5 ms·

I don't know. It's like we're running a giant experiment on everybody, using powerful digital technologies , without even a safe process for estimating and cont

by minthd 11y ago

I don't know. It's like we're running a giant experiment on everybody, using powerful digital technologies , without even a safe process for estimating and controlling the risks and optimizing for positives. And we do this without even achieving a scientific consensus on regular pornography and it's impact - without even understanding the results of the previous technology, if any. Maybe we should understand that before?

leaveyou 11y ago
There are lots of "we" in your sentences. Who is this "we" and when was the last time when you noticed scientific consensus on any highly subjective topics like sexuality ?
phn 11y ago
Life itself is a giant experiment for which no-one really knows the answer to. I am pretty much for being open and accepting of our own humanity (desires, flaws, quirks), without tabooing the fuck out of everything and trying to control what other individuals think and do with themselves. Education, information, critical thinking and a sharp change of culture into acceptance is what I think we need, not a "safe process".
- minthd 11y ago
  >> Education, information, critical thinking and a sharp change of culture into acceptance is what I think we need, Just out of curiosity , would you apply similar rules to hard drugs ? Are the any limits to your approach , places where a slower process that tries to minimize risks, should be applied ?
  - phn 11y ago
    I'd apply the same logic to hard drugs, with emphasis in treatment, not criminalization, if you develop addiction or other problem. I think a big chink of the drug problem is the alienation it creates, in part due to being illegal and a taboo. If it's just something you can do, it probably loses half the appeal, and information about its risks and intricacies are probably more generally available. I emphasize critical thinking, so yeah I think there are limits to my approach, especially when it concerns other people more directly (e.g. hurting others is not ok). Process is generally warranted as well when a large group of people have to interact directly and the consequences are more fatal, such as traffic. In fact, I am pretty much for there being processes, not necessarily for minimizing risks, but to reduce conflict in a functioning society. What I don't like, I guess, is micro-managing daily behavior of people without a very good reason. EDIT: I also think process should be revised constantly for an evolving society, again, with an emphasis in acceptance and critical thinking, not just accepting the status quo. The last thing we need is 18th century law causing problems today.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
HOLYCOWBATMAN 11y ago
You can do that while i enjoy my virtual reality porn. You should be more concerned about Dihydrogen monoxide than porn: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
antirez 11y ago
Masturbation and internet porn are not directly related, like if "the first exists because the second exists". People masturbated since the start of humanity with different medias: imagination, porn magazines, remembering that other hot human being you saw yesterday, and so forth. So I don't think online porn is particularly changing the essence of it.
wyager 11y ago
Not knowing the consequences of something is an insufficient reason not to do it. You're invoking a form of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (Namely, that it hasn't been proven safe, so should be presumed unsafe.)
- minthd 11y ago
  there's a difference between doing something , to doing something on a huge scale , no ?

by minthd 11y ago

leaveyou 11y ago

There are lots of "we" in your sentences. Who is this "we" and when was the last time when you noticed scientific consensus on any highly subjective topics like sexuality ?

phn 11y ago

Life itself is a giant experiment for which no-one really knows the answer to. I am pretty much for being open and accepting of our own humanity (desires, flaws, quirks), without tabooing the fuck out of everything and trying to control what other individuals think and do with themselves. Education, information, critical thinking and a sharp change of culture into acceptance is what I think we need, not a "safe process".

minthd 11y ago
>> Education, information, critical thinking and a sharp change of culture into acceptance is what I think we need, Just out of curiosity , would you apply similar rules to hard drugs ? Are the any limits to your approach , places where a slower process that tries to minimize risks, should be applied ?
- phn 11y ago
  I'd apply the same logic to hard drugs, with emphasis in treatment, not criminalization, if you develop addiction or other problem. I think a big chink of the drug problem is the alienation it creates, in part due to being illegal and a taboo. If it's just something you can do, it probably loses half the appeal, and information about its risks and intricacies are probably more generally available. I emphasize critical thinking, so yeah I think there are limits to my approach, especially when it concerns other people more directly (e.g. hurting others is not ok). Process is generally warranted as well when a large group of people have to interact directly and the consequences are more fatal, such as traffic. In fact, I am pretty much for there being processes, not necessarily for minimizing risks, but to reduce conflict in a functioning society. What I don't like, I guess, is micro-managing daily behavior of people without a very good reason. EDIT: I also think process should be revised constantly for an evolving society, again, with an emphasis in acceptance and critical thinking, not just accepting the status quo. The last thing we need is 18th century law causing problems today.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

HOLYCOWBATMAN 11y ago

You can do that while i enjoy my virtual reality porn. You should be more concerned about Dihydrogen monoxide than porn: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

antirez 11y ago

Masturbation and internet porn are not directly related, like if "the first exists because the second exists". People masturbated since the start of humanity with different medias: imagination, porn magazines, remembering that other hot human being you saw yesterday, and so forth. So I don't think online porn is particularly changing the essence of it.

wyager 11y ago

Not knowing the consequences of something is an insufficient reason not to do it. You're invoking a form of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (Namely, that it hasn't been proven safe, so should be presumed unsafe.)

minthd 11y ago
there's a difference between doing something , to doing something on a huge scale , no ?