If we just banned things because it harms people then journalism would be out of business. Any damning article with an associated damning photograph would be ce

If we just banned things because it harms people then journalism would be out of business. Any damning article with an associated damning photograph would be censored. In your blindness you crossed several lines already. It's your attitude that creates places like china where they censor and stop freedom of speech. I wouldn't want people like you in power. I would prefer someone like me who can see both sides of the story. > “synthetically generated pornography of a real person created without their consent is bad.” It's not of a real person. The argument can easily be made that the person just happens to look like the real person. I guarantee you for every nude painting of a fictitious person there is at least one person in the world who looks identical to that photo. In fact the science says there's roughly seven people per person. https://www.audacy.com/y98/news/you-have-at-least-six-doppelgangers-out-there-in-the-world https://www.audacy.com/y98/news/you-have-at-least-six-doppel.... That renders almost all realistic nude art of fictitious people illegal under your rules. >This argument is apparently so obvious that we in fact have curtailed freedom of speech along various boundaries of this area, and only complete weirdos or “I am very smart because I logic good” people have a hard time understanding why that is. Nah. I'm not like that. Let me spell out what your saying here without that "logic". You are calling me a pedantic over logical ass hole while trying to skirt the rules of HN. But your intention is clear you basically called me a weirdo. Haha well fuck you too. The opposite of that would be an idealistic idiot out to protect the sanctity of all women without rational thought. A simp who who tries to display his false confidence by getting angry at anything that even questions things that slightly harm women. And I'll be straight here, that sinp is you. You realize women have the upper hand in many arenas in life that are unfair towards men? They can ruin you by declaring rape or harassment. They can fucking end you on on just an allegation. In divorces they can take your child and half your wealth. And MANY women exploit this imbalance. The current status quo exists because of some idiot like you didn't think shit through and just wanted to "protect" women so they made these things into laws. This does not mean that what happened here is not wrong. This topic deserves fair discussion and women deserve to be treated as equals. But this blind allegiance to protect women at all costs and get fucking angry when someone even questions these things is blindness. You put women on some sort of pedestal. Wake the hell up. They are human and it's stupid to suddenly make sweeping censorship laws just to protect their sacred purity. Open your fucking mind. This topic and the intricacies and far reaching consequences deserves a genuine discussion without you trying to skirt the rules and call me some over pedantic weirdo. Don't be a Dick. Engage in conversation with people who talk about these things. Don't be all uppity like you're on some moral high ground and think you're 100 percent justified to just rage because your protecting women. I definitely don't see this type of behavior when people on HN talk about other issues. Those people who like to pretend to be overly "rational" don't get called out on other topics. But when it comes to women's issues then that's when cliche characters like you appear... trying to be all protective for no reason.