You seem to confound what I think you *should* and what I think you *must* run on your
computers.
Thankfully it is (still) impossible for me or anyone else to decide what you can or cannot run
on your computer.
The Free Software movement is a social movement, but hardly anyone can afford to be 100%
social all of the time; we as a species are just not build and bred that way.
This means there are indeed acceptable reasons to run non-free software at times, and where
that line in the sand is drawn is different for everyone.
But even though you might have installed and are running proprietary software for an
acceptable reason, it should never be thought of as being right or being anything *but* an act
of anti-social behaviour.
Now human beings don't like to be thought of as participating in anti-social behaviour, so we
start inventing reasons why our behaviour isn't really that anti-social; we just tell
ourselves, "well, I'm just being practical", "everyone else is doing it", "It doesn't really
matter if just I do it". And what's worse is that we might even try and convince others that
those reasons are valid, just so we can feel better about ourselves since now we're only part
of a larger group that behaves that way.
I cannot (and would not) dictate what kind of software you run. But I can (and will) point out
that regardless of whether someones reasons of running proprietary software are acceptable,
that at its core it remains anti-social behaviour.
The fact is that people will run non-free software and there is nothing I can change about
that. But as soon as those people try to convince others that running non-free software should
be an socially acceptable practice, I might be able to explain why it should not, so I speak
up. You might see that as "dictating", but it is not very different than someone else speaking
about how great a particular piece of non-free software is, and how people should really use
it.