Denying someone use of the restroom

[Beautiful sky]

I don't think Ne types are the only ones who consider possibilites, but this conversation seems obviosuly to be between someone who is strong in and values Ne and someone who is weak in and does not value Ne. With WL being the strong/valuing Ne person.

She broke a rule first set up by the supervisor, that the restroom is meant for kids. She devalues Ti.

[Slacker]

She broke a rule first set up by the supervisor, that the restroom is meant for kids. She devalues Ti.

She devalues Se+Ti.

[Beautiful sky]

She devalues Se+Ti.

Is that a fact? Then I guess you haven't considered all the possibilities. That's an example of Ne type not considering possibilities.

[Slacker]

Is that a fact? Then I guess you haven't considered all the possibilities. That's an example of Ne type not considering possibilities.

Oh FFS you're just baiting at this point. Don't be ridiculous.

[Aiss]

I don't think Ne types are the only ones who consider possibilites, but this conversation seems obviosuly to be between someone who is strong in and values Ne and someone who is weak in and does not value Ne. With WL being the strong/valuing Ne person.

See, that's what I don't get. How it is "obviously" about Ne, apart form WL's interpretation? Explaining "how adults should not have bathroom emergencies", indeed. I could just as well make a case for Se type being least likely to ignore the immediate reality (of there having been an adult with an emergency) and Ti+Ne being most likely to live in an idealized world with clearly defined rules. It would make about as much sense as this association, for the real.

[Slacker]

See, that's what I don't get. How it is "obviously" about Ne, apart form WL's interpretation? Explaining "how adults should not have bathroom emergencies", indeed. I could just as well make a case for Se type being least likely to ignore the immediate reality (of there having been an adult with an emergency) and Ti+Ne being most likely to live in an idealized world with clearly defined rules. It would make about as much sense as this association, for the real.

In this conversation, WL was offering up possibilities that questioned the hard-and-fast rule. In a different conversation about use of the bathroom, I might see it differently, but I'm just talking about this specific conversation. It isn't about whether someone should be able to use the bathroom but about this conversation about a hard-and-fast rule and offering up possibilties where the rule might not make sense.

[Slacker]

Also, this sounds like the other person might be Se + Ti, and it's hard to get people with those values to change their minds about rules they've set up. They put a lot of thought behind their rules. You have to give a really really strong argument, and I can see an LSI not buying that an adult wouldn't be able to manage to get to another part of the same building to use the bathroom, and then getting annoyed by what seem like silly, unlikely scenarios.