You are inappropriately narrowing your focus down to a level of detailed concern well below my approximate description. Totally unreasonable and inappropriate.

Translation: When I talk out of my ass, it is totally unreasonable and inappropriate for others to point out the glaring holes in my statements.

Sure, I didn't give an exact wording, or how exactly we would define the population of interest, how to get a sample, method of contact to use, etc.

Translation: I didn't follow any of the procedures for the assignment but you must still put me an A, professor, because I really believe what I am saying.

The testing of my claim could be done quite easily.

Preferrably by another, it seems.

On the other hand, the iatrogenic harm claim is to a considerable extent a matter of faith concerning how societies can be changed and the parts that are empirically testable are extremely difficult to test.

WEIRD.

Too many historians and anthropologists to mention.

It is a statement about what the person meant when they expressed an opinion. It is an educated guess based on judgement. It could be easily tested and falsified if it is indeed false. It hasn't been tested, to my knowledge. But do you really feel you need to test the question (worded approximately) that "When I said children can't consent, I did not mean that they are incapable of saying 'yes' or 'no' with some basic understanding of what behaviors they are saying 'yes' or 'no' to. I meant that if they said 'yes' their consent would not be informed enough to be valid."

Well it certainly explains why you read the "kill all the pedos" comments posted on articles' open comments sections as enthusiastic support for pedos. They say "kill all the pedos" but they really mean "hug all the pedos"

Not really. Clancy's work documented many cases where the adults realized they as children did not experience it negatively at the time, but still clearly felt harmed later.

Which is exactly what I just said.

Of course, we need the Omniscient Telepath Ethan to tell me what I meant even though I didn't say it.

One is that it is societal opinions rather than simple maturation and passage of time which has changed someone's opinion as to whether an experience was harmful.

Since maturation cannot be extricated from a society where it happens and into which the girl or boy will integrate as adult, you are just arguing semantics.

But still, history and anthropology...

Implicitly it also claims that there is a different way to configure society that would prevent such altered views but not in other respects make things worse. That goes beyond anything that can really be tested.

Ah, I see.

History and anthropology do not exist.

That is prefixed by "If so" in the original, and follows a premise which I argue is false. On your part this is either a bad joke, idiocy, or perhaps a political campaign stunt hoping no one will notice.

Well I for one will comply with your diktat and start saying instead that harm does not exist at all. When victims say they are harmed, they don't mean it. I mean, that is exactly at your discourse level so why make any effort to go beyond that?

You are violating your own rules by saying that. Shame on you! You do not have a research study to cite for what your friends would say. That is rampant speculation. Surely it would be inadequate if you asked them, because you are not a disinterested party.

But by ordinary rules of evidence, I doubt very much that you are right. Unless you blackmailed them, they would say that YOU are being ridiculous for writing YOUR post.

I could easily show them the text of your post with all personal (nicks) allusions removed and prove the point.

But why bother? What you really mean is that you love to eat your dog's shit after it ate from your lawn plants.