3 ms·

A 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

by kcplate 10mo ago

A 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 ago
Person 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 ago
  Person 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 ago
    In 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 ago
      Ok then, enjoy your bath. Hopefully it’s fine.
    - jacobgkau 10mo ago
      Person 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.
      - Eisenstein 10mo ago
        If people want to be swayed by emotional appeals with no evidence, I can't stop them. But I am not going to play that same game in response.
        kcplate 10mo ago
        What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.
        Eisenstein 10mo ago
        It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.
        kcplate 10mo ago
        No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it. So be it.

by kcplate 10mo ago

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

Eisenstein 10mo ago

Person 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 ago
Person 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 ago
  In 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 ago
    Ok then, enjoy your bath. Hopefully it’s fine.
  - jacobgkau 10mo ago
    Person 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.
    - Eisenstein 10mo ago
      If people want to be swayed by emotional appeals with no evidence, I can't stop them. But I am not going to play that same game in response.
      - kcplate 10mo ago
        What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.
        Eisenstein 10mo ago
        It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.
        kcplate 10mo ago
        No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it. So be it.