3 ms·

Perhaps it’s not the best example. Replace it with something more specific if you wish, like “placing live fragmentation grenades in one’s mouth in moderation”.

by ovao 8y ago

deno 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Rocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Rocks “Moderate use of porn” doesn’t have to mean hardcore pornography. Playboy and erotic novels are probably not equivalent to Anal Whores 3. Similarly, I’ve also heard the argument that high-speed internet pornography and “tube” sites in particular are the problem, because of how they present to the user a never-ending stream of novelty, and not necessarily because of the particular type of content. If that’s the case then obviously the argument about moderation would have its merits.
- ovao 8y ago
  The tube sites sometimes lead viewers into a constant state of high-chasing, in which, over time, the severity of the porn gradually increases for the viewer to achieve the same feeling of excitement or gratification. So, from a relative perspective, it can begin with Playboy-type softcore content, but can lead fairly easily to much more hardcore porn. And because the tube sites are free, there's no particular self-checked motivator for someone not to graduate. It requires the cognizance that it can eventually lead to a particularly problematic state of addiction. It's possible to become addicted to much softer varieties of porn, but the potential ramifications of that addiction may be less severe (or they might be problematic in another sense, like financially).
  - deno 8y ago
    Maybe then there’s some way to attack this problem without necessarily requiring full on abstinence from pornography, which is probably not realistic for the majority of people? For example an extension that tracks your porn viewing habits and limits video recommendations.
    - ovao 8y ago
      I think that's a legitimately great idea, sure. I don't necessarily advocate abstinence (although I feel it's been a good thing for me, in general), so any tool that can help someone recognize when they might be veering down a path that may be harmful would probably be very useful.
Sharlin 8y ago
Eh, live grenades are dangerous because their dosage is discrete. There's a qualitative difference. And if you argue that any amount of porn is harmful, well, that's a really strong claim and requires better arguments than silly analogues.
- ovao 8y ago
  That’s not my argument at all, and never has been. I’ve been abundantly clear on this.
donutte 8y ago
I’m not sure that’s a counterexample either? The claim is “if X is in moderation, then X is fine”. If we let X be necessarily not in moderation, the claim holds of X by impossibility of the antecedent. IOW “if X is in moderation, X is fine” is logically consistent with “some things cannot be in moderation”.

Perhaps it’s not the best example. Replace it with something more specific if you wish, like “placing live fragmentation grenades in one’s mouth in moderation”.

by ovao 8y ago

Perhaps it’s not the best example. Replace it with something more specific if you wish, like “placing live fragmentation grenades in one’s mouth in moderation”.

deno 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Rocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Rocks “Moderate use of porn” doesn’t have to mean hardcore pornography. Playboy and erotic novels are probably not equivalent to Anal Whores 3. Similarly, I’ve also heard the argument that high-speed internet pornography and “tube” sites in particular are the problem, because of how they present to the user a never-ending stream of novelty, and not necessarily because of the particular type of content. If that’s the case then obviously the argument about moderation would have its merits.

ovao 8y ago
The tube sites sometimes lead viewers into a constant state of high-chasing, in which, over time, the severity of the porn gradually increases for the viewer to achieve the same feeling of excitement or gratification. So, from a relative perspective, it can begin with Playboy-type softcore content, but can lead fairly easily to much more hardcore porn. And because the tube sites are free, there's no particular self-checked motivator for someone not to graduate. It requires the cognizance that it can eventually lead to a particularly problematic state of addiction. It's possible to become addicted to much softer varieties of porn, but the potential ramifications of that addiction may be less severe (or they might be problematic in another sense, like financially).
- deno 8y ago
  Maybe then there’s some way to attack this problem without necessarily requiring full on abstinence from pornography, which is probably not realistic for the majority of people? For example an extension that tracks your porn viewing habits and limits video recommendations.
  - ovao 8y ago
    I think that's a legitimately great idea, sure. I don't necessarily advocate abstinence (although I feel it's been a good thing for me, in general), so any tool that can help someone recognize when they might be veering down a path that may be harmful would probably be very useful.

Sharlin 8y ago

Eh, live grenades are dangerous because their dosage is discrete. There's a qualitative difference. And if you argue that any amount of porn is harmful, well, that's a really strong claim and requires better arguments than silly analogues.

ovao 8y ago
That’s not my argument at all, and never has been. I’ve been abundantly clear on this.

donutte 8y ago

I’m not sure that’s a counterexample either? The claim is “if X is in moderation, then X is fine”. If we let X be necessarily not in moderation, the claim holds of X by impossibility of the antecedent. IOW “if X is in moderation, X is fine” is logically consistent with “some things cannot be in moderation”.