Should all porn be banned?

It would stifle innovation and the energy of the internet. Perhaps it can maintain in its current state but positive innovation requires a mindset beyond harm reduction.

We could formulate a similar argument, such as: people having knives in their home entails that some percentage of people will use that knife to stab someone. Therefore if you are not opposed to banning knives, you believe the premise that it is okay to have people stabbed so that you can have a more convenient dinner. Not to mention the amount of crimes and violence that could be avoided by installing cameras in everyone's homes so that the state can monitor their activity at all times.

So how is Porn actually harmful?

Have you qualified this proposition.

How is learning about recreational sex any different to learning maths or religion or history?

No, it would not.

Yes. Ban knives.

I could make a similar argument too:

P1. If you say it is okay to hurt children for pleasure, then you say that child porn is okay.

P2. You say it is okay to hurt children for pleasure.

C. You say that child porn is okay.

P1. If you say that it is okay to hurt children for pleasure, then you say that sex with children is okay.

P2. You say that it is okay to hurt children for pleasure.

C. You say that sex with children is okay.

There are only 2 options that you have:

1. Reducing harm is more important than freedom

2. Freedom is more important than reducing harm.

Option 2 throws you into a slippery slope where you have to legalize everything that is freedom and causes harm.

And pretty much anything else that causes "pleasure" and that harms children.

Therefore, you cannot maintain your position without legalizing everything that causes harm to children and increases pleasure.

So yes, when you pick freedom over preventing harm, you end up legalizing bunch of small harms. Bunch of small harms turn into great harm. You end up legalizing great harm.

Just because you put "P1", "P2" and "C" in front of your sequence of random non-sequitur statements doesn't make them any more logical. You are bizarrely preoccupied with that subject and it has nothing to do with anything I advocated.

Ironically, you have advocated banning kitchen knives in the same post that you accuse me of falling into a slippery slope. The choice only necessitates a slippery slope if you take such an ideological, all-or-nothing approach.

You advocated for only 2 things:

1. Its okay to hurt children for innovation

2. Its okay to hurt children for freedom

Really, none of your positions make any sense, since 1. Hurting children harms future scientists, therefore harms innovation. Besides, government or citizens can fund all those innovations you mentioned directly without using porn as middle man.

2. I already explained why 2 doesnt work