I just read an inspiring bit of argumentation, one of those things that makes me realize just how much better a place this whole world would be if only we could eliminate all the things I, personally, do not like.

Imagine a world without war, without hunger, without the New England Patriots, without the music of Kenny G and without price tags that can only be removed from the products they are stuck on with sand-blasting equipment. Can you really argue that such a world wouldn’t be a better place?

Oddly enough, I have anti-porn feminist Julie Bindel to thank for this epiphany. Before I read her piece Without Porn, the World Would be a Better Place, I never really understood the appeal of circular reasoning, but now I get it: So long as my definition of things like “reality” and “good” and “bad’ is the only one that matters, mentally crafting a vision of utopia is a snap.

Of course, it helps if you can concoct airtight logic like the following, because nobody could possibly construct a rebuttal to this gem of anti-porn feminist wisdom: “Rather than look for a direct causal link between viewing porn and sexual violence, we should be looking at the culture of misogyny that porn arises from and contributes to,” Bindel wrote. “Ending misogyny will end violence against women.”

Yes, that’s absolutely true, because we all know the only reason any violence against women ever occurs is misogyny.

To wit, if Mrs. Brown cuts off Mrs. Jones in traffic, and Mrs. Jones follows Mrs. Brown to the mall, confronts Mrs. Brown in the parking lot and punches Mrs. Brown square in the nose, we can reliably conclude, without any further examination, one thing: Mrs. Jones is a misogynist!

We can also conclude – again, without further examination, because like Bindel I don’t believe you have to actually find proof of something just to assert its absolute truth with complete confidence – there is no such thing as pornography that does not promote misogyny and violence against women. I know this because Bindel didn’t mention the existence of any such porn, and as the inspiration of my new worldview, I hereby declare her to be infallible.

What’s that you say? Bindel may have omitted any caveat acknowledging that not all porn is misogynistic because to acknowledge such would undermine the central thrust of her argument that Porn = Bad?

Frankly, if you were here sitting in front of me, I would slap you silly for that insolent questioning of The Great Julie Bindel’s intellectual integrity – unless, of course, you’re a woman, in which case I probably shouldn’t be slapping you. That would, ipso factoid, make me a misogynist.

For the unenlightened few who aren’t persuaded by Bindel’s dazzling display of righteous rhetoric, the good news is that she and other anti-porn feminists are not advocating censorship. This, too, I know because Bindel said so, in a very straightforward fashion.

“None of the anti-porn feminists I work with would advocate state censorship,” wrote Bindel. “Rather, they call for better sex education and awareness-raising about the harm caused by porn.”

Which harms “caused” by porn, you ask? All of them, of course, including the ones we won’t name because we don’t know what they are. An inquest into the precise harms caused by porn would only slow us down in our tireless effort to make a better world by not censoring porn, even though porn is causing misogyny, which is in turn causing violence against women.

If you can’t follow that simple reasoning, then I’m not sure how to explain it to you, other than to assure you that once you have realized you are right (assuming, naturally, that you agree with me and Julie Bindel, because otherwise you’re wrong, obviously) you won’t feel compelled to understand or explain why or how you’re right. You’ll just accept that you are.