Purposely ignoring the part of the message where the person said he didn't defend that, isn't really a good look. And just in case you believe that comment you're replying to is me, I never said that either.
You're clearly confusing someone else over an empty broad comment that 2cross2affliction said that seemed to suggest that it was about someone else. He literally mentioned that the person was the biggest AI defender on Flayrah and I do know an active member that seem to suggest alignment with that and not me because I just started talking about the unethical side of anti-AI here and the only other time I mentioned AI art was an older comment before it became the next moral panic and it wasn't very big.
Even if the member had a couple of controversial opinions about those two sensitive topics and it was something even I don't agree with, it doesn't change the fact that I can agree with some good points about this topic without agreeing with everything else the person has probably said on this website. That member isn't going to go away, it's the member's free speech right to be here to a degree. Unfortunately you're one of those people that would likely be denied a role in certain 'intellectual' communities, you're not going to care about this comment because you're too obsessed with disrespecting the right to lawfully use certain AI on Mona Lisa and some other certain public domain arts and is trying way too hard to "debunk" an argument by depending on a bunch of fallacies. Yes I sound a little frustrated here but it's because I'm annoyed of trying to put effort to open up a type of healthy debate just to be targeted by the furry twitter mafia that I argue is possibly the worst part of the fandom in the history of the world and the only reason I'm partly replying to you is because you're one of the furry predators who has picked me (?) as the next target over something I didn't even do and is trying to spread misinformation but even then, you don't have any ethics at respecting people for having an opinion of what I'm assuming.
That reminds me, I was planning to make a comment here calling out the cancel culture problem, and this attitude here does make me want to do that further. But first I might make a comment explaining the situation that happened here and then make a separate comment about the AI art issue and the "cancel culture" issue where I try to list what is unethical and what isn't unethical and to remind people that "ethics" shouldn't be used to decide that someone's freedom is wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with respecting basic human rights that actually exist. But I feel like I commented too much here and don't want to look like some trouble-maker to the general website's better part of the community (so to appeal to more mature members in some way). So I don't know. Ha
Purposely ignoring the part of the message where the person said he didn't defend that, isn't really a good look. And just in case you believe that comment you're replying to is me, I never said that either.
You're clearly confusing someone else over an empty broad comment that 2cross2affliction said that seemed to suggest that it was about someone else. He literally mentioned that the person was the biggest AI defender on Flayrah and I do know an active member that seem to suggest alignment with that and not me because I just started talking about the unethical side of anti-AI here and the only other time I mentioned AI art was an older comment before it became the next moral panic and it wasn't very big.
Even if the member had a couple of controversial opinions about those two sensitive topics and it was something even I don't agree with, it doesn't change the fact that I can agree with some good points about this topic without agreeing with everything else the person has probably said on this website. That member isn't going to go away, it's the member's free speech right to be here to a degree. Unfortunately you're one of those people that would likely be denied a role in certain 'intellectual' communities, you're not going to care about this comment because you're too obsessed with disrespecting the right to lawfully use certain AI on Mona Lisa and some other certain public domain arts and is trying way too hard to "debunk" an argument by depending on a bunch of fallacies. Yes I sound a little frustrated here but it's because I'm annoyed of trying to put effort to open up a type of healthy debate just to be targeted by the furry twitter mafia that I argue is possibly the worst part of the fandom in the history of the world and the only reason I'm partly replying to you is because you're one of the furry predators who has picked me (?) as the next target over something I didn't even do and is trying to spread misinformation but even then, you don't have any ethics at respecting people for having an opinion of what I'm assuming.
That reminds me, I was planning to make a comment here calling out the cancel culture problem, and this attitude here does make me want to do that further. But first I might make a comment explaining the situation that happened here and then make a separate comment about the AI art issue and the "cancel culture" issue where I try to list what is unethical and what isn't unethical and to remind people that "ethics" shouldn't be used to decide that someone's freedom is wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with respecting basic human rights that actually exist. But I feel like I commented too much here and don't want to look like some trouble-maker to the general website's better part of the community (so to appeal to more mature members in some way). So I don't know. Ha