3 ms·
How or why does something being "interesting" automatically imply that it's "OK"? Interest is nothing more than a human behavioral response to a stimulus, it t
by axlprose 11y ago
How or why does something being "interesting" automatically imply that it's "OK"?
Interest is nothing more than a human behavioral response to a stimulus, it typically has little to do with what people think is "moral" (which itself is usually vague and hard to define). Just think of how many people find watching documentaries about serial killers, crimes, or atrocities like the holocaust or the jonestown massacre, entertaining. Not to mention your typical news channels in the US, which tend to disproportionately showcase negative events as opposed to positive/neutral ones. Does having an interest in that kind of media somehow imply a moral approval of it?
If the documentation is there, people are going to read it, and the more out of the ordinary it is, the more likely it will be that people find it interesting. Uniformly condemning people for having interest in deviant topics is a slippery slope to justifying censorship or thought policing. Accepting that it's natural does have the consequence of possibly giving some people the idea that it's "OK" to do questionable things on the basis that it will grant them some kind of fame/notoriety, but that would arguably only happen with a small minority of people (since the barrier to entry to conduct these sort of depraved acts isn't exactly low), and thus would probably have a smaller negative impact on society than just flat-out condemning everybody for having questionable interests.
- codingdave 11y agoThe fact that it was interesting is not the part of the comment that implied it was OK. It was the question asked of "Did your read the entire article?", which normally implies disagreement, and the word "but", which sounds to me like a justification. That is also why I asked what was meant... I didn't want to jump to conclusions in case it was just a miscommunication due to wording.