4 ms·

Using porn to fix loneliness is like using a screwdriver as a hammer. It's not the intent of the tool, nor can you be upset with the screwdriver for being a poo

Using porn to fix loneliness is like using a screwdriver as a hammer. It's not the intent of the tool, nor can you be upset with the screwdriver for being a poor hammer. The issue lies with the maker, not the tool.

oblio 5y ago
Many things are clearly harmful because they exploit weaknesses in the human psyche and the average person. There is a reason why obesity is high and rising, for example.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You can take two views of humans. One is that they are to be managed - their food choices kept narrow to safe ones, dangerous things removed from their environment, and only safe and allowable futures enabled. Give them little locked down tablets that don't view porn, keep their food limited to acceptable options, don't let them read dangerous books. The other view is that humans are free agents, and to treat them as less than an agent is to fundamentally deny their identity as such. That means giving them information but letting them make "bad choices" or "the wrong choice". Freedom means being able to make bad choices.
  - mjmahone17 5y ago
    There’s a road between those views: people are sometimes free agents, but often do not actively choose their own path. So while we should allow people to make their own choices when they’re actively choosing them, we can do a lot to make the default choice one that is relatively beneficial over the long term. So things like requiring sugary drinks to carry a label that makes it obvious when a juice is as sugary as a soda. Or modifying sidewalks and parking to make walking or biking short distances more pleasurable than driving. Some of how you do this is by removing dangers from their environment, for instance by separating bike lanes from roads. And by allowing people to break from a habit cycle, for instance by establishing rules for gambling like enforcing periodic breaks in play to give people opportunities to reassess their actions.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > You can take two views of humans. Nothing in life is black or white. Life has many shades of gray (more than 50). > Freedom means being able to make bad choices. Yet here we are, where you're fined for drunk driving or for not wearing a seat belt. * * * There are no penalties for making bad choices that only affect <<you>>. But almost every choice you make, good or bad, affects someone else. For an example of a very personal and selfish choice that actually impacts <<others>>, if you don't wear a seat belt and die, your family will greatly mourn your loss, but they might also not be able to make it without your financial support and have to get help from social services or from others, which others have to pay for. You'll probably turn a small accident into a big accident, and if you're not the only person in the car, you'll traumatize those with you for life (again, maybe needing help which others will pay for!) plus you're probably going to total the car (which the owner will have to pay for). Humans aren't trees falling in a forest, trees that no one can hear falling. * * * Simple rule of thumb: if a restriction has been agreed to by diverse societies across the world, across tens and hundreds of countries, maybe it's there for a good reason and you're statistically not smarter than billions of people. I hope you are, but I'm willing to bet you aren't. Approach these things more humbly, please.
    - tech2 5y ago
      > There are no penalties for making bad choices that only affect <<you>>. But almost every choice you make, good or bad, affects someone else. Sure there are, easiest one to reach for is the consumption (or even ownership) of various drugs. Beyond that there's prostitution in many jurisdictions, and no doubt there are other "victimless" crimes still on the books (basically those formed around morality - and therefore moral harm - rather than an otherwise identifiable harm or loss). The problem with reaching for the "almost every choice you make affects someone" trope is that it's very easy to use it to justify any moral panic you choose. Sodomy (and by that I mean non-procreative sexual activity) is an excellent example whose laws were still active in some states up to 2014* (and maybe still). * https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-stat...
      - 5y ago

oblio 5y ago

Many things are clearly harmful because they exploit weaknesses in the human psyche and the average person. There is a reason why obesity is high and rising, for example.

vorpalhex 5y ago
You can take two views of humans. One is that they are to be managed - their food choices kept narrow to safe ones, dangerous things removed from their environment, and only safe and allowable futures enabled. Give them little locked down tablets that don't view porn, keep their food limited to acceptable options, don't let them read dangerous books. The other view is that humans are free agents, and to treat them as less than an agent is to fundamentally deny their identity as such. That means giving them information but letting them make "bad choices" or "the wrong choice". Freedom means being able to make bad choices.
- mjmahone17 5y ago
  There’s a road between those views: people are sometimes free agents, but often do not actively choose their own path. So while we should allow people to make their own choices when they’re actively choosing them, we can do a lot to make the default choice one that is relatively beneficial over the long term. So things like requiring sugary drinks to carry a label that makes it obvious when a juice is as sugary as a soda. Or modifying sidewalks and parking to make walking or biking short distances more pleasurable than driving. Some of how you do this is by removing dangers from their environment, for instance by separating bike lanes from roads. And by allowing people to break from a habit cycle, for instance by establishing rules for gambling like enforcing periodic breaks in play to give people opportunities to reassess their actions.
- oblio 5y ago
  > You can take two views of humans. Nothing in life is black or white. Life has many shades of gray (more than 50). > Freedom means being able to make bad choices. Yet here we are, where you're fined for drunk driving or for not wearing a seat belt. * * * There are no penalties for making bad choices that only affect <<you>>. But almost every choice you make, good or bad, affects someone else. For an example of a very personal and selfish choice that actually impacts <<others>>, if you don't wear a seat belt and die, your family will greatly mourn your loss, but they might also not be able to make it without your financial support and have to get help from social services or from others, which others have to pay for. You'll probably turn a small accident into a big accident, and if you're not the only person in the car, you'll traumatize those with you for life (again, maybe needing help which others will pay for!) plus you're probably going to total the car (which the owner will have to pay for). Humans aren't trees falling in a forest, trees that no one can hear falling. * * * Simple rule of thumb: if a restriction has been agreed to by diverse societies across the world, across tens and hundreds of countries, maybe it's there for a good reason and you're statistically not smarter than billions of people. I hope you are, but I'm willing to bet you aren't. Approach these things more humbly, please.
  - tech2 5y ago
    > There are no penalties for making bad choices that only affect <<you>>. But almost every choice you make, good or bad, affects someone else. Sure there are, easiest one to reach for is the consumption (or even ownership) of various drugs. Beyond that there's prostitution in many jurisdictions, and no doubt there are other "victimless" crimes still on the books (basically those formed around morality - and therefore moral harm - rather than an otherwise identifiable harm or loss). The problem with reaching for the "almost every choice you make affects someone" trope is that it's very easy to use it to justify any moral panic you choose. Sodomy (and by that I mean non-procreative sexual activity) is an excellent example whose laws were still active in some states up to 2014* (and maybe still). * https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-stat...
    - 5y ago