"When you cease advocating for reparative therapies that have been found empirically to have no valid effects to help, but whose harm is demonstrable, then maybe I might believe you."

"I challenge you to find a place where I ever said that. I have never believed it."

Of course not. You just proclaimed a desire for them when they work and are harmless. Despite the APA's stance that they don't and aren't.

That's like saying that I'm all for lobotomies provided they do no damage.

"This is a complicated matter, and it is one that will ultimately be resolved based on facts, not opinions."

And yet you conflate your opinion with fact and treat agnosticism as endorsement of an opposing finding of fact.

"I meant a survey conducted within an Anarcho-Syndicalist society once it exists. The context of my comments makes that very clear. The rest of your comments based on your willfully incorrect interpretation are irrelevant."

RLY?

"A question like, "Does anarcho-syndicalism maximize human happiness (as measured by surveys)?" is in theory a scientific question, but it is just very hard to get good data. Really hard to get good controlled experiments."

I see no qualification that you treat the question as one you believe cannot be treated as scientific if asked now. And I see every indication, from you using as proof in your favor of respect for scence, that you believe that it IS a valid scientific question to ask ( no time-machines required to await THAT day. )

Learn 2 logic.

This would be a functionalist fallacy. The justification for or against bringing a thing into being cannot be the results that arise after it exists. A hypothetical is a hypothetical beforehand, and its testing is not science beforehand. You have GOT to stop conflating the two.

"confusion was the primary reaction. Tom O'Carroll made a post emphasizing that failure to object is not the same thing as consent. Things can be wrong even if they do not end up ruining a person's life."

Puzzling does not equal wrong. Nor does it nullify consent nor negate whatever one side of a contract got out of it for failure to comprehend what the other did.

I thought I was creating art for its own sake. You commissioned my mural because you believe that art improves character. I can't understand the supposed benefit to you. But I gain anyway.

"My concern is primarily with the risk of increased unwanted sexual contact with children that cannot be proved to be nonconsensual"

LOL at the phrasing. And I'm supposed to defend unwanted yet consensual contact? Or is it wanted nonconsensual contact?

Tell me how anyone could prove to your satisfaction that a child consented and THEN maybe we will talk about an increase. But from what I gather, you would hold to a hypothetical 5%, while still having no ground for any among them to prove that they ARE a member of this statistical probability. What would it take for a child to prove her consent to you herself?

"Yes, there is abuse hysteria and an industry that does not serve victims well. I recognize that."

Would you be radical enough to propose doing something about it?

Dante