My guess is extended pattern-matching on Eugine Nier's typical post content, along with a huge helping of annoyance with the excluded middle.
"This is a reductio ad absurdum of Mill's argument"
"you honestly favor treating 5-year olds as legal adults".
Are these honestly the only two possible readings of the original post? If not, is it more likely - based on past history of all parties - to assume that Eugine Nier honestly could not conceive of a third option, or merely that a rhetorical tactic was being employed to make their opponent look bad?
Based on what is most likely occurring (evaluated, of course, differently by each person reading), is this post a flower or a weed?
Then you tend the garden.
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: