Overruled.

Diapers are pants and it was previously determined that pooped in pants are always changed and never worn again. The wording implies that there is an unspoken agreement that u/whoeverhefuck is no longer 2, which in turn implies that at least a day has passed since the diaper has boom pooped in.

We can structure this sequence in a logical expression representing the following sentence: Because the diaper (D) is pooped in (p) and the diaper is also pants (P) they are pooped in pants (Pp), and pooped in pants are always pants that are to be changed (Pc).

1. Dp.
2. D >> P.
3. Pp >> Pc. __
4. Dp >> Pp Hypothetical Syllogism (1,2)
5. Dp >> Pc Hypothetical Syllogism (3,4)

As we can see, if the diaper has been pooped in, it clearly would be considered a pair of pants that needs to be changed. Let's assume based on the large amount of time that has passed, that any pants that need to be changed will have been changed in that time, resulting in OP wearing a new pair of pants (N) which are unspoiled (Nu). There would have to have been an amount of time (T) that has passed since the last time a pair of pants has been pooped by OP (Ta) which we know it has because OP is no longer 2 but that is how old they were when the poop initially occurred. Thus,

1. Ta.
2. Pc • Ta >> Nu

We can also assume that N would be considered a new pair of pants, represented again by P and if the new pair is pooped, it would need to be changed just the same as if it were. When that happens Nu will become false, and Np will become true. Ta will also become false because a significant amount of time will no longer have passed since the last time OP has passed and Once time is

1. N >> P. __
2. Np • Ta >> Nu Hypothetical Syllogism (8,7).

Importantly, this argument revolves around the interest of OP to maintain the truth of the argument Nu, as otherwise Pc may be permitted to be worn indefinitely, rendering all following functions obsolete.

Therefore in order for your objection to be applicable you will need to demonstrate that OP has not only pooped their diaper, but that they have pooped the new pair of pants following the diaper within the time frame Ta in which they are expected to change into a Nu pair of pants, or that one of the premises of this argument is false, as if OP is uninterested in maintaining the truth of the expression Nu.