And how would that in any way refute the point that Bitcoin itself wastes energy? It's a familiar pattern by now - someone criticizes Bitcoin, and the reply is

And how would that in any way refute the point that Bitcoin itself wastes energy? It's a familiar pattern by now - someone criticizes Bitcoin, and the reply is that some other thing is bad too. You are essentially changing the subject, not addressing the criticism. Are you hoping I'll get distracted, or something? Surely you can't be hoping I'll suddenly start thinking Bitcoin is wonderfully energy-efficient, for example. Reminding me that Ted Bundy was really bad, is not going to convince me that Jeffrey Dahmer was a great guy. (I almost went "full Godwin" here with you-know-who's next-door neighbor as the example, so, you're welcome.) Are there any rhetoric experts out there who can properly categorize this "argumentation technique?" The best I can do is some combination of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Anyway I call it "A full and glorious admission that you can't argue the point on the merits whatsoever."