Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…
That’s not how it works. If you are making the claim, it’s your responsibility to back that claim up with supporting information.
IMO it’s everyone’s responsibility to themselves to challenge and research things that they want to know the truth about. If the other poster is correct but has no desire to follow up with it, they will still be correct.
The burden of proof is on those who want to know the truth. Unless it’s in a court of law, though even there, IMO the adversarial system is outdated and if someone is innocent, the prosecution and police should be working to determine that, not just trying to prove guilt at all costs.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. No exceptions.
It’s an internet conversion, there’s no burden on anyone unless they have a goal. Wanting to convince others puts the burden on the one making the claim, but if they aren’t interested in putting that much effort into it, that doesn’t invalidate the claim, which talking about the burden of proof being on anyone else is trying to do.
Even if someone does make the effort to prove something, if knowing the truth is important to you, you should look at other perspectives.
This is exactly how I think about things also. Which is why I dropped this conversation. But it’s a fact that porn changes the perception of sex to a huge degree. But young guys don’t even see it because they don’t have any previous experience to compare to.
Yeah I shouldn’t have bothered engaging, but that line just annoys me. It’s just a smarter sounding “nuh-uh!”. A better way to go about it IMO would be to ask something like, “what makes you think that?”
I don’t disagree with you, which is why I’m hoping the person I replied to, who told me to “do some searches” actually does some for themselves. So hopefully they can learn that there’s hardly an epidemic of porn viewing related risks to physical/mental health. I’m not saying there are zero, I’m simply saying that it’s not at all occurring at levels worthy of mandating warnings.
Fair enough. Personally I think it’s hard to study because of how ubiquitous it is. There isn’t really a control group that is representative of the general population. I do think it’s physiologically addictive (just like everything else that is enjoyable or gives a dopamine reward), which could mean some will spend more time with it than they should. But for the rest, it’s hard to say if behaviours and attitudes come from the porn or if they are in porn because that’s just how some people approach sex.
And from a personal perspective, there’s been plenty of times while watching porn that I’ve thought, “ok, this might be hot but holy fuck that guy is a piece of shit”. Which I think indicates that there is some bad porn out there but also indicates I’m not some brainless drone that thinks, “I’m seeing this in a video, therefore it is good”.
Ubiquitous things are the easiest to study. Unless you think there’s a lack of a control group?
Doing a napkin-level study on this comment thread I think we can conclude that believing that viewing porn is somehow dangerous is a very unpopular opinion that isn’t widely backed by evidence. Therefore, it is healthier to rub those anti-porn thoughts out and/or get some hard science pounded into you.
Yeah, I did mean the lack of a representative control group. And I never said I was anti-porn, I just don’t outright reject the idea that there might be harmful aspects to it but don’t think we’ll be able to determine that one way or another due to the lack of representative controls. The people who think masturbating makes Jesus cry or some dumb shit like that aren’t representative.
You could just say you don’t know what “addictive” means
There’s chemical addiction and there psychological addiction. Both involve a strong desire to do something that doesn’t benefit or even hurts you. Gambling addiction is a psychological addiction.
I’d even go so far as to say that most chemical addictions start as psychological addictions because withdrawal won’t be that bad after the first time, but you want more because it feels good because most affect the dopamine pathway, some acting as dopamine itself (like cocaine), some increasing your sensitivity to it (don’t know of any that do this but theoretically it would result in the same), and some encouraging your body to release it more readily (like meth).
Though porn and sex addiction (and heroin) might work on a different pathway, as I’m not sure if the orgasm hormone is dopamine or something else, though I do think that dopamine is involved in getting people engaged with sex before the orgasm. From some quick reading, it sounds like dopamine is involved.
Tldr: no, u
Buddy I’m not reading your half-understood bullshit when you think anything that gives you dopamine is addictive.
Watch out for those pleasant sunny days. They’re addictive. Laugher of children? Addictive.
Maybe actually meet a few addicts and learn a bit about actual addictions.
Then what do you think drives gambling addiction?
Lots of things. The problem with pseudo-scientific takes, in general, is that they steal from science but don’t actually contribute anything to it. You’re essentially making the same argument as, “it snowed in winter so climate change isn’t real.”
Addiction is a well-defined term and every addiction has more than one root cause.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/
Chose a layman site to help you get it more easily
Pretty sure some universities have tried to do studies but, just like you said, they couldn’t find enough people for the “does not watch porn” control group.
Burden of proof is on the one making the claims.