This day's crop of your responses is quite disappointing. Hyde time big-time.

But this one in particular takes the cake.

Her choice is not about her choice. It is only about your PR issues.

You know that arguments from iatrogenic harm are sufficient to keep all who can be reasoned with from refraining.

But its self esteem and the willingness to engage in gedankenexperimente which interfere with the all important effort to get newspaper mentions for your clipping file.

The middle paragraph requires reversing a "braino" from "refraining" to "offending" perhaps as step 1 to making sense. The last two paragraphs of your post which I didn't quote are generic "let's bash Ethan" boilerplate.

The three paragraphs quoted above seem unrelated to anything I said. If I talk about what might make pedophiles most content, then I must not care about the girls at all. Huh?

Several people on this forum disagree with me regularly. I know what they're saying and where they stand. We disagree but we're in the same reality. Your replies in Hyde mode aren't like that. You don't meet the clinical definition quite, but the internal inconsistency of what you write brings to mind "thought disorder".

Maybe I should just parse the whole message (and most of your other replies of the day) as a big plate of Ethan bashing ordered a la carte.