Well I inferred that you will feel good if there is a boycott. Am I wrong?
Secondly, it's easy to say that collateral damage is okay if you are not part of the collateral damage. Again, am I wrong?
To the first question, yes, you are are wrong. I have said nothing or implied anything that indicates that I will feel good if there is a boycott. I have not even implied that I support the boycott. I've only said that I found some arguments in this thread against the boycott to be insufficiently argued. But, I will feel good if the boycott (were it to happen) lead to improvements in the lives of LGBT Russians.
To the second question, you are again wrong. It might be easy for you to say that or most people to say that. But from that you can't generalize to everyone. And since you don't know me at all, you surely can't expand that claim to me. I think human suffering is a very important consideration to any policy. So, no, it's not easy for me
to say that collateral damage is okay even when I'm not a part of the collateral damage. I qualified my support of policies that lead to collateral damage, with a utilitarian consideration. One that you did not respond to.
In both of the posts that you have directed at me, you have displayed a shockingly low level of reading comprehension and critical thinking.
So, I'm through discussing this with you.