Is porn actually harmless, or are we just pretending?

[Infinity16]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Legal systems are also not about what is true, but about what is fair. But this is entirely besides the point.

Why do you think somebody has a "burden of proof" if they make a claim but you don't?

Because I don't want arbitrary laws and I want to preserve personal freedoms. When the burden of proof gets shifted, bad things happen. 

• "These people must be witches because they couldn't prove that they weren't"
• "Communists must have infiltrated out government. There is no proof to the contrary"
• "We should keep an eye on those Muslims. Just to be safe, of course"
• "Iraq must have weapons of mass destruction because there's no proof that there isn't"

Shifting the burden of proof also leads to conspiratorial thinking. You can't understand how a tragedy happened, so there must have been a conspiracy behind it. No thought is given to how plausible the conspiracy is.

[Basman]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

MSc in neuroscience.

That's not a source.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

That's not a source.

My guy, I was speaking from my understanding of basic concepts in neuroscience. If you want a source for that, there are various books on basic concepts in neuroscience.

I gave you a theoretically plausible account of how porn and masturbation can lead to lower energy levels. If you want a highly specific empirical account, go to Google Scholar or something.

Edited 30 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Infinity16 said:

Because I don't want arbitrary laws and I want to preserve personal freedoms. When the burden of proof gets shifted, bad things happen. 

• "These people must be witches because they couldn't prove that they weren't"
• "Communists must have infiltrated out government. There is no proof to the contrary"
• "We should keep an eye on those Muslims. Just to be safe, of course"
• "Iraq must have weapons of mass destruction because there's no proof that there isn't"

Shifting the burden of proof also leads to conspiratorial thinking. You can't understand how a tragedy happened, so there must have been a conspiracy behind it. No thought is given to how plausible the conspiracy is.

We're not talking about the law here, you're lost in a different discussion. We're talking about whether porn is harmful or not. Why are you concerned about the "burden of proof" in this context?