@mhanson101 yes, i agree. it seems to be the author demonstrating that he behaves as he assumes others do with respect to EA (and to moral concerns generally), more than any argument against what others claim to disagree with, or even any real argument that his assumptions about how others behave meaningfully characterize the best of its critics. (of course there are critics for whom everything is self-positioning, that's true with any subject, but useful thinking engages with the other ones.)