Comment by grayhatter

> In short, we should focus on what works, not what you feel is righteously good.

These are not mutually exclusive. But i'm glad you're considering shareholder value!

> I’m guessing you have absolutely no empathy for people who run small single person or small team business and our overwhelmed by all the regulatory traps they can fall into at any point in time.

Sigh... yeah, lack of empathy is the core problem here.

> The general thrust of the underlying messagr is not dishonest just because you say so.

Comparing suicide of an individual to administrative fines on a corporation for needlessly destroying textiles is rhetorically dishonest. There's so many disparities and meaningful differences that trying to equate them without discussing any of them is counter productive to a beneficial conversation. It's a cheap impotent shot trying to stir up an emotional reaction where one doesn't belong. Or given how strongly you seem to feel, a completely different reaction is deserved. Making a misleading or inappropriate comparison is dishonest, not because I say it is, but because being misleading, even carelessly, lacks rhetorical integrity, or honesty.

Four more examples, of rhetorical dishonesty suggesting I'm acting in bad faith, and lack empathy, or sympathy for the balance of weight for smaller companies (without cause)

Saying again without argument or evidence that my position is a self righteous one devoid of pragmatic function.

Mischaracterizating my opposition to your comments as shallow or opinionated rather than a different core issue you've been unable to identify or reply to.

And then my top reply to yours, suggesting that all you care about is shareholder value. But at least I'm only saying so because it's become a common joke, but also because your first comment feels irreverent towards S/SI, or humans. And the sum total of your next reply ignores the core point of my objections, and drones on about the financial cost towards companies. So maybe it's not that dishonest.