That is how consent should work, if I don't consent I should not buy your apple. Buying your apple is optional, I'm not required to buy your apple.
Opt-in is when I buy your apple.
Opt-out is when I don't buy your apple.
Opt-in is when I buy your apple.
Opt-out is when I don't buy your apple.
That you can decide to not go for the entire package is not what we disagree on (apart from above, I suppose).
What we were discussing is that the consent is optional; it is not in any of these examples. It is part of the package deal; then you don't call it opt-in or opt-out, as that allows you to opt-in or opt-out of something which is otherwise not in your direct advantage, but is in the other party's advantage.
>What we were discussing is that the consent is optional
Yes the consent is optional, in the sense you are allowed to opt-out by not buying the apple or buying it from someone else or produce it yourself.
It is up to us to elect those who represent us in our governments.
For some superficial rule, I may only punish the person who has been found guilty by also punishing the person who has not been found guilty.
Can you explain to me how this is fair?
Here is where you and I differ. You find it OK when a party (e.g. business) uses your private data to sell or otherwise use for their benefit. I believe such personal data is ultimately my say. And I believe only informed opt-in (optional, not part of a package deal ie. how GDPR works) is a fair way to deal with such situation.