Not disingenuous.  I would buy every single last satoshi.  Too bad for me you have none to sell.  But I am glad for you that the coins you have you perceive to be more valuable than ones that have touched segwit addresses.

I see the idea that segwit is harming fungibility as being equivalent to the letter above the left serial number on US treasury notes damaging the fungibility of USD.  Unless some sort of segwit Armageddon comes (as I understand you believe is possible) it will be a laughably insignificant percentage of users who give a frack whether their bitcoin has ever touched an address starting with a 3.

In fact, talking about bitcoin fungibility and taint and worrying about segwit is silly.  Bitcoin is already not very fungible. The fact the ledger is public, transparant and you can view the history of each satoshi brings fungibility down quite a bit.  Businesses have blacklisted coins or customers based onthe history of coin transactions.  This is MUCH MUCH more worrysome to fungibility in my opinion than nutters who won't take coins because they've been on a segwit address.  

I think Bitcoin's transparency is a feature, not a bug.  You have the right to refuse to accept bitcoins based on whatever rainman theory you have about them.  And I think a truly opaque and near fully fungible token can reside on a blockchain built for that alongside BTC.  In fact I see this as one of the ONLY reasons for more than 1 POW blockchain to exist in the world at all. (Monero, by the way).