And this is why the stimulus bill will bring broadband to rural areas, equal opportunity porn!
“Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by,” Edelman says.
-Obviously, this researcher is not smart enough to do the research he claims to. Otherwise, he wouldn’t make this circular assumption. The porn they are counting, is that per capita or total volume? I would have to believe it is per capita as I find it hard to believe that Alabama consumes more porn than New York or California. That being said, per capita consumption according to Edelman must be distributed evenly across the populace of the state. He actually does this twice. He assumes that everyone is watching at least a little bit of porn and everyone is attending at least a little bit of church. Both assumptions are erroneous.
My hypothesis would be different. My guess here is that in states that Edelman characterizes as ‘religious’ have had a stronger voice in public concern over adult book stores, adult relaxation centers and other ‘blue businesses’. Because of this, there are less outlets in less locations. Therefore, those who may be ‘non-religious’ feel trapped in a ‘religious’ or more accurately ‘restricted access’ state. This forces the end users of such businesses to resort to accessing pornography and accessing it more often than similarly predisposed people in states with less ‘restricted access’ to the materials or blue businesses. This forces them to access product in a fashion that can be counted by Edelman, and to access it much more frequently.
The assumption that people who attend church are secret hypocrits accessing porn when they get home from church is a huge leap from the data available. While it is almost certain that at least some church goers access porn, the preachy leap to mocking disbelief only serves to uncover a biased agenda in the research thereby reducing the reliability of the research and the researcher.