> the evidence is coming half a century after when everyone got cancer

Yes. Then the evidence was suppressed for decades more. We have no analogy here.

> Precautionary principle should always prevail

Why? Why assume the status quo is perfect? Also, what part of pornography isn't embedded into the human status quo?

> don't use a random pesticide, unless you have a full proof that's it's harmless

There is no such thing as "full proof."

> without cigarette, without GMO and without pesticide humanity would still be fine, and maybe better without (if we stick with the cigarette)

Now do vaccines, antibiotics, filtered water, the agricultural revolution and every other life-saving invention.

kreco 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Why? Why assume the status quo is perfect? Also, what part of pornography isn't embedded into the human status quo?

No one said that. But you should fool yourself saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Here is your own quote:

> I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> No one said that If the precautionary principle should always prevail, then yes, that's what's being said. In this case, it's difficult to even disentangle what the status quo is. Pornography, this group's bogeyman, is millenia old. Computer games, decades. The combination is a bit novel, but it's also more precedented than these bans. > I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful Yeah. I see evidence they're demanded by the people who we're putatively protecting, however. And I see lots of evidence of other harmful things that aren't banned. Herego, why the fuck are we kneejerking on this?
	▲	rpdillon 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There's probably a fundamental political question underlying a lot of these discussions: do you default to letting people do things or not? My long-held belief is that there's a certain hubris to saying that you know best for everyone. So I default to letting people do things, since preventing them is exerting power over them. With that framing, you would need evidence that something is harmful if you're going to exert power over other people to prevent them from doing it.

7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]