You can have high testosterone and still have a need for Viagra, because you don’t have a prostate, right?
Jeffrey: Correct
it’s a hypothetical, they’re talking about effects of testosterone in general. ‘you’ doesn’t mean epstein, it’s casual language in place of a third-person pronoun
As written, with the comma after “Viagra”, I believe it does claim that he doesn’t have a prostate.
Explanation:
You can have high testosterone and still have a need for Viagra, because you don’t have a prostate, right?
vs.
You can have high testosterone and still have a need for Viagra because you don’t have a prostate, right?
In the first sentence, the second clause acts as a parenthetical; it’s adding independent information. In the second sentence they’re discussing the hypothetical “one might still require Viagra if one doesn’t have a prostate”.
Also, in the first interpretation, Epstein’s answer of “correct” is a response to a simple yes-or-no question about his personal status, which makes perfect sense. In the second interpretation, Epstein is confidently offering a medical opinion, which seems less likely (because he’s a dolt). A more believable answer in that scenario would be something like “I guess so”.
Trying to get specific about punctuation and then saying that a subordinate clause is a parenthetical because it’s acting like a normal subordinate clause is unhelpful, and also you’re misreading it anyway because that’s not what makes it read as more likely a hypothetical question. What makes it obviously more likely hypothetical is that it’s asking about a situation someone can be in, that they can still need Viagra rather than do still need Viagra. Phrased another way, the question is “It’s not deductively true that people with high T don’t need Viagra, because someone with high T may not have a prostate and that could result in them needing it, right?” Like if I say to you, “You can be handsome and still have trouble getting laid if you’re interpersonally annoying, right?” There’s no suggestion that I’m claiming any of those things are true about you, I’m just indicating a situation using the general sense of “you.” In my experience, people often use this wording to ask about themselves (whether their current situation or one they might be worrying about being in in the future).
It would be miles more normal to just word the original question “Despite having high testosterone, do you still need Viagra because you don’t have a prostate?” or something like that (you can reorder the items, of course) if it was asking about Epstein’s own condition.
it’s a hypothetical, they’re talking about effects of testosterone in general. ‘you’ doesn’t mean epstein, it’s casual language in place of a third-person pronoun
As written, with the comma after “Viagra”, I believe it does claim that he doesn’t have a prostate.
Explanation:
vs.
In the first sentence, the second clause acts as a parenthetical; it’s adding independent information. In the second sentence they’re discussing the hypothetical “one might still require Viagra if one doesn’t have a prostate”.
Also, in the first interpretation, Epstein’s answer of “correct” is a response to a simple yes-or-no question about his personal status, which makes perfect sense. In the second interpretation, Epstein is confidently offering a medical opinion, which seems less likely (because he’s a dolt). A more believable answer in that scenario would be something like “I guess so”.
if the theory hinges on the presence/absence of a single comma in the written transcript of a verbal interview, it’s giving leftist pizzagate
considering how shitty the spelling and grammar is in the emails i’m probably not willing to bet big on punctuation
The transcript is by a professional transcription company (CastingWords), not Epstein himself.
Trying to get specific about punctuation and then saying that a subordinate clause is a parenthetical because it’s acting like a normal subordinate clause is unhelpful, and also you’re misreading it anyway because that’s not what makes it read as more likely a hypothetical question. What makes it obviously more likely hypothetical is that it’s asking about a situation someone can be in, that they can still need Viagra rather than do still need Viagra. Phrased another way, the question is “It’s not deductively true that people with high T don’t need Viagra, because someone with high T may not have a prostate and that could result in them needing it, right?” Like if I say to you, “You can be handsome and still have trouble getting laid if you’re interpersonally annoying, right?” There’s no suggestion that I’m claiming any of those things are true about you, I’m just indicating a situation using the general sense of “you.” In my experience, people often use this wording to ask about themselves (whether their current situation or one they might be worrying about being in in the future).
It would be miles more normal to just word the original question “Despite having high testosterone, do you still need Viagra because you don’t have a prostate?” or something like that (you can reorder the items, of course) if it was asking about Epstein’s own condition.