>>105769233
>Some kids are horrible and don't think of consequences.
Please show where in them the need for malice is located. Did they just invent the concept of porn on their own?
>It won't reduce shit.
You are contradicting yourself. You said it will lead them to other bad stuff.
>See prohibition era.
And then you restrict the access to the other addictions and strike down the possibility of workarounds.
>They'll resort to suicide.
Only after they are already addicted. You're making a perfect case against porn sites here.
>Prohibition doesn't solve crap and usually backfires.
Yeah we should just give up. Nobody ever doesn't do something because of a possible backlash. Which is why it's impossible for you to prevent us from doing what you consider bad (not letting children watch porn).
>You only really solve this with information and education.
Why is porn then so prevalent in first world countries which generally lack less in education?
>have been attempted before
Source
>If you want to regulate you have to be reasonable.
We were reasonable and porn sites did nothing against the kids using their platforms. Justitia holds a sword for a reason.
>You should only really make things illegal if the general population agrees or doesn't care.
In general, people don't want kids to be sexualized.
>>105769279
>another solution is giving alternatives that are just as interesting for kids.
According to you that's only drugs or alcohol. No thanks!
>Prohibition doesn't solve crap.
According to you it reduced the amount of alcohol in the biggest historic example. Do you think pornhub wouldn't offer even more cp if it was legal? Is there no market interest in this?
>your incredibly naive comment of "kids do not have inherent need for malice" should give you a hint.
Show me how kids come up with an uninspired need for porn.
