[TN4Liberty]

Now I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply overlooked the reverse correlation, with enough generosity not to call you a liar just because you did.

I appreciate that. I didn't overlook anything. And as you have explained it, I'll go back to my alternative, that the speaker doesn't understand the definition of 100% correlation. For that to be the case, every possessor of pornography would have to have molested a child, and every child molester would have to possess pornography.

Every child molestor has probably eaten pizza, too, but you can't say those are 100 percent correlated.

[AFA-Michigan]

Let’s use smaller words, Liberty.

“Law guys say 100% of thugs they get for sex crime with kids uses porn.”

There, no words more than five letters in that sentence. Didn’t any big ones like “correlation.”

Now, is the factual content of the sentence clear?