London's mayor has banned 'unrealistic body images' from transport advertising

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: designerusa on June 17, 2016, 06:01:15 AM

Quote from: AscendancyEight on June 13, 2016, 10:20:53 PM

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Public property shouldn't be displaying oversexualized and unrealistic body images, it hurts self esteem and promotes a "bikini body" culture that harms those who don't have perfect bodies (fat shaming). And even then, this is a response to massive popular backlash; I don't really see why it's a concern?

it is pretty obvious that this act is very logical for me too because few people have got a body like a super model. people dont have to have skinny legs, tiny belly etc. as society , we want to see normal people in advertisments for sure. there is no wrong thing with this decision..

No WE don't want to see advertisement, what ever fatty or skinny! WE don't want to have OUR precious brain cycle parasited by stupid ads influencing OUR emotions and OUR MOOD.

WE the people want ads free public space! WE the people don't want OUR children influenced by others.

WE see that some people only write using WE, WE believe that they have been contaminated by the WEit.

WE understand the WEit as a form of mental illness linked to overexposure to ads creating a false sense of WEism.

WE are afraid of the WEists.

OUR gov must save US.

Time to declare the war on ads and WEism.

WE the Ipeople!

designerusa

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 1028

Quote from: AscendancyEight on June 13, 2016, 10:20:53 PM

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Public property shouldn't be displaying oversexualized and unrealistic body images, it hurts self esteem and promotes a "bikini body" culture that harms those who don't have perfect bodies (fat shaming). And even then, this is a response to massive popular backlash; I don't really see why it's a concern?

it is pretty obvious that this act is very logical for me too because few people have got a body like a super model. people dont have to have skinny legs, tiny belly etc. as society , we want to see normal people in advertisments for sure. there is no wrong thing with this decision..

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3752

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Hawker on June 17, 2016, 03:02:56 AM

Turkey since 2012 has taken in millions of immigrants from Syria which pushes up the figure. The native Turks are not reaching their own replacement rate. That's why Erdogan is in such a funk about contraception - he doesn't fancy being the leader on whose watch the Turkish nation goes into permanent decline.

Take a look at this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

There are at least 100 countries in this world, whose TFR is lower than that in Turkey. The Turkish population is very young. Even if the TFR is less than 1.00, the population would still grow, thanks to the age structure. The "permanent decline" may happen in 2060 or 2070, and not before that.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 16, 2016, 10:45:26 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 05:58:04 PM

You are right about qatar

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=birthrate+turkey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oB9jV96LFerW8gf5vIGYDA

Turkey is below replacement rate which is 2.1 and the direction of travel is for even lower rates.

The Google link is showing the TFR for 2012. However, recently, there has been a spike in the birth rate there. In 2014, according to government stats, the TFR was 2.18. Not surprising, considering the president is making such statements:

http://time.com/4357867/turkey-women-children-incomplete-president-erdogan-islam/

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 05:58:04 PM

The graphs you show for each country show figures for immigrants as well as settled Muslims. They still show that Muslims are below replacement rate in most countries and again the direction of travel is that as they get settled it gets even lower.

Birth rate was always low for Muslims in Bosnia and Romania. The same can't be said about immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for countries such as the UK, the vast majority of the Muslims are from the non-European nations.

Turkey since 2012 has taken in millions of immigrants from Syria which pushes up the figure. The native Turks are not reaching their own replacement rate. That's why Erdogan is in such a funk about contraception - he doesn't fancy being the leader on whose watch the Turkish nation goes into permanent decline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

All the projections are for rich countries populations to fall over next century. The broad picture shows that modern lifestyles with our nice cities, good medical care and vast entertainment industries cause people that would otherwise be having lots of kids to instead have a comfortable life with fewer kids. Unless something terrible happens and our standard of living falls to the point where we think we need lots of kids to look after us in our old age, we don't need to worry about any race or religion out-breeding us.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3752

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 05:58:04 PM

You are right about qatar

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=birthrate+turkey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oB9jV96LFerW8gf5vIGYDA

Turkey is below replacement rate which is 2.1 and the direction of travel is for even lower rates.

The Google link is showing the TFR for 2012. However, recently, there has been a spike in the birth rate there. In 2014, according to government stats, the TFR was 2.18. Not surprising, considering the president is making such statements:

http://time.com/4357867/turkey-women-children-incomplete-president-erdogan-islam/

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 05:58:04 PM

The graphs you show for each country show figures for immigrants as well as settled Muslims. They still show that Muslims are below replacement rate in most countries and again the direction of travel is that as they get settled it gets even lower.

Birth rate was always low for Muslims in Bosnia and Romania. The same can't be said about immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for countries such as the UK, the vast majority of the Muslims are from the non-European nations.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

You are right about qatar

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=birthrate+turkey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oB9jV96LFerW8gf5vIGYDA

Turkey is below replacement rate which is 2.1 and the direction of travel is for even lower rates.

The graphs you show for each country show figures for immigrants as well as settled Muslims. They still show that Muslims are below replacement rate in most countries and again the direction of travel is that as they get settled it gets even lower.

This is all good news. Over the next century most pollution and economic problems will be solved by human population falling as we collectively choose to live comfortably. The Amish are the exception - their family size is not falling so there is reason to expect them to be top dogs in the US one day. By then you and I will be long dead so who really cares ?

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3752

Merit: 1217

Let me address it part by part.

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 02:16:00 PM

Muslim countries tend to be poor and therefore they have more kids.

The richest country in the world (Qatar) is a Muslim country.

As you can see from the chart, the population has increased from 47,700 in 1970 to 241,680 in 2010. There were 7,733 births in 2010, accounting for a birth rate of 32.0 per 1,000. On the other hand, Moldova is one of the poorest countries in the earth. The birth rate there is 10.4 per 1,000.

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 02:16:00 PM

Middle income Muslim countries are below replacement rate - Turkey and Iran for example face the same population cliff that Japan is going over.

Iran is having sub-replacement fertility rate. However, Turkey is having a TFR of 2.18, which is above replacement. In 2014, there were 1,345,286 births and 391,009 deaths there. The births outnumbered deaths by 344%.

Quote from: Hawker on June 16, 2016, 02:16:00 PM

Second generation Muslims in the UK have the same fertility rate as the rest of us - below replacement rate.

False. According to the Pew Research Center.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 16, 2016, 02:09:11 PM

..snip...

It has been established since many centuries ago that Islam is not compatible with the European civilization. As the proportion of Muslims increase (as a result of high birth rates, immigration and forced conversion), the non-Muslims will see more and more of their rights getting eroded. It is a very slow process and will not occur overnight. But in the end, the Muslims always win.

Muslim countries tend to be poor and therefore they have more kids. Christian countries in Africa have similarly high birthrates. Middle income Muslim countries are below replacement rate - Turkey and Iran for example face the same population cliff that Japan is going over. Second generation Muslims in the UK have the same fertility rate as the rest of us - below replacement rate.

The future belongs to people too stupid to understand contraception or too religious to use it. It appears the Amish will eventually rule the worlld as the rest of us dont' ahve enough kids to sustain our populations.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3752

Merit: 1217

Quote from: mindrust on June 15, 2016, 10:29:31 AM

Britain did this to itself.

What a sad time to live in... Great Britain has a paki mayor and he banned bikini girls. Clap clap clap.

Britains deserve this and even Brexit won't help you to get out of this hell. They are already in and unless there is a guy like the one appeared in Germany, you will be destroyed.

Good luck.

p.s.: I have no problems with Islam and its followers but they suck. Good day.

It has been established since many centuries ago that Islam is not compatible with the European civilization. As the proportion of Muslims increase (as a result of high birth rates, immigration and forced conversion), the non-Muslims will see more and more of their rights getting eroded. It is a very slow process and will not occur overnight. But in the end, the Muslims always win.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: countryfree on June 15, 2016, 06:28:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 15, 2016, 03:37:06 AM

For the sake of non-UK residents, Transport for London is a company owned by elected authority. Its advertising slots are private property. There are no free speech issues when the owners of private property make an editorial decision as to which ads he does and does not want to run on their property.

Thanks for info, but besides free speech, the should be an issue about terminating a ad campaign. The advertising company didn't get what it should have, so it may have legal right to ask for financial compensation for breach of contract, or something like that. They may also be very happy with this, as it creates extra media exposure.

That's a legal matter - depends on the contract. My clarification was that there is no free speech issue here. The company can re-use the ad anywhere that is willing to take their money. All that changed is that TfL is no longer a client and the new mayor PR's flunkies have got him some coverage.

criptix

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1145

Quote from: Wilikon on June 15, 2016, 07:08:49 PM

Quote from: countryfree on June 15, 2016, 06:28:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 15, 2016, 03:37:06 AM

For the sake of non-UK residents, Transport for London is a company owned by elected authority. Its advertising slots are private property. There are no free speech issues when the owners of private property make an editorial decision as to which ads he does and does not want to run on their property.

Thanks for info, but besides free speech, the should be an issue about terminating a ad campaign. The advertising company didn't get what it should have, so it may have legal right to ask for financial compensation for breach of contract, or something like that. They may also be very happy with this, as it creates extra media exposure.

I would re hire the same model but put her in a full burqa with the message: "Beach Body Ready!"

Good lord that you and the rest of your friends are just nobodys with an account on bitcointalk.org x)

Else we would see burqas everywhere right? Cheesy

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: countryfree on June 15, 2016, 06:28:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 15, 2016, 03:37:06 AM

For the sake of non-UK residents, Transport for London is a company owned by elected authority. Its advertising slots are private property. There are no free speech issues when the owners of private property make an editorial decision as to which ads he does and does not want to run on their property.

Thanks for info, but besides free speech, the should be an issue about terminating a ad campaign. The advertising company didn't get what it should have, so it may have legal right to ask for financial compensation for breach of contract, or something like that. They may also be very happy with this, as it creates extra media exposure.

I would re hire the same model but put her in a full burqa with the message: "Beach Body Ready!"

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: Hawker on June 15, 2016, 03:37:06 AM

For the sake of non-UK residents, Transport for London is a company owned by elected authority. Its advertising slots are private property. There are no free speech issues when the owners of private property make an editorial decision as to which ads he does and does not want to run on their property.

Thanks for info, but besides free speech, the should be an issue about terminating a ad campaign. The advertising company didn't get what it should have, so it may have legal right to ask for financial compensation for breach of contract, or something like that. They may also be very happy with this, as it creates extra media exposure.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Britain did this to itself.

What a sad time to live in... Great Britain has a paki mayor and he banned bikini girls. Clap clap clap.

Britains deserve this and even Brexit won't help you to get out of this hell. They are already in and unless there is a guy like the one appeared in Germany, you will be destroyed.

Good luck.

p.s.: I have no problems with Islam and its followers but they suck. Good day.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: xht on June 15, 2016, 07:22:52 AM

Body shaming huh? He's banning body shaming ads, or is he a muslim banning ads with scantily clad women in them?

We all know the real answer.

The PC bitches however will try to convince the world of a different one.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

I love how everyone I talk to thinks this has NOTHING to do with religion.. ... ...

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: Slow death on June 15, 2016, 08:40:35 AM

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 01:45:53 PM

Most of those ads are based on fictions, greed and jealousy. They promote materialism and consumerism, disturb the attention of the road users and don't bring direct revenues to the public but to selected individuals who benefits from polluting the visual and auditive public space. Do merchants use sound system to project their audio ads were you live?

A political leader of my country said the same thing and then ordered the closing of a newspaper.

But you must be wondering what the newspaper has to do with it? all!

According to the political leader newspapers promote materialism and consumerism, disturb the attention of people with advertising, but it happens that the newspaper published many scandals of corruption involving news of this political.

The problem of someone not like something and want to impose most, it is very serious..

Just please don't associate concept like this with me. The newspaper is a perfect example of legitimate ads... You can chose to buy or receive it. You aren't force to see it. There is no way to not see an ad in the public domain, even with a burqa;-).

Slow death

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1127

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 01:45:53 PM

Most of those ads are based on fictions, greed and jealousy. They promote materialism and consumerism, disturb the attention of the road users and don't bring direct revenues to the public but to selected individuals who benefits from polluting the visual and auditive public space. Do merchants use sound system to project their audio ads were you live?

A political leader of my country said the same thing and then ordered the closing of a newspaper.

But you must be wondering what the newspaper has to do with it? all!

According to the political leader newspapers promote materialism and consumerism, disturb the attention of people with advertising, but it happens that the newspaper published many scandals of corruption involving news of this political.

The problem of someone not like something and want to impose most, it is very serious..

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: xht on June 15, 2016, 07:22:52 AM

Body shaming huh? He's banning body shaming ads, or is he a muslim banning ads with scantily clad women in them?

Hmm... Good question.

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hawker on June 15, 2016, 03:37:06 AM

For the sake of non-UK residents, Transport for London is a company owned by elected authority. Its advertising slots are private property. There are no free speech issues when the owners of private property make an editorial decision as to which ads he does and does not want to run on their property.

I am curious to know how those advertising spot private propriety were attributed... It's in the public space.

Topic: London's mayor has banned 'unrealistic body images' from transport advertising (Read 2103 times)