h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi Heathen,

<>

Oh, I get stretched here a lot, and I have learned many things. Which is wonderful. But I don't ever feel intimidated.

az the amazingly insecure yet somehow unintimidatable

IIRC?

Yes, some people are more suggestible than others. But it still seems to be the case that hypnosis increases suggestibility.

What is reality? How long have you got?

Noggin

Noggin,

<>

Is it now?



Personally I have never felt any less intelligent than anyone else here on this thread. Though I do recognize, and respect, various areas of learning that some people here have specialized in. Because I can learn things by reading various postings and also from interesting links posted (hi Alji!)

I also admit that by being a very emotional sort of person that sometimes my emotions get in the way of seeing something in a purely 'intellectual' manner. But so? That doesn't make me less intelligent. Only less intellectual.

I feel really at home here on this thread, somehow.

az

Spotted Azahar.

After all, intellectualism can sometimes mean someone is intelligent and wise, but other times it may just mean they have read a lot of books., well that rules me out of the list then !

fess up you guys and gals such modesty Azahar

(HS) thank you, the thing getting the stretching around here, seems to be the triple O's, who have been bandied around, but then I'm an atheist, so I suppose that goes with out saying. "E = infinity" don't site right.

ADent,

<>

Oh, I'm not modest at all. At least, not as far as my brain is concerned. Though I do know I am not any sort of intellectual.

I always want to learn as much as I can. And I don't ever think that because I didn't know something before that this is any reflection on my intelligence. It only means that I didn't know something before.

az

Everybody has something different to contribute.

I know my abilities are limited to certain areas, and there are discussions which I read with interest, but to which I can contribute little.

But I still like to think I add something to the collective endeavour.

Noggin

As for myself, I'm always feeling less clever. Doesn't bother me though, that's just the way I am.

I tend to be regarded as an intellectual/psychopath by those that know me IRL, but I'd rather not actually be one, I think there's a certain air of arrogance about intellectualism that I can't stand. The best intellectuals are the kinder, gentler ones anyway. I like to give the impression of that, without actually being it.

HS. In Formentera there's a whole island where you can do just about everything naked.

toxx

You misunderstand, az. It is the 'spontaneous concern' that I'm talking about not 'spontaneous nudity'. Of course kids shouldn't be made to do some things against their will. There are girls who enjoy modelling and there are those who don't. Neither does nudity entail sexual titillation, although it can be taken that way.

toxx

toxxin,

No, I don't think I am misunderstanding.

<>

Oh really? How do you know this? Talking about very young girls.

az

Interesting request, az. I'm not an intellectual. The word smacks too much of the 'arty-farty' to me. However I admit to being an academic.

Noggin. You are the main reason why I joined this thread. Philosophers are all too rare. I think Recumbentman would come into the category also, although he is an all too occasional visitor. I mustn't forget young Malaclype and anyone else who has a philosophical dimension.

toxx

I'm talking about post-puberty, az. How do you know, as you seem to imply, that I am wrong? My evidence is based on the body language of such models. Many of David Hamilton's photographs might serve to illustrate this. It is, of course, a matter of interpretation but a sad or frightened model would not tend to contribute to a pleasing photograph except if such emotions are intended, which seems to me to be vanishingly rare.

toxx

Hootoo had that effect on me too. Not having been to university (or even school very much) I wasn't used to an environment where there were *lots* of people smarter than me. Getting the hang of it now, though.

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but there *is* something special about the friendships forged here.

Noggin

toxxin,

I'm not implying that I know anything. I am just asking direct questions. That I don't think you can answer any more than I can.

If you want to believe that children are not in any way emotionally damaged by being photographed in a sexual manner, then you will believe this. I don't accept that this is the case.

Your 'evidence' is based on the body language of the models???

Please.

I know you are smarter than that. If I tried that same defense with you about something I believed you would (and you have!) challenge me to show you some proof.

az

az. You are misunderstanding again!

I said nothing about 'in a sexual manner'. I only mentioned nudity. Argue against what I've said by all means, but don't put other words into my mouth and argue against those.

toxx

toxxin,

Okay, then you explain to me how a person could be taking naked photos of young children with no sexual motive.

az

sorry, photos of naked children - mixed up my sentence there

Models body language ?
Models pose.

pose1 v

1. vti to adopt a particular physical posture for a photograph or painting, or *position* somebody or something for this purpose

2. vi to *pretend* to be somebody or something else

3. vi to behave, dress, or assume a mental attitude intended to impress others (disapproving)

az.

Easy. There are photos of me in my bath and on the hearthrug as a very young child. Sexual motive! I don't think so.

You have changed my words again though! I specifically mentioned adolescents and now we're talking about 'very young children'! Do try to discuss what I say, not what is easy to object to.

toxx

I've been lurking for a bit, and thought I'd come out of the lurker closet, as it were.

There are plenty of pictures of my daughter naked...in the tub, crawling around in the grass, chasing the dog...and not one of them was taken for purient reasons. But then again, neither my husband nor I find children sexually alluring. We just like taking pictures of our kid.

That said, I'm sure that someone, somewhere, *would* find that picture of my daughter wearing a washcloth on her head and sticking her tummy out at the camera sexually provacative. I think sexual provocation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder to some degree. What you and I see as a picture of a teen girl testing out her own new-found powers of sexuality (pouting her lips, etc) and find sorta silly, someone else sees it as justification for his or her sexual relationship with a 12 year old. Are children aware of their sexuality? Yes. But that doesn't mean that they should be considered capable of understanding the implications of that sexuality. I remember being aware that I could give boys erections, and being excited about that fact. Whas I really aware of what could happen? Not at 12. I think it would have been devastating had something actually happened. I wouldn't have been emotionally prepared for it.

Come to think of it, I really was playing with fire there, wasn't I?