What A Believer wrote is a good demonstration of WTS tactics to handle criticism. Similar arguments were used by comrade Jackasson during the ARC. They completely ignore what is the criticism about and start to "prove" something that nobody questions.
When discussing shunning, they argue you can successfully fade and say they know a lot of people who did it. You just need to avoid 'sin'. They ignore the fact nobody says you cannot fade. Nobody says when you fade you will be 100% immediately disfellowshipped. The critics say that when you fade, you are still under the rules and discipline of the organization including their specific definition of 'sin'. For example no one except JWs considers a blood transfusion to be a sin, nevertheless if you had faded and elders learned you took it, you would be DA'd. JW advocates never address this problem and always try to show when you stopped attending meeting you would not be DFd automatically. But nobody says you cannot stop attending meeting.
What will happen if you vote? This is 'sin' only for JWs...
If you attend non-JW worship? If elders learn you say to your colleagues you are not a JW? If you celebrate Xmas?
What if there is 'a new light' prohibiting something done normally in the past? Does the org expect faders to comply?
There are many questions ignored by JW defenders, they always repeat "But you can stop reporting hours and attending meetings..."