> I think you are walking all around the word "consent" and trying very hard to avoid it altogether.

> Your perspective, because it refuses to include any sort of consent, is invalid. No perspective that refuses consent can be valid.

This is what I was responding to. I do not understand your thinking in this post.

> This is what I was responding to. I do not understand your thinking in this post.

I thought it was clear from "refuses to include any sort of consent" that I am talking specifically about holding an opinion that refuses to include consideration for consent, not refuses consent for usage.

But that's what I'm confused about:

How is freely giving consent for (all) others to read your content not 'considering consent'?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really don't see the missing piece that isn't written that connects those dots.