Not a Republican but see one risk and one flaw in teaching kids to rely 100% on science: there are strategic reasons to make some decisions which you miss if you rely solely on "science" sources. The biggest risk here is if kids are taught to trust anything called "science" but not how to differentiate between good studies and bad studies - there are journals that will publish anything, and it's easy to manipulate people if they cannot effectively differentiate between good and bad studies, which requires a deeper understanding of statistics and ability to think critically about the variables tested, controlled, and overlooked or ignored.
AndyLikesCandy
joined 2 years ago
I agree porn addiction has been around for a long time, but it's very different not that we're reaching a point in time where people who are expected to be adults and functional in their mid 20's grew up in a world of ubiquitous Internet access and had smart phones.
So while porn addiction existed since photography, this is the first time we get to see the effect of population-wide unrestricted access to these things from a very young age.
It's actually probably better now with parent-child account management and the like, which didn't exist at all 15-20 years ago. Also 15-20 years ago CSAM, death imagery, real rape and mutilation videos were all on the front pages of openly accessible .com's anyone could visit.
I wasn't kidding. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-giant-jewel-beetle-1968152
Imagine an alien species bombarded the planet with real-dolls, we basically did that to this species of beetle
There are things every mating creatures brain is hard wired to look for, as signals of a healthy and breedable mate
Like the caricatures of sexual perfection in porn, the brown beer bottle happens to be the anime girl of a species of beetle whose males will regularly get carried away trying to reproduce with manufactured human garbage creating an actual risk to the species
Freak out a little then masturbate all morning for sure.
Ugh I don't know which is worse. Next timeline, portal gun.
Look you're the one who reached your cognitive limit and switched to name calling. Call me whatever you like but you're the one being a petulant child while I was mistakenly attempting to speak with you as if you were capable of engaging in a real conversation.
I brought up points you clearly never knew or thought of and you shut down.
You need to find an echo chamber on Reddit if you want someone to stroke your comfort zone.
You're 12 aren't you?
You're right that you cannot pay a dividend but you missed the check on your knowledge of how wealth and money work: that money doesn't exist. Only a miniscule fraction of that wealth exists as a budget you can just spend as you know it. All that those billionaires have is the ability to tell people what to do and all they can spend is reallocating productivity towards other goals. All the money that actually gets spent goes into other people's pockets and gets spent in turn. The inefficiently in this system is far lower than the inefficiency in a planned economy.
That's the thing though, outside of studies published in journals where you look up their ranking and it's high enough that you trust the peer review, how do you tell the difference between imperfect and flawed in a way that renders the conclusion useless to your use case? It's not a rhetorical question, that's what I'm saying requires deeper knowledge and where you should not trust it alone without having qualified help review it for you. And without the help, yeah it's just as well to go without.