A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway”

So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?

▲

Eisenstein 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Person 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse"

Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?"

Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?"

Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true.

Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.

▲

kcplate 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Person 1: I once or twice got a small drop of a dangerous chemical on my skin in 1982

Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.

▲

Eisenstein 10 hours ago | parent [-]

In this case Person 2 has no duty to prove that bathing in it is fine or that getting exposed to a small drop is dangerous.

If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.

	▲	kcplate 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok then, enjoy your bath. Hopefully it’s fine.

▲

19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]