This "you are a fundamentalist" line is weaksauce. I tried to see to what degree there is flexibility in thinking from both sides with my questions and he demonstrated greater flexibility on the issue than the pro-porners so to speak.
Is the side that is open to reconsider when there is new information the fundamentalist side or is the side that would not budge even in the face of new information the fundamentalist?
The "there has always been porn" argument is a poor one, because it has never been as prevalent as it is today. There is a huge difference to how it is regarded now compared to how it was regarded prior to the sexual revolution and it isn't just the internet that is responsible. I consider Kinsey (and kinsey-inspired playboy), and the birth control pill to be much more instrumental.
Kinsey changed the moral perception of orgasms and gave them a kind of divinity. The kids that tried to fight against being given an orgasm were judged to have benefitted from them because of the pleasure of an orgasm.
Some of Kinsey's ideas filtered into the common consciousness stronger than others, but the hedonists, which the majority of non-religious people seem to be, consider freedom to engage in pleasurable activity sacrosanct.
The fact that nobody so far would consider rethinking their position on pro-porn even if it would be established unequivocally that it is harmful AND that harm could be reduced with either restrictions or a ban SHOULD give you pause and ask yourself to which degree you are a fundamentalist hedonist.
See, I'd be open to the anti-porn side if they can provide a valid argument for their case, and a valid solution to the problem. However, all they ever seem to spout is moral bullshit for their arguments and prohibition for their solution.
The problem with the average anti-porn argument is that prohibition simply does not work. We saw it with alcohol in the 1920's and our society is just now realizing how badly prohibition of drugs has backfired for the past fifty years. Even with the unique addictive properties and lethality of certain hard drugs like meth, cocaine, or heroin, prohibition has done nothing to stop the problem and in many cases, it has made society worse.
Prohibition of porn would be even more detrimental to society, just like prohibition of alcohol was in the 1920's. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back in.
As for being a fundamentalist, there isn't any concrete information that proves porn is specifically more harmful than other vices when responsibly consumed by adults and even if there were, the only solutions that are consistently being proposed are ineffective at best and exponentially counterproductive at worst.
Honestly, I'd be more open to the anti-porn side's arguments if they could successfully pull off these three things.
1. Provide concrete proof of porn being uniquely detrimental compared to other vices or forms of media, with at least two or three credible sources. Again, keep in mind that I'm talking about adults viewing porn. I do agree that minors should not have easy access to porn.
2. Provide a reasonable solution the problem that could actually be effective. Simply banning it and revoking any First Amendment protections it has is not a viable solution.
3. Not invoke morality arguments like "muh degeneracy", "muh traditionalism", or "muh World Jewry"