# I would....
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154
**Category:** Meta
**Created:** [December 16, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154 "2007-12-16T16:04:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 15
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@davids04](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/davids04)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/1 "2007-12-16T16:04:18Z")
I would band all the imagery on this forum. I would ban all the self promotion and individuals promoting their products. I would ban all the pictures that go with people’s names.
All this imagery comes across as adolescent and unphilosohical. Let’s get rid of this clutter and distractions!
---
### Author:  [@davids04](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/davids04)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/2 "2007-12-16T17:56:04Z")
I originally put this post on “Social Science” but it was removed by the moderator because it said my post had nothing to do with social science.
However, I disagree because it is a social phenomenon, and becoming ubiquitous. I wrote the moderator this: But it does have to do with social science because it happens in a social context, on this social forum. Its full of obnoxious symbols and what I call self promoting gratify. It is part of social science because it is a social occurrence like pop culture. Some people can’t be serious and use their symbols as a crutch or because of their lack of communication and intellectual skills. It definitely is part of social science.
We is this so? I think it is getting out of hand and this stuff has no place on a philosophical forum. 
```
***************************
```
Tortoise, your picture isn’t bad. But some of them are over the top
and sick.
---
### Author:  [@Carleas](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Carleas)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2007, 6:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/3 "2007-12-16T18:05:02Z")
I (the moderator in this story) replied:
"While it certainly takes place in a social setting, and it deals with a social phenomena, your post wasn’t a discussion of those aspects.
As to why we allow pictures and slogans and what-not to accompany people’s posts, as you said, this is a social community. People tend to self-promote in all types of social interactions. On a message board, where your clothes and mannerisms aren’t apparent, you dress up your posts with more explicit statements of your beliefs. They can certainly be overdone, I agree, but completely eliminating them seems a little like enforcing a uniform."
---
### Author:  [@Faust](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Faust)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2007, 8:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/4 "2007-12-24T20:28:51Z")
Are you saying that my picture is self-promoting?
Okay, well you got me on that one.
But adolescent?
I would call it “immature”.
Not to split hairs.
But davids - why can’t you just ignore the parts you don’t like?
What if a hot babe wants to post her picture? Or, yes, a hot dude, for those of you who prefer that. What is ever wrong about posting a pic of yourself if you’re hot? Are we anti-hot now, too? Is that what we’re all about? The fact is, we have had some hotties post their pics, from time to time. I wish to cast a vote for pics of hotties.
For the record.
By the way, I can’t seem to find anything that this update allows me to do that I couldn’t do before. If anyone finds something fun, please post it.
---
### Author:  [@MagsJ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/MagsJ)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2007, 3:12am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/5 "2007-12-27T03:12:37Z")
I’m all for peeps posting pics of their hot selves 😃[size=85] if they wanna, of course…[/size]
I think the ability to post pics/have avatars etc. makes this site more interesting than most I’ve come across.
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2007, 11:32am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/6 "2007-12-28T11:32:48Z")
> [@davids04](#):
>
> I would band all the imagery on this forum. I would ban all the self promotion and individuals promoting their products. I would ban all the pictures that go with people’s names.
>
> All this imagery comes across as adolescent and unphilosohical. Let’s get rid of this clutter and distractions!
How are images unphilosophical? What do you suppose arrangements of letters are if not ‘images’ in some broad sense? What is philosophical to you?
---
### Author:  [@davids04](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/davids04)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/7 "2007-12-28T16:49:24Z")
someoneisatthedoor,
Well, when I see your ‘picture’, which I believe is a representation of you, I see a childish, unsophisticated, geeky and unserious entity. I really don’t like looking at it. And if you really had something philosophical to say you wouldn’t need it.
Now, if you think your imagary is philosophical, tell us about it.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/8 "2007-12-28T16:53:44Z")
I love SiatD’s avatar. 😃
Are you really against images davids04? That is a very distinct and limited philosophical position…
---
### Author:  [@Mr\_Reasonable](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mr_Reasonable)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/9 "2007-12-28T18:50:15Z")
Obvoiusly you haven’t seen my previous avatars. Usually they’re awesome pics of me. If you saw them, you’d change your mind.
---
### Author:  [@Faust](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Faust)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2007, 4:19am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/10 "2007-12-29T04:19:20Z")
This one’s not a pic of you, Smears?
Oh.
I think it’s possible - just possible that peeps can take themselves too seriously. Mebbe a jovial avatar helps in this regard. I am naturally funny-looking, so i never felt the need to look for any other kind of avatar.
I was proud enough that I figured out how to post one.
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2007, 12:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/11 "2007-12-29T12:53:51Z")
> [@davids04](#):
>
> someoneisatthedoor,
>
> Well, when I see your ‘picture’, which I believe is a representation of you, I see a childish, unsophisticated, geeky and unserious entity.
I was with you up until ‘entity’. Don’t for a moment kid yourself that there’s any inherent connection between the image, me as a person, and your interpretation of my image as saying something about me.
> [@](#):
>
> I really don’t like looking at it.
Get firefox and use their adblock plugin to get rid of the images you don’t like.
> [@](#):
>
> And if you really had something philosophical to say you wouldn’t need it.
Now that’s just nasty. I have plenty of philosophical stuff to say, I just happen to also like animated avatars depicting silly things. If that offends your intellectual sensibilities then fine, so be it, but I’m not obliged to care about that.
> [@](#):
>
> Now, if you think your imagary is philosophical, tell us about it.
I don’t think it’s philosophical. I think it’s an amusing comment on the function that internet communication performs in many people’s lives, how essentially identical people find critical, emotive differences and end up in an aggressive confrontation.
The irony being that this thread is a better demonstration of that than my avatar. Ho hum…
---
### Author:  [@Faust](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Faust)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2007, 2:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/12 "2007-12-29T14:22:35Z")
Hold it right there, siatd. You’re not fooling me. You have established yourself here over several years as a serious thinker - you are clearly just trying to fool those who are not smart enough to see that.
---
### Author:  [@Mr\_Reasonable](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mr_Reasonable)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/13 "2007-12-29T20:33:42Z")
Here’s 2 questions about pictures that I’d be willing to discuss in detail if anyone’s interested.
In what ways can a picture be truth-bearing?
In what ways can one not?
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/14 "2007-12-29T20:49:24Z")
> [@Smears](#):
>
> Here’s 2 questions about pictures that I’d be willing to discuss in detail if anyone’s interested.
>
> In what ways can a picture be truth-bearing?
>
> In what ways can one not?
Start a thread - I’d have something to say about it probably.
---
### Author:  [@Mr\_Reasonable](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mr_Reasonable)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2007, 8:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-would/19154/15 "2007-12-29T20:53:24Z")
I’m about to go out for a bit, but there’s an artice by a woman named perrini (sp) that’s all about this. It may be in that article thread. I’ll start one tomorrow.