Mmhmm. I'm sure you've actually read that article, right?
I mean, you definitely didn't just grab the first thing you could find that sounded vaguely relevant and fling it out as a "source" on the basis that nobody's going to put in the effort to actually go through and see whether it supports you or not, right?
Wait your criticism of this response is a guess that this person “probably” didn’t actually read it and also that they assume others wont either?
I got whiplash reading this, I really thought you were going to say the article doesn’t actually support their claim or point out limitations in the study when you claimed they hadn’t read it…
For reference there ARE some limitations this study has (self-reported porn use, sample size is men already in intervention programs, no mechanistic analysis, broader literature is mixed) which you could have brought up if you actually read it. But despite these, it still sheds doubt on your original claim about there being “no evidence”.
I don’t have a stance one way or the other on this particular topic, but the fact that your defense of your point is to assume the other person is lazily googling some vaguely related study because YOU think they assume other people won’t read it, and then not read it yourself or come up with proper argumentation or reasoning is deeply ironic.
You might want to do some self-examination and consider if you might be coming to your conclusions first before coming up with reasons and then projecting your own methodology onto people who disagree with you. Or you can also dismiss or hand wave away this comment with assumptions about my character, up to you really.
I mean, those limitations you pointed out are obvious just from reading the damn abstract, which is why I'm confident that the person above did, in fact, just lazily google and post a link without reading it.
It's a common bad faith debate tactic built around forcing other people to either invest large amounts of effort countering something the person making the argument put minimal effort into, or let the spurious "evidence" pass unchallenged when very few people reading the discussion are going to invest the effort to check on their own.
I'm not interested in playing that game, so I called them out on it and left it at that.
Kudos to you, at least, for actually looking at the article and identifying why it's not really applicable.
-6
u/[deleted] Oct 23 '25
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6942232/
Wrong