"Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" and being in the wrong body

[Jarhyn]

No, I can empathize with even a Nazi. In general, that's how you know they're a Nazi. Empathy doesn't mean you have to roll over and lick the boot. Indeed, sometimes it means you need to put the boots toe-side-up.

 

[Bomb#20]

We have plenty of examples of people living their lives wearing livestock with children who vehemently know that their joy and passion is in theater, and some of them *really liked* the *lady* roles...

Case in point:

 

[Bomb#20]

"Don't" <> "Can't" or "Couldn't".

Emily mis-represented what I said, and criticised me for what she claimed I had said (but didn't).

This place really needs an emoji of Spock doing the eyebrow thing...

You are correct that "don't" != "can't"; however, the circumstances under which you know "You don't" about someone else but you don't know "You can't" about him are a bit limited. So when you claim "You don't", what are we to make of your implied knowledge claim? How do you know he doesn't? Did excreationist PM you and tell you the hypothetical version of himself in his scenario actually doesn't? Do you have the lame doomed-to-be-a-sidekick superpower of extrasensory perception that gives you privileged insight into inner thoughts, but only of fictional characters? Do you have precognition? Did you foresee that excreationist would later admit his character might lie about his preferences, and are you now giving us your supernatural revelation that he is going to confirm that his theoretical self does in fact have a slight attraction to men or dead babies?

All the scenarios in which you know he doesn't but you don't know he can't are absurd. Therefore the only reasonable interpretation of 'You don't prefer "regular* females"' is 'You don't prefer "regular* females" and the way I know that is because you can't.'. That's why Emily evidently inferred you meant that, and then postulated a plausible reason you might believe he can't: the whole "sexual orientation is a figment of everyone's imagination" meme popular with a certain ideology.

So if you insist Emily was unreasonable and "Nothing in what I said could be interpreted to mean that", then by all means, please share with us how you know excreationist's theoretical self doesn't prefer regular females. Your listeners await your explanation with bated breath.

Wow, the defense of a straw man criticism

The criticism I'm defending wasn't a strawman. If you disagree, show your work.

by criticizing mind-reading

I didn't criticize mind-reading. I explicitly concluded he was not mind-reading -- I raised the possibility only in order to dismiss it.

by using mind-reading

Never happened. What I was using is called "reasoning"; you might want to read up on it. What can be accomplished with it might look almost magical to those with little experience of it.

and ending with a straw man ( bilby did not insist anyone was unreasonable).

Do tell. What interpretation would you put on his claim "Nothing in what I said could be interpreted to mean that". Do you think he meant it literally -- that it was physically impossible for Emily to do the thing she had evidently just done? The only reading that makes any sense is that it was a perfectly conventional figure of speech, meaning "Nothing in what I said could be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean that", implying that since Emily had just done it she must necessarily not be a reasonable person.

Did you intend to model an absurd reply?

Nah, you evidently don't need a model to work from.

If you think my reasoning was incorrect, by all means, please share with us your theory for how bilby knows excreationist's theoretical self doesn't prefer regular females. Your listeners await your explanation with bated breath.