I see no problem with calling this kid's behavior an addiction. It has all the signs of it: He couldn't stop doing it, he thought about doing it all the time (note: he didn't think about sex, he thought specifically about looking at porn), his grades dropped significantly, he stopped seeing his friends... that's what an addiction
is. They're not physical, they're psychological. You can be addicted to anything.
The article, however, is still a load of shit. The juiciest quotes have already been extracted, so I'll just expound upon them:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by This silly ass article
"Do you want someone who is like that baby-sitting your children or sitting next to your daughter in school?" she asked.
|
Get used to it. Just about everyone you've ever met has looked at porn at least once in her life. And with the readily available supply, that percentage will only go up. There is nothing wrong with this. People like sex. Liking sex is our biological purpose. If you can't come to terms with that, you're welcome to die and erase your genes from the pool.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Some retarded social psychology professor who obviously has only taken a very basic introductory statistics class, and has no idea what they actually mean
Social scientists have been unable to establish any cause-and-effect relationship between the simple viewing of pornography and negative attitudes about women or violence against women, said Michael Kimmel, professor of sociology at Stony Brook, State University of New York.
"But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find that link because we know that obviously the things we see do have some impact on us," he said, pointing to numerous studies that link viewing violence with committing it.
|
The "link" he refers to is obviously a correlation. For any not familiar with statistics, basically "When you have A, you have x probability of having B." What this guy obviously doesn't understand is that it works the other way around, too: "When you have B, you have x probability of having A." The correlation doesn't change.
Example: You find a high correlation between viewing pornography and having a negative attitude toward women. The obvious conclusion is that viewing pornography leads to having said negative attitude. However, an equally valid conclusion is that having a negative attitude toward women leads to viewing pornography. Neither explanation is better than the other based on this correlation.
Side note: For those of you who
do understand statistics, don't bother correcting me. I know what I said is not exactly right. I couldn't think of an easier way to explain it in less than 3 sentences. You got the idea, right? Good.