I replied: "Really? What about mental and emotional health?"
You said: "If you can't measure it, you can't make laws for it. If you disagree about the need for objective science as a guide to policy, then you'll want to run along to the DUmpster to pledge your support for Algore's environmental agenda."
I replied: "I wasn't talking about making any law. Please reread my post."
In the first context of our conversation, we were discussing the impact of pornongraphy on human mental and emotional health, not legal policy. As one can clearly see from the above verbatim exchange, you were the one who suddenly started talking about making law, not I. Therefore, I stand by my comment that I wasn't talking about making any law. I wasn't -- not in the context of the subject being discussed (mental and emotinal impact).
In a later exchange, when we were discussing legal policy, I did say that "laws against porngraphy must be passed and strictly enforced", but by then we were discussing a different topic.
You had no responses to my arguments, choosing instead to engage in parsimony and ad hominem. With this in mind, further discussion between us seems pointless. I stand by my assertion that pornography is degrading and pernicious.
You either are or are not. This attempt to finesse the issue is worthy of Bill Clinton.
You had no responses to my arguments
That's because you haven't offered any arguments -- just statements of what you find objectionable. The two are not interchangeable.