Hypothesis for hypothesis

A particular case is this:

Weeks ago, I replied to "look at how many people will routinely express their beliefs on the subject by saying "children can't consent, therefore pedophilia is wrong".

With: I know that's what they say, but I think they are speaking loosely. They mean that the consent is not properly informed and a "yes" has no weight."

In response to the objection that I'm telling other people what they think, I replied just yesterday, My assertion there is not that I have the right to interpret what people mean. I am saying that if we got a hundred people who said that and explained to them the alternatives and asked them which they really meant, the large majority would interpret it the way I predict. It's an empirical assertion.

qtns2di4's Hypothesis

When people say that children cannot consent, they are speaking literally; and recognizing that all consent is a myth, impossible in the real world.

This is the pure, unadulterated truth.

I don't need to present proof of my hypothesis of course. You are a hater for even suggesting I do.

But it's comforting to see how so many people recognize the nature of consent!