But again, why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Especially in the instance of stated facts that can be fairly easily verified by anyone’s personal definition of a trusted source, most especially when presented with simply an incentive to use a stored resource that neither you or any of your trusted sources of truth were even aware existed at all to begin with? Again with specificity at advertisements on a digital medium where there is an enticement to spend money suggested by a third party and they are not evil?
But how is it beneficial to those who don’t feel violated beyond the point of absolute necessity to always refuse consent because not every advertisement is guaranteed by nature to always be evil and have not yet come to a similar conclusion as yours as they believe that advertisement as a whole on a digital medium specifically in regards to transactions on a monetary level has not yet met their personal defined level of it being ultimately net evil. And therefore feel arguing against a ban of the practice entirely is not currently the most pressing issue with advertising that you keep telling them, their argument holds no merit, which lends itself to the personal assumption that what they are doing is ultimately wrong and therefore they should feel ashamed for it. They are not currently experiencing a feeling of guilt or shame about expressing their opinion and you are insisting, but not projecting, that they should. Ultimately this devolves into a basic summation of simply having their feelings hurt and wanting you to stop arguing your point, as you both actually understand each each other and can therefore continue this civil discussion we’re having and all continually agree that ultimately our shared responsibility society is working and we are still progressing despite the challenges.
