This statement has so many logical flaws it's difficult to know where to begin. First of all, the speaker personalizes the statement: "I've never met ..." I don't know who the speaker has met and who he hasn't. I don't know how many -- if any -- police officers he's met or who's investigated a pedophile. And even if the number is significant, it doesn't qualify as any kind of benchmark.
Secondly, and most egregiously, is the specious causal link. Since all these officers investigating pedophiles found pornography, pornography and pedophilia must somehow be linked. Of course, the implication is that pornography somehow causes pedophilia. If the opposite inference were to be drawn, then the speaker would be indicting pedophilia, not pornography.
Finally, the fact that pornography is "always on the scene" is a meaningless generality. What constitutes pornography, for starters? And what does it mean to be "on the scene?" In the same house? Lying all over the floor? Cut and taped to walls? Hidden in underwear drawers? I'll bet 90 percent of households in the US have some kind of "pornography" "on the scene."
These feeble attempts to make pornography a sickness do nothing but discredit their authors.
damn well said.