I'll also comment that I don't feel any need for "reinforcements". Nor have I particularly attempted to flame you. If I had, you'd know the difference.

As for your being less than impressed, the feeling is entirely mutual. Let me recap the exchange from my point of view:

1. You made a very broad statement that logically implies that every valid system of ethics must disagree with the values implicit in every major legal system in current use. Including the US constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 8.
2. I disagreed with this statement, and gave a scenario in which most people would agree that the ethical course of action runs counter to what you said.
3. You proceeded to enter into rounds of variously flaming me for confusing two words that I hadn't, insulting my reasoning, and proclaiming yourself to be an ethical philosopher. (In the process you repeatedly claimed to have spent a lot of careful thought on this issue while also failing to demonstrate any ability for careful thought.)
4. I repeatedly attempted to draw you back to the absurd claim that you made. You have multiple times suggested that you have a marvellous proof of your assertion, but Perlmonks is too small to hold it.
5. I have expressed willingness to let you expound on your views either here (Perlmonks will survive a few off-topic posts - it has before and can again) or elsewhere (and I even suggested a convenient place). So far I've heard repeated promises that you are willing to do so, but no signs of your marvellous proof have emerged.