What I'm trying to explain to you is that your conclusion is based on how narrowly you define the argument.
You define it so narrowly that your conclusion is unavoidable, not superior morally.
The use of the term 'hit' was your term, not mine.
My argument is in cases like I narrowly describe. I never suggested it should be the blanket policy, and have explicitly said so. So in that respect, we agree.
Thanks for saying my conclusion is unavoidable, I agree. That being said, too many Freeper males have a lot invested in avoiding the unavoidable. Speaks volumes for them.