> In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen. If they made that promise to investors, they could go to prison. > OK, so I guess

> In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen. If they made that promise to investors, they could go to prison. > OK, so I guess there is that one unrealistic possibility. You're demanding that everyone else has to show that they're ready to abandon their principles, lest you judge them instransigent and unreasonable. What changes have you made to your worldview, without seeing something significant change? Probably never: your views are shaped by observations of concrete realities and reflections on the consequences of those. And unless those realities change or you get new information, you couldn't come up with a coherent set of new views if you wanted to. > It's not a rhetorical question if there are multiple valid answers It's still a question intended for rhetorical effect. I wasn't saying that makes it invalid, it's just annoying if you're repeating it while dismissing the answer given.