5 ms·

> We have normalized porn very recently and it is just a piece of modernist faith that it is harmless Do you abstain from television, computers, rock and roll,

> We have normalized porn very recently and it is just a piece of modernist faith that it is harmless Do you abstain from television, computers, rock and roll, role playing, comic books and video games by this same line of FUD? Mass media has the power to create unrealistic expectations. Someone growing up in the age of Petrarch and Dante had unrealistic expectations of romantic love. It's easy to imagine that someone growing up in the age of internet porn would have unrealistic expectations of sex. Beyond that, I'd have to see hard, consistent evidence before I'd write off porn as especially harmful.

jacoblyles 14y ago
Some of it. For example, the average American watches 5 hours of TV a day. That will kill you. I watch about 1 hour Video games are very addictive to me. After playing Starcraft for 16 hours straight one saturday, I carefully watch and moderate my video game play and have deleted most games from my system. In your battle to live a meaningful, purposeful life, the peddlers of superstimuli are your enemy.
- psykotic 14y ago
  Good for you--I mean that. My addictive superstimulus is learning new things with no practical relevance my work, like orbital mechanics or calendrical calculations. When I catch myself going on extended binges, I try to extricate myself by consciously directing my time and energy elsewhere. But it would be silly of me to indict textbooks as harmful objects. Any hardcore procrastinator knows that the focus is incidental and essentially arbitrary.
- Evbn 14y ago
  The average American isn't dead, so obviously you didn't say what you meant, if what you meant made sense.
  - learc83 14y ago
    He never specified a time frame--Watching 5 hours of TV will kill you over x number of years (also it's clear he meant the resulting inactivity will kill you).
andrewflnr 14y ago
You have made a couple unfounded assumptions. One, that the GP, abstains from porn and two, that the fact that it's not clear that it's harmless is the reason for it. They were responding to a specific claim of the GGP, that porn is harmless. Respond to what people actually say. If you really need to respond to something unsaid, make it explicit. Anything else is a strawman fallacy.
- psykotic 14y ago
  I accept your point while submitting that everyone in this thread, yourself included, fails this stringent test: > They were responding to a specific claim of the GGP, that porn is harmless. Speaking of strawmen, it was Jacob who used the word harmless. Nicholas went so far as to draw an analogy with drugs concerning the effects of responsible versus irresponsible use. When he said porn wasn't bad, he clearly didn't mean that it is harmless in an absolute sense but was expressing a nuanced point of view.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    You're right that Nicholas's comment was more nuanced than I gave him credit for. However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. I've had some first hand experience on that count, though not as extreme as the linked article.
    - psykotic 14y ago
      > However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. You haven't clearly defined what you mean by harmful. Does it ruin otherwise healthy relationships on a massive scale? Does it teach impressionable young men that all women want to fuck them, leading to violence? Those seem like typical charges brought against porn. Were they true I'd agree there would be cause for serious concern. I haven't seen the data to back up these claims. If it exists, let's see it. Porn is widespread enough that you'd expect the large-scale statistical effects to be manifest.

jacoblyles 14y ago

Some of it. For example, the average American watches 5 hours of TV a day. That will kill you. I watch about 1 hour Video games are very addictive to me. After playing Starcraft for 16 hours straight one saturday, I carefully watch and moderate my video game play and have deleted most games from my system. In your battle to live a meaningful, purposeful life, the peddlers of superstimuli are your enemy.

psykotic 14y ago
Good for you--I mean that. My addictive superstimulus is learning new things with no practical relevance my work, like orbital mechanics or calendrical calculations. When I catch myself going on extended binges, I try to extricate myself by consciously directing my time and energy elsewhere. But it would be silly of me to indict textbooks as harmful objects. Any hardcore procrastinator knows that the focus is incidental and essentially arbitrary.
Evbn 14y ago
The average American isn't dead, so obviously you didn't say what you meant, if what you meant made sense.
- learc83 14y ago
  He never specified a time frame--Watching 5 hours of TV will kill you over x number of years (also it's clear he meant the resulting inactivity will kill you).

andrewflnr 14y ago

You have made a couple unfounded assumptions. One, that the GP, abstains from porn and two, that the fact that it's not clear that it's harmless is the reason for it. They were responding to a specific claim of the GGP, that porn is harmless. Respond to what people actually say. If you really need to respond to something unsaid, make it explicit. Anything else is a strawman fallacy.

psykotic 14y ago
I accept your point while submitting that everyone in this thread, yourself included, fails this stringent test: > They were responding to a specific claim of the GGP, that porn is harmless. Speaking of strawmen, it was Jacob who used the word harmless. Nicholas went so far as to draw an analogy with drugs concerning the effects of responsible versus irresponsible use. When he said porn wasn't bad, he clearly didn't mean that it is harmless in an absolute sense but was expressing a nuanced point of view.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  You're right that Nicholas's comment was more nuanced than I gave him credit for. However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. I've had some first hand experience on that count, though not as extreme as the linked article.
  - psykotic 14y ago
    > However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. You haven't clearly defined what you mean by harmful. Does it ruin otherwise healthy relationships on a massive scale? Does it teach impressionable young men that all women want to fuck them, leading to violence? Those seem like typical charges brought against porn. Were they true I'd agree there would be cause for serious concern. I haven't seen the data to back up these claims. If it exists, let's see it. Porn is widespread enough that you'd expect the large-scale statistical effects to be manifest.