3 ms·
Are you implying that perhaps 15-25 mins worth of porn video total throughout all of someone’s teenage years due to such rare access of the material would have
by kcplate 10mo ago
Are you implying that perhaps 15-25 mins worth of porn video total throughout all of someone’s teenage years due to such rare access of the material would have a similar emotional and mental impact as having the ability to see that much daily for years as is possible now?
There could have been years between the opportunities we had. I don’t think you conceptualize just how infrequent the opportunity would present itself.
- Eisenstein 10mo agoI'm not making any claims about mental or emotional impacts, you are. What are they?
- 71bw 10mo agoFor instance [1]. I am speaking out of experience, as a GenZ person who has been first introduced to the entire world of sex and porn at EIGHT years old. I myself feel it has harmed my brain in ways which I'll likely never fully understand. [1] https://eprints.qut.edu.au/217360/1/__qut.edu.au_Documents_StaffHome_StaffGroupR%24_rogersjm_Desktop_Flood%2C%2BThe%2Bharms%2Bof%2Bpornography%2Bexposure%2B09.pdf https://eprints.qut.edu.au/217360/1/__qut.edu.au_Documents_S...
- kcplate 10mo agoA couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway” So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- Eisenstein 10mo agoPerson 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse" Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?" Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?" Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true. Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.
- kcplate 10mo agoPerson 1: I once or twice got a small drop of a dangerous chemical on my skin in 1982 Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.
- Eisenstein 10mo agoIn this case Person 2 has no duty to prove that bathing in it is fine or that getting exposed to a small drop is dangerous. If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.
- kcplate 10mo agoOk then, enjoy your bath. Hopefully it’s fine.
- jacobgkau 10mo agoPerson 2 has no duty to prove anything (or to enter the conversation at all), but Person 2 isn't going to convince anyone of their viewpoint by choosing not to attempt to prove their point. By choosing to say "not my problem," Person 2 is accepting liability for not attempting to change their opponent's minds if/when they get out-voted on the issue in the real world, as is currently happening.