Let's imagine for a moment that I claim it should be legal to toss puppies into a wood-chipper. But in the same breath I also deny that I support puppy shredding--in fact, my back gets up at the very suggestion that I am pro-pulping.
"No, sir--I am merely pro-choice on Rover-rendering--and I resent any implication otherwise."
Would my disclaimer, however passionately stated, be at its core--true?
At a bare minimum, it would be schizoid--I am willing to support the continued availability of a practice I claim to find abhorrent. Indeed, the very effort to distance myself from it would indicate at least discomfort with the practice of Fido-fileting. Perhaps more on the level of finding brussels sprouts repugnant, but...
Ultimately, though, my disclaimer would be incorrect at this level--in supporting the right to engage in this practice, I am saying that the practice is, in some real sense, better than its prohibition.
Making my huffiness a semantic attempt to mask a distinction without a difference.
Or am I missing something here (see comments)?