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 4 hours 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?

[bazera]

I don't think people who watch porn occasionally experience any negative side effects. It's only those who use it daily and compulsively, who notice that they have energy or libido problems, or they can't maintain erection, or that they require more extreme stuff to get off.

It's the same with every other compulsive behavior.