FunctionallyInsane

I have a few questions...

• What is the socio-economic status of your family/parents?
• How is your relationship with them?
• What race/ethnicity are you?
• Do you panhandle/beg for money?

I have a serious and respectful question I hope you'll answer.

A number of years ago, ICANN (the official web address committee) introduced the TLD .xxx which was intended for adult or pornographic content on the web.

At the time it was hailed by parents and others as a way to restrict X-rated material from children and other in situations (like work environments) where such material is inappropriate.

The adult entertainment industry (unsurprisingly) argued that forcing them to adopt the .xxx TLD amounted to censorship of free speech by creating an internet-wide "red light district". Surprisingly, religious groups allied (well, not allied... but agreed with for different reasons) the AEI with the motivation that the .xxx domain would further legitimize and encourage porn (sorta like Parental Warnings on CDs make them taboo and thus, more attractive).

In the end, legislation designed to mandate porn be restricted to the .xxx domain was dropped and use of the .xxx domain is now voluntary (and hardly ever used).

Given all the children online and the relatively ineffective nature of web filters.. plus things like sex addiction and lawsuits from watching porn at work... and all the other problems with porn... was not mandating the .xxx domain requirement a mistake?

I'm not for censoring porn or anything. I watch it myself. But, I think .. like book and convenient stores put adult magazines in blacked out plastic wrap for reason. And that's not considered censorship.

Considering there are other... very qualified and knowledgeable... experts in your field who disagree with you... wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you were fired for telling your interpretation of the data?

I find this kind of thing all the time when it comes to certain scientific controversies. Often, scientists like yourself aren't telling the "truth". The "truth" is only the data. You're just interpreting that data which - at the end of the day - is opinion... not truth.

I can understand the scientific and (to some VERY limited and VERY regulated extent - medical) experimentation and potential therapeutic uses.

But, promoting "spiritual" uses seems like a sure fire and irresponsible way to open the door for people claiming recreational use as something "spiritual". Spirituality is entirely subjective and there's no scientific way to measure the effects on "spirituality".

My question: don't you think you guys undermine yourselves by promoting the "spiritual" use of drugs?

I'm not sure which is worse... wealthy trend following white dudes going to oppressive asian countries where people are tortured and executed so they can brag on reddit...

... or the same type of dude hunting critically endangered species on safari.

Guess it doesn't matter. They're both shallow assholes.