I still draw a distinction between the HCE citing of Laure Beccuau's citing of the Bridges study in relation to physical and verbal aggression and the HCE's assertion of 90% regarding physical and sexual violence.
You have no justification for this distinction. You're just making **** up. And what do you even mean by "sexual violence"? Is there sexual violence which is not also physical violence? What does that even look like?
Clearly, the physical violence does not need to be 90% for HCE's headline to be valid.
Sure, because their headline includes "verbal violence". But verbal violence is bull ****, and more importantly, their source measured aggression, not violence.
The experience of porn actress Nikita Bellucci, who is mention in the French Senate report and linked to in the HCE report, is relevant
It's relevant to the broader issue of porn, sure. It's not relevant to the 90% statistic, which is what we're discussing right now.
This is what I don't get about what you're doing here. Since you're wrong about the 90% statistic, it would make more sense to simply concede that point and focus on other stuff where you could make a better case. But you can't, and that speaks poorly about your ability to handle this issue rationally rather than emotionally.
It might be that the HCE has used the Bridges study as a foundation for the 90% figure
Might be? No, it IS the foundation for the 90% figure. It is the source, and the only source, for that number. It doesn't come from anywhere else.
and it isn't a stretch to assume that violence has actually gone up in the years since that study (ie 2004/5). You acknowledged this in
#928.
Sure, that's absolutely
possible. But it hasn't been established, not by you and not by the HCE report.
It might be the case that the HCE has failed to properly distinguish between the Bridges study on aggression and their own findings on violence and sexual violence. If they haven't then that would be remiss.
They weren't remiss, you were remiss in assuming without reason that their own findings had anything to do with the 90% figure. They don't. The HCE report doesn't ever claim they do. That was entirely your own invention.
Again, I would draw attention to the HCE's inclusion of sexual violence in their headline. There will be a good number of videos that contain no physical violence that will nevertheless be sexually violent.
What does that even mean? Seriously, I have no idea what you think sexual violence in the absence of physical violence is.
One would expect significant push back in the media etc if this were the case.
Why on earth would you expect that? You seem to be confused about how the media actually operates. You seem to think they want to stop moral panics, rather than feed on them.
In the text you translated.
Uh, no. No, they do not actually claim that every video contains what the keyword says it contains. I know why you think they claim that, but they don't actually. You seem to be assuming that they would never write things to
suggest more than they actually say, because that would be dishonest. But that is foolishly naive. Of course they would. They
did.
Yes, the full report. That 200+ page document you found. It does not have any source for the 90% figure other than the Bridges paper. Nothing else.
