Why? I think it's obvious.
And do you really think I care?
What about a "you are not allowed a different opinion" button?
You could call a "sheep" button for short.
I often come across this type of thinking when I read debates on climate science and health research.
Due to often sensationalist headlines (See the Guardian), inaccurate or misinterpreted findings (See nearly all newspapers) and downright inaccurate and made up stuff (See the Daily Mail...), there is a massive air of skepticism surrounding any report. This has in turn led to an adoption of 'truth seeking', and a number of 'truth blogs' proclaiming to be unbiased and purely factual.
This is certainly not a bad thing. Media has always had a political motivation and interpretation of reports, whether they are medical, financial or scientific, has always been skewed. However, what does tend to happen is a complete refusal of any of the conclusions made, and even more damaging is a bunch of nonsense written in these blogs pertaining to understand very complex issues, when in fact they are even more inaccurate than the media articles they seek to refute.
I feel that this is happening here. Rather than incorporate the information from the articles in the media with that from other information, you are just flat out refusing to acknowledge the conclusions drawn from the media. It is obvious to anyone that the dealership should be held accountable for the actions of their staff, and that it would of no doubt contributed to the mental well being of that poor lad that took his life. Was it the only factor. Obviously not, but to deny any of it as merely 'propaganda' or whatever it is you think is very fool hardy IMO.
Which I believe was the 'inane question' posed by GSB at the end of his first paragraph. Do you think the action of the staff no way contributed to the mental health of the lad, and is ultimate decision to take his life?
If you do indeed dismiss it as purely 'banter' and inconsequential to the event, then I think we (along with many many others) have a fundamental difference of opinion...