I deal with Fibromyalgia as well (though mine is much tamer than that of anyone else I know) and so when these things come up I pay keen attention. I've seen elsewhere that certain drugs like dextromethorphan (found in cough syrup) can help by disrupting a different set of pain receptors than typical painkillers. Much more recently, I've been looking into "EFT" - a practice related to acupressure that assumes to relate physical and emotional pain.

Regarding Cymbalta: a friend of mine had horrible reactions to this drug. She went from being in constant pain to simply being suicidal. I cringe when I hear its name.

I managed to read about six pages of the PDF. That's much better than for policies and guidelines of places I've worked. Maybe instructional documents should be leaked instead of thrust upon employees, they might be more willing to waste their time reading it given the added intrigue.

Are you sure this statistic is based on their app store?

'Cause experiments are hard, and common sense doesn't come until you get a Ph.D

A smart person is a person who knows how to learn. People stop learning when they stop trying. Anyone can be smart (save for those with severe disabilities) in a different given way, so long as they continue activating their brain to study and learn about things. That's one reason, in my opinion, that college-schooled individuals are generally seen as smarter than the rest: they have continued to learn. If the lessons stuck, they won't accept their degree as a plateau and cease learning there, even.

To your comment that implies a degree itself makes one smarter and/or is required in order to know good from bad: take it from someone who is generally recognized as very intelligent that the piece of paper and title along with it do not mean as much as the work that went into them. And trust me, you can do that work and more without ever stepping foot into a classroom.

Read again. These statements do not contradict one another.

I'm sorry, where do you see support for censorship in my post? You clearly have mastered quotes, please do point it out.

It's called safe-search.

My claim:

A claim that evidence exists of sexually explicit material (mind you, not even having qualified what variety of pornography this would be, such as the forms directly depicting and portraying as pleasurable or erotic the violent beatings of other human beings) being something other than harmless is in your mind equivalently fantastic as the claim of having proof of God's existence? Perhaps you've simply never thought about pornography at all. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Now for some links, which you also seem to enjoy very much.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Cline
2. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED364919&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED364919
3. http://www.springerlink.com/content/nl0u0phwq6727n2t/
4. http://www.strengthenthefamily.net/is_there_proof.php

Feel free to cry about the sources of some of these links. Again, I have already reasoned on the subject and seen enough evidence for me to be convinced in the direction that I am: the consumption of pornography is harmful. I do not need to prove this to myself again and I have no desire to do anything in your regard but to show that I believe what I say and am not making baseless claims, "bad bluffs." Again I will say, if you actually care about the subject there is more than enough material on the internet to show you what the esteemed medical/psychological community has found in their studies regarding pornography. I'm washing my hands of this thread. Good day sir.

Nice passive aggressive ad hominem. Really got a chuckle out of that. A fine way to further trivialize an already weak post.

I never asked you to adopt my point of view. If you want to believe that viewing pornography has no negative effect on you then you are welcome to continue doing so. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.

Regarding the aforementioned evidence: an arrogant and sarcastic post such as the one you have offered really doesn't merit very much of my time, as far as I'm concerned. We live in the information age, communicating on the information superhighway. If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. The fact is, you are anticipating that I will further invest myself into a discussion/argument with you from which you most likely derive some pleasure. I won't be the one to offer it. Argue with someone else.

Your point of view sounds reasonable but it does appear that you (like many other slashdotters) regard pornography as being harmless. There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief. I revert to an illustration I'm quite fond of: if you know a drink is poisonous, how much of it do you drink? To add to the illustration, if your kids want to drink it, do you allow them to only as long as you can supervise them and watch them do it? Now clearly we are coming from entirely different viewpoints on this issue. Just know that for those of us who consider pornography to be objectively dangerous/harmful, the quantity, setting, or myriad other factors are of relatively little importance. I'm not the type of person who supports legislation to "fix" our problems for us (the only government I support is God's Kingdom) but I do empathize with where this mother seems to be coming from, i.e. there's a danger, help me protect my children from it.

Feel free to continue marvelling at the creation without giving honor to the creator. Clearly the evidence won't stop you, so what else could I possibly offer you?

Not your fault but posts like this infuriate me. For the umpteenth time, the brain is not a work of evolution. An intelligent designer gave it to us. Wake up and smell the bacon.

Unless, of course, your research in them manages to steal the attention of this guy's girlfriend.

And if not, they could save her life.