Given the AC's premise is wrong, that following regulations itself is indemnifying, then how would one expect anything else in the post to be true?
There's no reason they can't make it open wi-fi, connecting to any unsecured network in the vicinity and lose 100% security. You don't need layer-2 security to get layer-7 security. That, and I'd make a button in a spiderman location that would need to be pressed before WiFi or write capability were enabled, or some other physical switch to secure the wireless communication.
That none of them were followed through on doesn't make them not credible. Credible is a measure of possible, not likely. Just because there was a low chance, doesn't mean it wasn't a threat that was impossible to carry out.
Lego did not decide that pink was "for girls".
Do you have a cite? Seriously. You obviously haven't worked in retail (at least as anything other than cashier). The stores have categories they wish to fill. They ask Nerf for "girls toys" and nerf either sends their boy toys to the girl isle, sends nothing, or sends girl toys. Given that "regular Nerf" ends up on the boys isle, and "Nerf Rebelle" ends up only on the girls isle, Nerf, not the store, decided that "Nerf" is boys only, and "Nerf Rebelle" is girls only. The store didn't object, but didn't make that choice themselves.
For your statement to be true, the distribution network for Lego would have to be unlike every other toy on the planet.
Outrageous claims demand at least some evidence. I think you made a large number of simply wrong assumptions about retail, then are relying on assumptions (that the store places items, regardless of the wishes of the distributors) that are wrong, and coming to the wrong conclusion based on wrong assumptions. Your logic is sound, which is why you are unwilling to listen to anyone else, but your assumptions are based on common sense, not fact.
Lego makes pink toys for the same reason that the store who sold Anita her sweater makes pink sweaters.
So stores don't go to makers and request "girs clothes" and get sent pink? The store would ask makers for "girls clothes" and get sent boys clothes in a girls cut/sizing, then the store, fed up with the options given, go out and make their own?
Reality conflicts with your opinion. I know which one I believe more.
She wants Lego to stop making toys that boys want because she finds masculinity to be offensive.
I never saw that claim.
Actually, I do, which is why I find the screenshot questionable - the only way to get such as screen in that exact format would be to deliberately try and hide your tracks (logging out, clearing the search bar before taking the screenshot, etc). Deliberation implies intent.
Or someone that opened the profile of the person sending the tweets (no search needed) who opened a "private window" to see it without revealing their personal info. Yes, it takes "forethought" but took me about 2 seconds to do (two clicks, once you are looking at an "offending" tweet).
And yes, you are the first person I've seen who asserted that speech is force.
Both in Korea and in Vietnam, there were plenty of Soviet advisors in the communist forces, and in some cases they were troops actively engaged in fighting - in particular, fighter pilots were often Soviets. So yes, US and Soviet troops did actually shoot directly at each other as part of Cold War.
Not in the minds of those ordering the fighting. When a Soviet killed an American in Vietnam, the NVA did it. The Soviets weren't shooting at us, the NVA/VC was shooting at the South Vietnamese. It just happened that the NVA shooting was Soviet, and the South Vietnamese army member killed was American.