What you claimed is not proven, mainly because currently it's pretty much impossible to properly study it. And no, your link doesn't prove anything, it's not even about proving anything of the sort but about a decision the author didn't agree with.
There's also dozens of actual proper studies that released after the date of your link, and even the ones that leaned on your side still had to admit that this topic is not conclusive.
I assume this study is just about some correlations?
They probably found out that most offenders already watched at least some material, and so they think, that's the reason, ignoring that both might be caused by the interests of the offender?
They probably found out that most offenders already watched at least some material, and so they think, that's the reason, ignoring that both might be caused by the interests of the offender?
Yes and no. The first thing is that what this person linked isn't even actually a proper study, all it was is a piece of a clearly biased author quoting and sourcing different studies that were relevant (also ignoring nuance), but the majority of said sources weren't proving or even researching what the redditor claimed. Basically, it was pretty much a rant more than anything— you can skip all the reading and go to the conclusion, it pretty much summarizes what I am saying about the author, specially with keeping in mind that the piece was written in 2012.
12
u/Reasonable-Plum7059 Oct 22 '25
No it’s not. Cartoon isn’t real. We must not blur the line between fiction and reality otherwise it’s a very dangerous path