The "substance of the 'dispute' " is shifting the topic to where morality itself comes from is it?
Hey, you were the one who tried to make morality an issue here. If you want to just drop the topic you can go ahead and do that, but if you want to keep the issue going you're going to have to come up with sensible reasons.
You made up the office thing yourself, it has got nothing to do with the context of the game. I already explained why it is a moral situation, three times.
Well, you made an assertion that saying anything to anyone about their self-expression raises a moral issue. That's not an explanation. Explanations have to, you know, explain stuff. Why is it a moral issue to tell someone that what she's doing is a bad idea? I'd consider it somewhat immoral not to warn her, actually, so to that extent I suppose I agree with you that there's a moral issue here -- just not the one you've been talking about.
And the example does have something to do with the game. Inappropriate attire looks silly. Quiet looks silly. You like silly, so this doesn't bother you. But I only like silly sometimes, not all the time.
Again, I corrected what you said, that Joosten was "just a model", the relevance was that you were wrong for saying so.
And,
again, I acknowledged the correction the moment you made it. And repeated that several times now, since you keep bringing it up for some reason. Once more won't hurt; yes, Joosten was just a model/singer/VA, instead of just a model. I didn't find this of any significance the first time, and I still don't. Why is it significant?
"the most common form of such irrationality is conflating morality with social convention... though you can go all the way and say that it's all social convention" It's more like you pulled that out of your ass.
I'd argue with this, but as written it doesn't make enough sense to disagree with. What were you trying to say?