Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?"
That is the only issue you can see. I can only repeat myself so many times, read my posts above.
It's the only issue that is displayed - it doesn't matter how much flowery language you dress it up in or how verbose your explanation of your reasoning for wanting to limit other peoples enjoyment with their property, it still comes down to that single question.
You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
That would be 'society in general'. We have these things called 'social norms'. When I talk about deviant behavior, I mean behavior that deviates from those norms.
Yeah, and at one point we, as society, determined that homosexuality was deviant behaviour. Turns out all it was was puritanical types poking their noses into other peoples bedrooms. You're doing the same thing - "Everyone agrees that this sexual behaviour, with only consenting adults, is deviant."
[...] they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine?
The objection people are having here is to Cortana's response to abusive language. That is, they want the program to respond to their abusive comments in a particular way that is not the same as the "professional personal assistant" way in which the program is designed to respond.
See my earlier reply to someone else upthread - you gets to draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious' questions. You? Me?
That is, they want the program to indulge them in their deviant fantasies.
And this is wrong how? It doesn't affect you in the least if the product answers every question as if it were a serious question. It does affect other people if the product decides that some questions aren't worth answering.
They believe Microsoft should have accommodated their particular fetish.
How you've turned that in to the belief that I want to limit how someone sexually interacts with a machine is a mystery. By all means, molest your toaster and ask the coffee machine if it wants to join in on the action. I couldn't care less. For your neighbor's sake, however, I will request that you draw the shades ahead of time.
What I see as the actual problem, is the attempt to normalize abusive behavior.
It's not abuse if there is no one involved in the receipt of such expression. "Abusive behaviour" requires a recipient - in this case there is none.
I asked you some questions earlier that should help you to understand the issues. I would encourage you to answer them.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms.
Why do you conflate abuse and sexuality? While it's true that some abuse can be sexual abuse, not all abuse is sexual. Neither is all sexual behavior abusive. You may want to sort that out.
Yeah, but in this case they have been conflated - As I understand it FTA, asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.