I'm sorry you feel that way. I tried to be upfront about my positions that you would disfavor: a form of feminism and also deontology. Perhaps you interpreted as egregious malicious emphasis on differences what I intended as the opposite.

Also, I think what you're interpreting as predicting dispositions wrongly is what I see as trying to spell out all possible objections as a way to have a conversation with you, rather than a debate in which the truth falls out of an argument. That means I raise objections that we might anticipate someone with a different system would raise, rather than setting up to clash with you.

I think that when you say I am not reading you charitably or accurately, you have taken what was a very reasonable misreading of my first comment and failed to update based on my second. I'm not talking about your theory. I'm trying to ask how fundamental the problems are in a somewhat related theory. Whether your theory escapes its gravity well of wrongness depends on both the distance from the mass of doom and its size. I hope that analogy was clear, as apparently other stuff hasn't been. So you can probably imagine what I think, as it somewhat mirrors what you seem to think: you're not reading me charitably, accurately, etc. I know you're not innately evil, of course, that's obvious and foundational to communication.