"Where do you think he answered the Cigarettes and Fruit question?"

The question wasn't about those. The question was "Following your argument laid out in your recent quality/sales post, cigarettes have a higher quality than fruit (the former selling roughly four times as well as the latter). It follows that as an artist, I shouldn’t have any scruples selling my work for propaganda posters or cult recruitment if it sells better than other customers. Would you agree with that?"

Fine, ignore the whichever elements of the multi-part question you want, but he never disagrees with either proposition. He declares that the ethical dilemma rests on the consumer alone, and that the mighty businessman should feel no moral qualms at all deceptively promoting and selling a product that does damage to the consumer. Watch that bottled water video I posted, and try to tell me that Sean wouldn't simply state that the bottled water is a high quality product? I find that perspective repugnant and corrupt to the core.

"and that the mighty businessman should feel no moral qualms at all deceptively promoting and selling a product that does damage to the consumer"

He doesn't call the businessman mighty. He calls the customers might. Don't twist his words.

And he's not stating businessmen can sell those, just that it's not the job of people like Jack Thompson to declare those can't be sold. It's the customers' job.

You really don't get what he's stating.

Again with the legality dodge. How many times do I need to explain to you that not everything that is legal is ethical? If legality were the only judge of ethics, than there would be no basis for ethical actions because any law can be made or unmade. Self-interest becomes the only factor, and Ayn Rand's nightmare dystopia comes to fruition; the center can not hold, things fall apart.

He wasn't stating what is legal is ethical. So explaining something he isn't claiming is still twisting his words.

Amazing how your posts get shorter and shorter as your evidence grows scarcer and scarcer. You seem unable to reconcile this abhorrent stance that Sean has taken here with your unconditional positive regard for the man. Ethics-free business will always find the largest profits and the largest consumer base, and that will always be worth condemning. I've illustrated my point in fine detail, and you've stubbornly shook your head like a child and shouted "NO"! It has been most amusing, and enlightening for me to witness the thought process of one of Sean's followers in such detail. I'll tease you and your cognitive dissonance no more; you are free to believe whatever makes you feel happy. Come on, let's see a smile!

This whole discussion reminds me of the outrage that came up when Thank You For Smoking came out.  And, as usual, the bleeding-heart sorts cried the loudest and missed the point of the film entirely: that the people most at fault for stupid decisions are the people who make them, not the people who enable and encourage them.  The logical message there was "don't let others think for you", not "you can convince people of anything with the right techniques".  It's actually somewhat comical, in a way, to defend people who buy hype hook, line, and sinker.  To all those who cry out about human nature and taking advantage of it, I counter with this: humans are capable of change on a scale that's almost unheard-of in any other species, and we have made a point of using that to our advantage, so why is this so impossible for this one bit of human nature when it isn't for every other bit of it that we have conquered or bent to our will over the millenia?

It also reminds me of "scrub" theory: that those who don't want to (and often actively refuse to) put in the effort will be the first and loudest to protest at anything that requires them to genuinely try in order to succeed.  But that's a whole other kettle of fish, and at least six times as slippery.

"It also reminds me of "scrub" theory: that those who don't want to (and often actively refuse to) put in the effort will be the first and loudest to protest at anything that requires them to genuinely try in order to succeed."

Like most developers and putting AAA games on the Wii.

If by "AAA" you mean the comical standards of "AAA" held by the games industry which don't really align with the majority of customers' views of what "AAA" means, then yes.

Also, "this game sold 5 million on the other systems, but we won't put it on the Wii because we (insert bullshit excuse here)".