I capitalized two words in my entire post, for emphasis to make the meaning clearer. I'm not sure what your objection to this is.
> 1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that.
Okay, so that's a straightforward admission that you're demanding companies do something that doesn't create the change you're looking for.
> 2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means.
I think it's been shown that it's difficult, not that it's impossible.
> 3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't.
Okay, but I'm saying that the choices you're shaming them for are the better choices.
> This argument has gotten circular and pointless. The tone of your responses has gotten frankly combative and rude and your counter argument is based upon a false premise. I've clarified my original intent as much as I care to. If this is how you engage with those that you disagree with I would encourage you to find a better approach. I am out of this conversation.
I don't think I'm being combative and rude. Every step of the way I've attempted to attack your assertions rather than attacking you personally. You have not given me the same courtesy.
This reaction is consistent with my assertion that your actual position is just to avoiding people who you disagree with, rather than actually creating any change.
I capitalized two words in my entire post, for emphasis to make the meaning clearer. I'm not sure what your objection to this is.
> 1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that.
Okay, so that's a straightforward admission that you're demanding companies do something that doesn't create the change you're looking for.
> 2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means.
I think it's been shown that it's difficult, not that it's impossible.
> 3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't.
Okay, but I'm saying that the choices you're shaming them for are the better choices.
> This argument has gotten circular and pointless. The tone of your responses has gotten frankly combative and rude and your counter argument is based upon a false premise. I've clarified my original intent as much as I care to. If this is how you engage with those that you disagree with I would encourage you to find a better approach. I am out of this conversation.
I don't think I'm being combative and rude. Every step of the way I've attempted to attack your assertions rather than attacking you personally. You have not given me the same courtesy.
This reaction is consistent with my assertion that your actual position is just to avoiding people who you disagree with, rather than actually creating any change.