No idea what this voodoo logic talk about bad consequences is meant to be about. If you shoot me in the face I die, if you eat unhealthy food, smoke and drink you die, if there are bad consequences to something it is bad.
Universal principles have to be enforced, you cannot say that slavery is forbidden on paper but in practice tolerate it for practical reasons. Everything has a price. If you want democracy you need a bunch of Jacobins who got off the heads of the king, if you want to end slavery you gotta fight a civil war.
We all claim to believe in universal human rights but who among us actually practices this very belief, who really implements human rights in the real world? I guess none or only few of us.
Proper ethics have radical implications and we try to disavow them via empty, liberal feel-good-about-ourselves talk.
You might claim that you believe that humankind has access to universal space ethics but in practice you are the same as me, a (interspecies) relativist. Peaceful persuasion is precisely what the Federation does, it is a club with certain principles and it wants to grow but it doesn't shove these concepts down anybody's throat.
Once again, if you really believe that human rights are also universal life rights you have to enforce them everywhere in the galaxy. You cannot say that the poor folks who have jsut been conquered by the Klingons have bad luck, you have to do everything in your power to liberate them.
If you pick and choose ethics propers soon merges with economic self-interests, becomes favourism and before you know it you have become an abusive power.
So... the British and French people who were opposed to slavery but weren't willing to fight a war with the Confederacy weren't really opposed to slavery?
The pacifist abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison wasn't really opposed to slavery because he refused to pick up a musket?
Yours is an odd perspective-the only way to show your belief in a cause is to fight a war over it?
Have you read about the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?
Or the women's voting rights movement?
Just as it is with your argument for the PD, you seem to favor a rigid, binary, black-and-white approach to issues that doesn't really reflect the way things really are.