You said there are no sex workers or people paying for sex in the US. I said, prove it. You can't because you're just talking nonsense.

> because these people barely exist in the US. I've never seen them, I've never seen anyone who's seen them

> You said there are no sex workers or people paying for sex in the US. I said, prove it. You can't because you're just talking nonsense.

Well, that's not what I said, it appears you're trying to be dishonest.

You said there's people who "spend all their money" on porn and that daughters are increasingly becoming sex workers. I said this is rare, which is true.

What you're trying to do is say porn is bad by appealing to a worst case scenario. It's a common argumentative tactic people who don't really know how to argue use.

For example, cars are bad because people fly through windshields and paint the freeway with their brains. This is true, and does happen, but without a qualifier for how often it happens, it's worthless. This statement says absolutely nothing about how good or bad cars are.

But, to be clear, even if it did, that alone would not be enough to sacrifice any and all privacy and security. See, the problem here is you're making multiple levels of arguments, of which you cannot even justify the lowest level.

Making the argument that porn is bad is one argument, making the argument that this means we should sacrifice privacy or security is another argument, and a much more difficult one. You haven't even proved the more fundamental argument, so certainly you're a long way away from proving the more stringent one.