But what is porn addiction, even? Is it the same thing as alcoholism, in the hard-line Alcoholics Anonymous definition of "if you think you have a problem, then you have a problem"? If you spend an hour viewing porn instead of watching a sitcom, are you an addict? If you spend an hour viewing porn instead of dealing with a family emergency, are you an addict, or just very irresponsible?
I mean, to make porn an addiction seems like an effort to reframe the debate. It takes what seems to be strictly a moral problem, and reframes it in the light of psychology. I really don't think this is a correct line of argument, for the same reasons modoc presents.
The article actually talks about that.
Of course, you are correct- your chances of dying from getting in a care without breaks is higher than your chances of dying from looking at porn. But, your chances of being addicted to porn are about perhaps (who really knows?) similar to your chances of dying?
Also, keep in mind that there are things much worse than death.
And yes, it was in my younger, and probably stupider years. Though I am stupid enough I would likely do the same thing again.
I also don't think that looking at porn means you've done something that's difficult to stop. While I'm not discounting the existence of porn addiction, I think you'd find that rate of addiction (i.e. the number of people who have seen porn compared to the number of porn addicts) is very very very low. Overall I think most of the article is based on bad assumptions but I still don't have the time to write a thorough refutation of the article.
Given the difference in actual risk of death, and the arguable risk of addiction, I'd say the comparison is more like "drinking a bottle of Drain-O is not unlike drinking a bottle of soda". Yes, you could drown from a bottle of soda, yes people will argue that you get addicted to sugary drinks, but realistically, other than both being liquid, there's not much similar. It's rampant hyperbole at the very best.