I believe goober's point, and one of the major points of the SPs, was that a work should be judged by its own merit. There have been many talented yet flawed people through out history. If someone is able to make a compelling sorry it should not matter that they are a horrible person personally. An authors beliefs, no matter how insane or offensive, should not factor in, unless they make it onto a page.
This is paradoxical. Say Mr. Scumbag Steve is a talented author with a number brilliant works, very provoking stories that push the boundaries of the imaginations of its readers and overall masterpieces. He is, unfortunately, a completely vile human being. A peerless man who scorns any and all close to him, very impolite, a puppy killer, likes to eat baby chicks, and took our jerbs!
In a capitalist, consumer driven economy, readers buy works that they feel are well made, entertaining, informative, etc.. The money from the sale of these works then help drive the production of similar works by the same author. But of course the money do not solely go into the further production of works, no, humans are not simple machines where money goes in, products come out--the money also goes into the general livelihood of the author.
Thus, this presents a paradox to the ethical consumer who is aware of the author's antics. Does the money from the sale of the book go more into the production of more works, or does it go more into feeding the vices of a bottom-feeder that is a detriment to society (if it were not for the presence of his works)? From the viewpoint of the consumer, "Should I buy this book, because it is good, and I want more books like it?" or "Should I not buy this book, because its author will spend it all on dildos so he can superglue them to the butts of pigs?"
[Edited for better English and added a funny viewpoint]
