Catherine Mackinnon tried to ban pornography by arguing that

>>136829001
Men survived millions of years without pornography. That's when people actually had families.... after the shit I've seen on here, I'm glad none of you are reproducing. Your brains are destroyed.

>>136829186
Degeneracy is a problem yes, but people should still be free to do what they like.

>>136829001
I don't know who she is but I agree with here.
Before porn, there were not so much sexual degenerat in our time.

>>136830608
>>136829186
Um... what? Degeneracy was caused by pornography? I guess there were never savage cultures who performed horrifying sexual acts, rapes, and self-sacrifices of human children to please some gods made of rocks? Come on now. I do not like pornography myself, as it is addictive and in no way useful for self-improvement. But people should be allowed to do what they want? On what basis can you argue that adults should not be able to have sex on camera? Would you also then ban having sex in front of others for money? (As this would be an alternative to internet pornography). On what basis?

>>136830608
It's kinda the "call to action" part that I disagree with. She's a radical feminist legal scholar by the way. Note: I discourage pornography consumption as well, but their arguments are bs.

>>136831596
What does she mean "call to action", like porn is made to cause people too rape and abuse?

>>136829001
The way to curb the negative impact that pornography has on western civilization is to tax it heavily, which will drastically limit the supply of it.
Anyone who goes about it differently is either a shill, or an unwitting accomplice to the adult entertainment industry.

Hers is an argument based on an all or nothing false dichotomy fallacy, similar to the one naive opponents of abortion insist on when they advocate banning all abortion, where a return to the pre-Roe/Wade status quo, in which the individual states determined whether or not abortion was legal, is the most constitutionally sound, though not the most politically expedient, option.

>>136834405
That will just drive it onto the black market. May as well ban it.

File: Willendorf1.jpg (20KB, 210x330px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 210x330px

>>136829186
>Millions of years without pornography
Wrong

>>136834775
thicc

Someone should cum on a photo of her 2bh.

>>136829001
GILF

File: 1501155329937sv.jpg (2KB, 124x122px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 124x122px

>>136829001
would/10

>>136834577
Believe it or not prohibition actually works. During the 1920s in America, alcohol consumption fell drastically, simply because it was much harder to obtain. Of course some people were willing to risk it, and crime did increase, so it's not a great solution. But if you want to discourage consumption of something, taxing it heavily or making it illegal does work.

File: tmp_4596-1501165804044899424465.png (373KB, 523x392px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 523x392px

>>136834405
>porn is a social negative
>reinforce this by taxing it heavily

I like this. Cigarettes and alcohol are taxed heavily, why not porn?
>inb4 pornhub is based in Canada
Canada is our bitch now, daddy Trump will find a way. Maybe build a wall on our northern border, kek.

>>136829001
It wouldn't be a terrible idea, to some how dial back porn. I mean we're an over sexed culture.

File: 9901506.jpg.png (6KB, 448x357px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 448x357px

Porn should be banned though you mongoloid
its the smoking of the 2000s.
Everyone thinks its harmless but it does quite a number on your psyche and subconscious
Not to mention, any kid that just dropped his balls can type in boobs into google and find sasha grey licking a toilet after in a matter of minutes

>>136834775
>thinking this was actually porn for primitive men
you fell for the jewish lies bud. That picture is representing a crude image of a women that just survived birth

>>136831069
>but people should be allowed to do what they want?

No.