5 ms·

Wow, what a ridiculous article. I'm not willing/able to write a full rebuttal, but this quote should be enough: "Delving into porn is not unlike hopping into

• helveticaman 18y ago
  I think "delving" here is used in the sense of going way overboard, instead of just looking at some porn. See http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/166179 http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/166179
• ensignavenger 18y ago
  "Not unlike" as in, it has similarities, but not exactly the same thing as. Obviously, death from porn addiction would be a very extreme outcome, though possible, and would take a lot longer to achieve than death by jumping in a car without breaks. Nevertheless, they are similar- if you jump in a car without breaks, you will find it difficult to stop (though not impossible). If you look at porn, you have done something that can be difficult to stop. In conclusion, this comparison is not at all ridiculous.
  • modoc 18y ago
    Hmm. I'd say the serious injury or fatality rate from jumping in a car without brakes is probably 90%+, and the serious injury or fatality rate from looking at porn is probably around 0%. I also don't think that looking at porn means you've done something that's difficult to stop. While I'm not discounting the existence of porn addiction, I think you'd find that rate of addiction (i.e. the number of people who have seen porn compared to the number of porn addicts) is very very very low. Overall I think most of the article is based on bad assumptions but I still don't have the time to write a thorough refutation of the article. Given the difference in actual risk of death, and the arguable risk of addiction, I'd say the comparison is more like "drinking a bottle of Drain-O is not unlike drinking a bottle of soda". Yes, you could drown from a bottle of soda, yes people will argue that you get addicted to sugary drinks, but realistically, other than both being liquid, there's not much similar. It's rampant hyperbole at the very best.
    • azanar 18y ago
      >While I'm not discounting the existence of porn addiction, I think you'd find that rate of addiction (i.e. the number of people who have seen porn compared to the number of porn addicts) is very very very low. But what is porn addiction, even? Is it the same thing as alcoholism, in the hard-line Alcoholics Anonymous definition of "if you think you have a problem, then you have a problem"? If you spend an hour viewing porn instead of watching a sitcom, are you an addict? If you spend an hour viewing porn instead of dealing with a family emergency, are you an addict, or just very irresponsible? I mean, to make porn an addiction seems like an effort to reframe the debate. It takes what seems to be strictly a moral problem, and reframes it in the light of psychology. I really don't think this is a correct line of argument, for the same reasons modoc presents.
      • ensignavenger 18y ago
        >But what is porn addiction, even? The article actually talks about that.
    • ensignavenger 18y ago
      I actually lost my breaks one time while driving to work. Like, I totally lost all braking ability. I ran into the privacy fens on the other side of the parking lot, but no one was injured. I actually drove my truck home, and then to the mechanic the next day- without any breaks. The stickiest part was making a left turn going downhill with a dump truck approaching in the other lane! Crazy, yes, but I didn't die. I think 90% chance of dying too high. Of course, you are correct- your chances of dying from getting in a care without breaks is higher than your chances of dying from looking at porn. But, your chances of being addicted to porn are about perhaps (who really knows?) similar to your chances of dying? Also, keep in mind that there are things much worse than death.
      • modoc 18y ago
        You knowingly drove around for two days without brakes? The level of risk you put everyone else on the road and children crossing the street/etc... is amazing. You should be in jail.
  • deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]