No.9601
File: 1629315310008.jpg (5.67 KB, 204x204, 1:1, 18697964_10155357246269108….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
View-harm, I will define, is the psychological harm done to another when they view a body or a photograph of a body. Some parts of the body are especially potent, therefore laws require covering those parts in public and standards forbid showing those parts on many websites. But people may be offended by any part of any body (eyes, nose, teeth, hair), or offended by the fashion of bodily display (hair style, make-up). I don't believe in objective beauty or ugliness, so there is no, I suppose, defense against view-harm there. A good person must not use their power to hurt those around them.
I think, though, fursonas or pony-sonas help defend against view-harm. Perhaps we can share other ideas for keeping those around us safe.
No.9682
File: 1629843833083.png (82.74 KB, 528x600, 22:25, medium.png) ImgOps Google
>>9680Oh, yes, we must not engage in touch-harm. That's even worse than view-harm. Or maybe the gravity of harm depends on the specific touch or view, but good ponies must be cautious.
No.9683
File: 1629858216319.jpg (60.12 KB, 640x512, 5:4, 1628798180359.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9682Have you heard of the term 'overfitting'?
No.9687
File: 1629892053004.png (359.8 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google
>>9683Yes, when inferences are made from accidental patterns that don't do well at predicting what's being modeled.
That's bad, I guess, but I'm not sure it's psychologically damaging.
>>9684Interesting. View-harm might be a class of information hazard. I suppose you could say it's really information gained in a view that does the mental damage, although exactly what information is hard to say.
