4 ms·

I'm sure there are useful scenarios like yours. But that alone doesn't magically make the app have a net positive impact. I'm not claiming it is positive or neg

by jmathai 13y ago

I'm sure there are useful scenarios like yours. But that alone doesn't magically make the app have a net positive impact. I'm not claiming it is positive or negative but rather something to consider. The comment about email isn't really logical. Crow bars help you kill people but that doesn't mean we should treat them the same way as guns. I'm sure there is a technical term for it (logical fallacy) but that's besides my point and I'm on mobile :).

jmduke 13y ago
The comment about email isn't really logical. Crow bars help you kill people but that doesn't mean we should treat them the same way as guns. I'm sure there is a technical term for it (logical fallacy) but that's besides my point and I'm on mobile :). This is exactly my point.
- pyre 13y ago
  If the majority of SnapChat users are using it to have extra-marital affairs, there may be something to it. SnapChat wasn't created because we as a society were lacking in communication tools.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Alright, I'll go there: What is wrong with developing an app that is used for extra-marital affairs, even if that is its explicit purpose? For the sake of argument, lets just say that extra-marital affairs being immoral is axiomatic (I don't agree, but that is not going to be a productive discussion). The two people who made vows are the ones with the moral obligation, not the rest of society. Every individual third party is not part of that arrangement, and who are they to second guess somebody who is in that agreement? Both are consenting adults, there is no justification for us telling them what to do. If they want to promise each other something, and then go back on that promise, that is entirely between them.
    - jmathai 13y ago
      Offspring.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ionwake 13y ago
  I think youre arguing against someone with an agenda, they cant possibly be this stupid.
- jmathai 13y ago
  >> This is exactly my point. Not sure I follow. Are you saying that "crow bars kill people too, so we shouldn't have legislation for guns that don't also apply to crow bars?" If so, we probably disagree fundamentally on debates - which is fine but an important point.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    My point is that SnapChat is a crowbar, not a gun. A lot of talk about SnapChat revolves around affairs and sexting because that gets more page views, but there's really no proof that people are using it primarily for amoral reasons. The totality of people I know use it just for goofy temporal messages (and, yeah, occasional sexts to their S.O., but nothing they wouldn't otherwise do via SMS)

by jmathai 13y ago

jmduke 13y ago

The comment about email isn't really logical. Crow bars help you kill people but that doesn't mean we should treat them the same way as guns. I'm sure there is a technical term for it (logical fallacy) but that's besides my point and I'm on mobile :). This is exactly my point.

pyre 13y ago
If the majority of SnapChat users are using it to have extra-marital affairs, there may be something to it. SnapChat wasn't created because we as a society were lacking in communication tools.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Alright, I'll go there: What is wrong with developing an app that is used for extra-marital affairs, even if that is its explicit purpose? For the sake of argument, lets just say that extra-marital affairs being immoral is axiomatic (I don't agree, but that is not going to be a productive discussion). The two people who made vows are the ones with the moral obligation, not the rest of society. Every individual third party is not part of that arrangement, and who are they to second guess somebody who is in that agreement? Both are consenting adults, there is no justification for us telling them what to do. If they want to promise each other something, and then go back on that promise, that is entirely between them.
  - jmathai 13y ago
    Offspring.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ionwake 13y ago
I think youre arguing against someone with an agenda, they cant possibly be this stupid.
jmathai 13y ago
>> This is exactly my point. Not sure I follow. Are you saying that "crow bars kill people too, so we shouldn't have legislation for guns that don't also apply to crow bars?" If so, we probably disagree fundamentally on debates - which is fine but an important point.
- jmduke 13y ago
  My point is that SnapChat is a crowbar, not a gun. A lot of talk about SnapChat revolves around affairs and sexting because that gets more page views, but there's really no proof that people are using it primarily for amoral reasons. The totality of people I know use it just for goofy temporal messages (and, yeah, occasional sexts to their S.O., but nothing they wouldn't otherwise do via SMS)