You know you've chosen the right side of an argument when everyone one the other side links to a single quack website backed up by anecdotes from "An Internet User".
Is it not true that many informative articles start with anecdotes to illustrate the subject at hand? If you have a problem with the science in the article, please explain; it would help me understand the flaws you are talking about.
The study on addiction linked to covers addiction to injections of MPH. It goes on to say that injected MPH and oral MPH have completely different effects. It follows that none of this generalizes to viewing pornography, seeing how the delivery mechanism is a factor in addiction and the study does not cover viewed material in any manner.
And that's from only reading the first couple sentences.
