sounds to me that people have strong opinions based on their own personal experiences and that as such...

people go around trying to find the evidence to support their view rather than trying to find the evidence to disconform their view.

(that is called CONFIRMATION BIAS - it is a well known fallacy that occurs in the context of scientific reasoning).

sigh.

i wish i knew whether the disagreement came down to disagreement over matters of fact (which is what people seem to think it is) where science will eventually determine what should be done...

or whether the disagreement came down to disagreement over matters of ethics (disagreement over whether freedom to or freedom from takes priority) where ethics will eventually determine what should be done...

maybe a combination... maybe...

people have a natural inclination to rape, too. there are many examples of this throughout history and there are analogous behaviours that occur in animals.

just because people have a natural inclination to do something does not imply / entail that it is ethically acceptable for them to do what it is that comes naturally to them.

so...

if we could reduce rape by 10% by outlawing porn then should we outlaw porn?

(you might think we can't but i'm asking you to grant it for the sake of argument - IF WE COULD - then should we?)

if we agreed on the facts (whether outlawing porn would increase or decrease sexual offences) then would we converge on what we think we should do...

or not.

?