> For example, one that would be easy enough to defend ... I'm sorry, but at this point, I think you're being pedantic. I have no interest in that here, and wh

> For example, one that would be easy enough to defend ... I'm sorry, but at this point, I think you're being pedantic. I have no interest in that here, and while I could have been exhaustively thorough in my original statement, I just didn't think I needed to and thus chose to be terse. I continue to believe I was clear then, and also believe that in the example you cite here a scientific basis (either for or against) can be clearly tested and observed. > Thus, you judgment of the friend's discrimination against the drink ... No. My point is I do not judge my friend on their discrimination against the drink. I judge my friend on their discrimination against the person. The drink is just an object, it's only purpose is in being 'not a person'. Replace it with anything else (say, something edible, or, a greeting) and my point still stands. > If they did so because of a property of the drink it is fine. No, that doesn't matter. If they did so because of the time of day, or their mood, or the colour of their shirt that day, would be the same. The difference lies in whether they did so because of the person offering.