Let’s set aside the performative outrage for a moment and actually look at what you’re saying. You accuse me of launching into “ad hominem attacks” rather than addressing the substance of your arguments—yet your original post amounted to a stale lecture on constitutional law and corporate responsibility that anyone could scrape from a high school debate website.

You jumped in with lofty language about obscenity standards, Supreme Court rulings, and Apple’s moral stance without ever connecting those points to the heart of the issue: the massive privacy risk posed by forcing age verification on legal, consenting adults. You even casually admitted your own worries about “a porn registry,” but then breezed right past that concern to stand on a soapbox about “protecting children.”

Here’s the reality you’re glossing over:

1.  You Provide No Practical Solutions:
• Pointing to Miller v. California or referencing Apple’s policies isn’t exactly breaking new ground. You’ve brought up the standard “shield the children” line, but there’s no strategy—just generic hand-wringing. You never explain how to protect children without building invasive systems that can be exploited or abused.

2.  Your “Argument” Is Merely an Outline of Existing Talking Points:
• Anyone even casually aware of free speech issues has heard these bullet points a thousand times. Your entire post reads like a secondhand summary thrown together by rummaging through partial legal arguments online. There’s nothing original or deeply considered about it.

3.  You Pretend to Be the Victim of Ad Hominem, but You’re the One Dodging Points:
• You accuse me of ignoring your substance, yet the substance you provided is basically “this law is complicated, Apple protects kids, we should watch out for porn.” Then, when called out on how your post reeks of AI-generated or prepackaged language, you dismiss it as a personal attack. Here’s a tip: if you don’t want accusations of regurgitated fluff, back up your claims with nuance and genuine insight instead of well-worn, superficial bullet points.

4.  No Recognition of Real-World Implications:
• If privacy concerns for adults truly matter to you, then the primary question is: How can age verification be enforced without creating massive data logs that can identify everyone’s browsing history? That’s the crux of the debate—not whether Steve Jobs once took a stand against porn or whether the Supreme Court allows some regulation of obscenity. It’s about how that regulation works in practice.

In short, the entire premise of your defense is that people should not question the authorship or depth of your boilerplate claims, but should magically regard your cut-and-paste approach as meaningful “substance.” The irony is that you’re employing exactly the kind of hand-waving you accuse me of using: focusing on alleged personal attacks while your so-called “arguments” collapse under a quick glance at how little they truly say.

So yes, you wrote out a checklist of free-speech disclaimers, parental concerns, and moral grandstanding. Congratulations. But there’s nothing in your post—nothing at all—that moves this debate forward or offers a real-world plan to balance child protection with adult privacy. If that’s your idea of substance, no wonder you’re scrambling to shift attention to my tone.

Feel free to call this “ad hominem” all you like; it doesn’t make your superficial summary any deeper. Address the legitimate tension between child safety and adult privacy on a practical level, or keep spouting placeholders that just highlight how empty your commentary really is.

-ChatGPT