Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
"All the other studies argue for the cumulative effect of it on people who commit sex crimes. Which is a whole different argument."

No this is exactly my point. A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?) From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much.
You characterized the relationship between porn and sexual violence as such:

Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification. It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first. Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.
Here is the logical structure of your argument:

P1 Pornography creates arousal (assumption)
P2 Sexual arousal is addictive (assumption)
P3 Addiction leads to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification (assumption)
P4 Pornography leads to the destruction of family life (by P1, P2 and P3, transitively)
P5 Sexual predators consume pornography which feeds in their acts (assumption)
C By P4 and P5, pornography was responsible for turning "normal" people into sexual predators.

The problem is first that P2 needs a particular quantifier, and you set it up with a universal quantifier. In other words, not everybody will be addicted to pornography. Second, the conclusion C does not follow, because the burden of evidence is upon the causes for sexual deviancy. Your evidence has not shown any significant proof that the cause of sexual deviancy is pornography as your claims propose. It has only shown that where there already is evidence of sexual deviancy, that pornography is detrimental to this condition.

When you say "There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. " I agree with you, but not in an unqualified way. The nature of this link is not one of causation of deviancy, and that is the only thing that I'm arguing over and over. If you agree with me that pornography is an adjuvant to, but not a cause of, sexual deviancy, then I have nothing else to bicker about, and we can shake hands in understanding.