Originally Posted by MichaelRoss
Thanks for asking me questions...
Hmmm... I didn't know they were showing their designs on skeletons. I thought they were showing their designs on real living and breathing people. Did I miss a memo?
Sandy, I know what you are getting at despite your choice of words... that is... if the designers themselves, of their own free will and volition without coercion, decided to use models who were not as lean as they normally use, would I object?
I do not object to what any business does of its own free will and volition without coercion. As far as I am concerned, if they want to show their clothes on albino muslim dwarfs - is that minority enough for you? - then let them go right ahead.
My objection is two fold... one is the government, yes. But the other is YOUR line of thought with regards to cheering it on... Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to INSERT THING YOU WANT TO BAN HERE, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move. Because That thinking leads to more and more freedoms taken away because YOU/WHOMEVER use such logic.
Look at your question to me... about using real people instead. How do you define Real, what is Real? Is Real what YOU think is a-ok?
How come no-one gets on Oprah's case about being Fat. Doesn't That send a wrong message that Fat is OK? I guess it's not so PC to attack fat (black women) people is it? I've seen how fatties are treated... they say, "I'm fat" and people quickly jump up to tell them they are not.
Oh... nice political ploy. Don't like the question, change it. The old, "It's not about X, it's about XX" ploy.
Mighten the Mental Health - how you got This into it blows my mind - be Better improved by not molly-coddling fatso people and telling them they are fine when they obviously aren't. Might it be better served by not trying to stop people from expressing themselves without bloody fear of upsetting some imagined minority group?
WHERE are these places? If you like them so much, why don't you go live in them?
Oh, you mean how YOU seem to have an idea of how some should be, when they are a REAL person, just like all those do-gooders you are talking about?
How about, letting people BE how they want to BE, period. Without any pressure to be REAL... YOUR version of what Real is, of course.
See, THIS line of thinking is dangerous. Because it can justify Anything YOU want to have forced onto people as long as it fits YOUR view of how things should be. How quick you are to use the Force of the govt to coerce others into things YOU would like. Cheering the govt on in such freedom infringements is Always dangerous. Why can't you - and all those who want to change people to how they want them to be - just leave people alone.
Whatever it takes? Within reason? And WHO decides what is reasonable? Didn't a whole bunch of Jews die at a time when it seemed reasonable? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Seemed reasonable to them, at the time? I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers thought they were doing things within reason as well.
And who decides what is sanity and insane?
How about this...
Property Rights: What I own, earn, make, create, buy, trade for, inherit or are given is My Property and NO-ONE shall lay a claim on it, period.
An infringement on My Property without my permission is wrong.
These are my Individual Rights.
You cannot have Minority Group Rights without first having Individual Rights, as a Minority Group is made up of Individuals.
Now, having laid this Very Simple groundwork, is there Any minority group you can think of that Infringes upon the property rights of someone else?
Maybe I should ask, can you name a single minority group which does NOT infringe upon the property rights of others? Because I cannot name one single minority group, cause, collective, organisation, whatever they want to call themselves, that does Not infring upon my Individual Property Rights. And You would be cheering right along side some of them, going by what you've expressed here.