Carly Foulkes, or, How Perverted Are These People? Options

[Ottava]

If you didn't know, Carly Foulkes is the girl from the T-Mobile commercials. She is kinda Anne Hathawayish. As such, she obviously intrigued many of the teen boys that edit Wikipedia.

Her biography has a wonderful section for her measurements. Why? Because that is clearly encyclopedic. I'm sure if they could find some nude images they would be up too.

[~DC]

It's not like that information is hard to find. How dare people mention a model's stats.

[Jay]

Dear old Ottava: he never changes! Do you know what "perverted" means, Ottava? If a young male has a healthy heterosexual interest in an attractive female, that is not a perversion even by your puritanical standards.

[Ottava]

It's not like that information is hard to find. How dare people mention a model's stats.

Since when did Britannica use such things? A model's "stats" aren't encyclopedic. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem getting female editors - it is idiots like you who took over and turn it into a 13 year old boy's wet dream.




Jay - there is a serious problem with you. It isn't "healthy" to post up people's information and treat them like pieces of meat. And Jay, thank you for revealing that you are a sock puppet.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[~DC]

It's not like that information is hard to find. How dare people mention a model's stats.

Since when did Britannica use such things? A model's "stats" aren't encyclopedic. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem getting female editors - it is idiots like you who took over and turn it into a 13 year old boy's wet dream.




Jay - there is a serious problem with you. It isn't "healthy" to post up people's information and treat them like pieces of meat. And Jay, thank you for revealing that you are a sock puppet.

Yes, because her measurements are what perverts want. There's not even a picture on the article for Christs sake.

[Ottava]

Yes, because her measurements are what perverts want. There's not even a picture on the article for Christs sake.

Yes, the measurements are what perverts want. They don't want to know the real her. They want to know the private her in a way that makes them have control over her. It is called voyeurism.

[Fusion]

Yes, the measurements are what perverts want. They don't want to know the real her. They want to know the private her in a way that makes them have control over her. It is called voyeurism.

Again no doubt it is a problem of language. I do not see how such people are perverts. Nor do I see why voyeurs would want her measurements rather than a picture of her. Anyone could estimate her measurements from good pictures. Would not voyeurs want pictures of her in scanty clothing? These are easy enough to find. And you may wonder why there are so many of such pictures on the web, clearly pictures she deliberately posed for, not ones taken by paparazzi with long lenses. Can it be that she wants people to look at her?

[Ottava]

Again no doubt it is a problem of language. I do not see how such people are perverts. Nor do I see why voyeurs would want her measurements rather than a picture of her.

Any intimate detail about a body provides the voyeurs with pleasure. It is about having power over someone via knowing their secrets.

If you don't see how they are perverts, then that is a personal problem. However, it is more obvious that you are a long standing troll. So stop.

[Fusion]

Again no doubt it is a problem of language. I do not see how such people are perverts. Nor do I see why voyeurs would want her measurements rather than a picture of her.

Any intimate detail about a body provides the voyeurs with pleasure. It is about having power over someone via knowing their secrets.

If you don't see how they are perverts, then that is a personal problem. However, it is more obvious that you are a long standing troll. So stop.

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements. This gives nobody any power over me. You might as well say that my hair colour is an intimate detail. Given that I have demolished your basic assumption, I can safely say that your conclusion from that assumption is unproven.

[Ottava]

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements.

Are you an idiot? It really seems like you are. Posting up someone's breast size is an intimate detail. Stop trolling.

[Fusion]

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements.

Are you an idiot? It really seems like you are. Posting up someone's breast size is an intimate detail. Stop trolling.

It seems indeed that you are the idiot. Or is it that you are so unused to looking at women that you cannot see how large someone's breast is? It is harder to tell my shoe size than my breast size. Do you think that my shoe size is an intimate detail?

[Ottava]

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements.

Are you an idiot? It really seems like you are. Posting up someone's breast size is an intimate detail. Stop trolling.

It seems indeed that you are the idiot. Or is it that you are so unused to looking at women that you cannot see how large someone's breast is? It is harder to tell my shoe size than my breast size. Do you think that my shoe size is an intimate detail?

Really? You don't think there is a difference between a guess and knowledge? I guess to you everyone should walk around naked because you can kinda see stuff through clothing? You are a bad troll.

[Detective]

It seems indeed that you are the idiot. Or is it that you are so unused to looking at women that you cannot see how large someone's breast is? It is harder to tell my shoe size than my breast size. Do you think that my shoe size is an intimate detail?

Fusion: you're talking to Ottava here. If you showed him a picture of a woman, he wouldn't know where the breasts were.

[Detective]

Really? You don't think there is a difference between a guess and knowledge?

Ottava: you need a course in basic philosophy. There is a continuum between a wild guess, an informed guess based on good information and knowledge based on better information. Indeed, in this world there is very often no perfectly certain knowledge, only something you are 99% sure of. If I look at a lady and I am 99% sure that she is say a 36B, is that not knowledge? If I am allowed to measure her with a tape measure, I still cannot be 100% sure; maybe I am now 99.9% sure. Do you really see such a huge gulf betweem 99% and 99.9%?

[Ottava]

Removed stupidity

Detective,

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked. There is not a "continuum." You don't see her naked because you have an imagination at work. Nor does that give you the right to pry further and reveal intimate details. You have no philosophical basis. You have no logical basis. You have no ethical basis.

Idiots like you are the reason why Wikipedia fails when it comes to BLP.

[Fusion]

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked.

This is all surely irrelevant. The question is not whether she is naked but what her breast size is. Let us try an analogy.

a. I look at the fence around my friend's garden and estimate that it is 100 feet long.
b. I pace it out and now estimate that it is 99 feet long.
c. I get a yardstick and confirm this.
d. I now get a steel tape measure, enabling me to measure it much better, and find that it is 99 feet and 6 inches.
e. A professional surveyor with better equipment finds that it is 99 feet and 4 inches.

Which of these is a guess and which is fact? Remember that even the surveyor may be slightly out.

And which of the things below is an intimate secret and which is not?

a. Breast measurement, obvious by looking at someone.
b. Panties size, obvious by looking at someone.
c. Height, can be guessed by looking at someone but not as accurately as breast measurement.
d. Weight, again can be guessed by looking at someone.
e. Shoe size, much harder to guess accurately.
f. Date of birth, surely a more sensitive subject than many others for some people, and yet routinely put in articles about people without, apparently, annoying Ottava.

This post has been edited by Fusion:

[Ottava]

More trolling

You can't justify putting up someone's breast size in an encyclopedia unless there is really good justification (i.e. someone with record breaking breasts and is known for that). It is that simple. It doesn't matter what you think or how you try to rationalize it, it ends up with you just trolling.

You have no respect for others in that you are trolling or you honestly believe what you are trolling about.


And if you think someone's breast size is "obvious" by looking at them, why put it up? Regardless, you can't just "tell" something like that. You probably have never met a woman before if you honestly believe that crap.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Fusion]

You can't justify putting up someone's breast size in an encyclopedia unless there is really good justification

Is that not a truism? You cannot justify it unless you can justify it?

And of course you can say as much about many things. I am much more worried about people's exact date of birth or mother's maiden name which may help fraudsters. Should we rather not concentrate on that rather than silly trivia?

And if you think someone's breast size is "obvious" by looking at them, why put it up?

Because they cannot find a CC-BY photo.

You probably have never met a woman before if you honestly believe that crap.

Have you the slightest idea how ridiculous you make yourself? Maybe we should have a poll: "I believe that I can tell the difference between a woman with large breasts and one with small breasts by looking at them."

[Ottava]

And of course you can say as much about many things. I am much more worried about people's exact date of birth or mother's maiden name which may help fraudsters. Should we rather not concentrate on that rather than silly trivia?

Birth dates and locations are encyclopedic. Breast sizes are not.

Maybe we should have a poll: "I believe that I can tell the difference between a woman with large breasts and one with small breasts by looking at them."

Really? So saying "large" vs "small" is the equivalent of exact measurements? You are not even a decent troll. And if you can "tell" by looking at them, then you are giving reason not to even bother mentioning them!

[Detective]

Detective,

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked. There is not a "continuum."

Let's clarify this. So a woman is only naked if she has no clothes on? What if she is wearing nothing but ankle socks? She is not naked, so a photo of her is not a phot of a naked woman. What if she is wearing no more than a thong, or a see-through dress with noting underneath?