You raise sources I've never seen, I evaluate them as fairly as I can, you don't like the result so I'm arguing in bad faith.
I mentioned incidence, one source raised to try to counter not only relates to prevalence rather than incidence but explains why this matters, but when I point out that a source you chose itself disclaims support for how you want to use it, I'm arguing in bad faith.
I still don't even know what kind of pernicious dishonesty I'm meant to be advancing here, but sure, if you like then apparently I'm setting some kind of trap, in service of good God, I still don't know what.
I don't know who you imagine yourself to be at war with here, but whoever you're talking to clearly isn't me, so...I don't know, good luck with the rest of your day, I guess. You're not wrong we both have better ways to spend our time, at least.
For one thing, because the decrease in CSA over time is so well-known that I am pretty sure one of the PDFs I have saved refers to it as having been "common knowledge" in the 2000s. I have a hard time understanding how someone could apparently have studied this topic in detail and not come across this.
For another, I posted 3 sources and you 'evaluated' them within 15 minutes of me posting them, and of course found issues with all of them.
Yes, I can see that you are replying cordially, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're being forthcoming, either. I've grown extremely tired of this type of discourse.
This is the one thing Nietzsche said that's worth hearing, the shitty little edgelord he always was: it looks back, and you need to watch that. I think you haven't been. Your problem, not mine, thank goodness. I'd say "good luck," but given there is quite evidently nothing too low for you to think of me, your fortunes are entirely your own miserable business and frankly I both hope and expect you will fail.
It's pretty simple honestly, any online discussion about pornography has turned into a complete and total clown show and it has become increasingly obvious that people who are arguing are doing so in bad faith.
I don't know what previous conversations we've had, as I spend far too much time on this damned website and have probably made tens of thousands of comments, but I kind of had a bad feeling the moment I saw your first comment because I had a pretty good feeling you knew what sources people were referring to and decided to play it as if you didn't, for one reason or another. I can see strategically why one would do this when the data seems to contradict the conclusion you have drawn so unilaterally, but at the same time, it's an annoying strategy. It's like laying a trap.
I really don't like this sort of discussion thread:
> Oh, it would be great news if incidence of CSA has gone down. Care to link to a source?
> Sure, here: [d2l link]
> Ah, but, you see, that talks about prevalence, not incidence. [...]
Because you knew what direction it was going to go all along. Playing coy here feels like theatrics.
If I took your position, I'd probably go more along the lines of:
> I am aware of the abundance of studies that discuss the prevelance of CSA, but [...]
(And I'm sure people would probably downvote that, but also, I get downvoted any time I respond in one of these types of threads, so it wouldn't make any difference to me.)
Anyway, the truth is that when I saw your first post, I didn't know what type of trap was being set, but my expectations were pretty low. The actual nuance you brought up is more interesting than that, but still not something I really care to debate.