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.

I don't know if they could "engage" it, but they could probably "experience" it. ;)

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.

Scissors decapitates lizard. It's Spock he'd have to worry about.

Figured as much, but still had to ask. Thanks for clearing that up.

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.

I guess it depends on whether the European companies consider that the same as "using the drugs to kill", and forbid exports.

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.

I believe I have already adequately addressed that it is neither.

Yes actually. Maybe not the same set of people, but I find it entirely plausible that there exists a group of people who would find pride in that.

So if I came in and started pushing schools to teach the Pastafarian creation myth, and I managed to get enough people backing me such that we represented the majority of the nation, you would be completely ok with that? Because it seems to me that that would be a gross violation of everyone elses First Amendment rights. But that is exactly what is happening here, just with a different creation myth.

Opposing the violation of certain fundamental rights is not "I gladly accept the will of the people, as long as I'm on the winning team".

Except an encrypted hard drive is not a locked shed. It is a notebook, made out of metal, written to with magnets (adjust analogy as needed for flash memory and other alternative storage devices).

And if I'm not required to teach the cops the made-up language I used in this physical paper notebook, why should that change just because the materials that make up the notebook change?