stage.[54] He compares ideology to a policeman shouting "Hey you there!" toward a person walking on the street. Upon hearing this call, the person responds by turning around and in doing so, is transformed into a subject.[55] The person is conscious of being a subject and aware of the other person. Thus, for Althusser, being aware of other people is a form of ideology. Within that, Althusser sees subjectivity as a type of ideology. The person being hailed recognizes him or herself as the subject of the hail, and knows to respond.[56] Althusser calls this recognition a "mis-recognition" (méconnaissance),[57] because it works retroactively: a material individual is always already an ideological subject, even before he or she is born.[58] The "transformation" of an individual into a subject has always already happened.."

[casinobonusese]

More proof that Martin and I are not the same person

[wmirkru]

This is an imperfect world, full of imperfect people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>


Yes, certainly, but not all the people...just numbers overall different pursasions....



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Societies without challenges stagnate and become vulnerable to those challenges-then they are destroyed by them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>


Have you been reading my mail? :-)



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
People must be free to make their own [pref. informed] choices, then be held responsible for the outcomes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>


Affirmative again.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those whom cannot make an informed choice have to be carried/protected by the society until they become able to do so, and be considered innocent until then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>



Probably yes, but that's not as straight foward as some be lead to believe.



Now, its obvious you are a Christian and this is a science forum, and you have just shown how reasonable people of any pursasions can agree.

It seems it's just the final outcome on the overall picture where we differ.

[Terinalo]

I'll let the others who'r' more articulate articulate my articles here, but if 'u like references, I include them at the link below for 'ur viewing pleasure.


http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/





References to webpages in this post were made by the individual poster and do not constitute implicit or explicit endorsement by the ABC. Referrals made for critical inspection of content do not imply endorsement of the content on those pages. Pages may be subject to third-party modification at any time and unless otherwise specified the referral applies only to the content of the target pages at the time of posting. Readers follow such references at their own risk.

Government xxx here!
http://xxx.lanl.gov/

[Forex Trading Software]

>>When anyone puts information into the public field, and no less so for the purposes of education, there is an ethical responsibility for the effects and interpretations, or even possible effects and interpretations.

If media emphasis on weight in any way incited or legitimized any prejudice against, discrimination toward or mistreatment of larger people [kids inclusive], then the media is responsible for a form of abuse.

I disagree. "Information should be transmitted as truthfully as possible, regardless of the harm it may cause. If the harm outweighs the useful utility, the information should not be transmitted at all.

Also, note that I think utility differs for different audiences. It may be true, for example, that the implied stigmatization of fatties in a set of data is not appropriate for a national newspaper, but is appropriate for this forum.