If you're going to make that kind of argument, you're dismissing pretty much all LW-style thought experiments.
I think you're reading in an argument that isn't there. I was explaining the most common reason why human intuitions fail so blatantly when encountering transparent Newcomb. If anything that is more reason to formalise it as a thought experiment.
Here's an edited version of a puzzle from the book "Chuck Klosterman four" by Chuck Klosterman.
When should you punish someone for a crime they will commit in the future? Discuss.