> If you have no consistent ethical theory or moral compass or anything resembling a cogent argument to support your position, then please don't act as if your position is defensible or even worth arguing over.
Ah, I see. So you're not allowed to argue ethics unless you have read the wikipedia entry on it and can rattle off a couple of theories? That's a good argument.
> not a pulpit from which to lecture
Read your posts in here and tell me that.
> no one pointed out the utilitarian point of view that no one is harmed by this activity.
That's been pointed out quite a few times.