Yes. You wouldn't blame the recipients if, instead of a misconfigured wireless access point, it was your crazy ex who still had a key who was giving out free copies of those documents, would you?

This isn't an unlocked, unsupervised door to a building, this is your crazy ex who still has a valid key holding a garage sale while you are out of town. The people perusing the contents of your home looking for items to take/buy didn't know the crazy ex did not have the right to let them in.

Or the other side doesn't care, and just wants to watch the world burn.

to reply with "I wasn't talking about you."

That kind of reply sounds more like it would be born of naivete than of sexism. In other words, it also is not the replier who is sexist.

But I guess it would depend on the tone that it was delivered in.

Expressing surprise that Hasbro did not already have the trademark, is not the same thing as saying "I think the word 'candy' should be allowed to be trademarked". I agree that "candy" should not be trademarked, but I can also still express surprise that Hasbro had not already done it.

That is an interesting theory. Should the death penalty be reserved only for those who support it?

I would say that no, it should be abolished completely. While I support the concept, the risks of getting things wrong are not worth it IMO.

Er, what? Is that "for people who break laws, and for people who participated in enforcing or making laws", or is that "for enforcers/makers of laws who also break the law"?

Then allow me to make it crystal clear. If someone else came in and started pushing to have the Pastafarian creation myth taught in schools, and they managed to convince the majority of the nation to stand behind them, I would not, even though I share their opinion on the "correct" creation myth.

I suppose, technically, that if you claimed to believe in a 100%, majority-can-inflict-whatever-it-wants-on-the-minority representative democracy, you'd be right that anyone opposing the pushing of the Pastafarian creation myth would be a hypocrite. But we aren't claiming to believe in a 100% representative democracy. At most, we are claiming to believe in a representative democracy that has certain things in place (like the Bill of Rights) to limit tyranny of the majority. And I for one tend to try and always respect those limits, even when I am among the majority.

But it is probably far more likely that we simply disbelieve in all other forms of government even more. "Democracy is the worst form of government ever, except for all other forms of government that came before it", or something like that.