4 ms·

You have misunderstood what we're talking about. Nobody is justifying anything, I'm just saying that if it's wrong to give these people a platform, why is it o

by ailef 5y ago

You have misunderstood what we're talking about. Nobody is justifying anything, I'm just saying that if it's wrong to give these people a platform, why is it ok to give it to oil companies? The latter have caused way more damage than a random ransomware group.

ub99 5y ago
Seems like the person you are responding to understood your point and labeled it (quite correctly) whataboutism.
- ailef 5y ago
  Can you point out where I justified the actions of these criminal organizations (as parent said)? It's funny that the comment labeling mine as whataboutism is factually incorrect about what I said. It's easy to reply by labeling anything you don't agree with as whataboutism, because you don't have to go into the merit of the discussion. You don't have to articulate a reply, you don't need to reason about it. I made a pretty simple analogy, and the only one who actually replied with something sensible was OP, which I appreciate. Everyone else just tried to find logical fallacies (like now we need to stop nurses from giving birth) or just discredit the argument but without providing any meaningful reason.
  - wil421 5y ago
    Sorry to offend. Most of the damage oil companies are making is legal. At the moment fracking is legal but IMHO it’s very damaging. Undersea oil drilling is legal but there are many accidents. Shipping oil is legal but there are a lot of accidents that cause massive environmental problems. Ransomeware is never legal and organized crime is not legal in the West. They should not have a voice at all and should be treated like the criminal organizations they are.
TchoBeer 5y ago
>why is it ok to give it to oil companies? Why do you assume GP is ok with that.
- ailef 5y ago
  There's no assumption in what I wrote, that's just a question. Meanwhile, GP is explicitly putting words in my mouth, but I guess it's ok because my comment was just whataboutism, right?

by ailef 5y ago

ub99 5y ago

Seems like the person you are responding to understood your point and labeled it (quite correctly) whataboutism.

ailef 5y ago
Can you point out where I justified the actions of these criminal organizations (as parent said)? It's funny that the comment labeling mine as whataboutism is factually incorrect about what I said. It's easy to reply by labeling anything you don't agree with as whataboutism, because you don't have to go into the merit of the discussion. You don't have to articulate a reply, you don't need to reason about it. I made a pretty simple analogy, and the only one who actually replied with something sensible was OP, which I appreciate. Everyone else just tried to find logical fallacies (like now we need to stop nurses from giving birth) or just discredit the argument but without providing any meaningful reason.
- wil421 5y ago
  Sorry to offend. Most of the damage oil companies are making is legal. At the moment fracking is legal but IMHO it’s very damaging. Undersea oil drilling is legal but there are many accidents. Shipping oil is legal but there are a lot of accidents that cause massive environmental problems. Ransomeware is never legal and organized crime is not legal in the West. They should not have a voice at all and should be treated like the criminal organizations they are.

TchoBeer 5y ago

>why is it ok to give it to oil companies? Why do you assume GP is ok with that.

ailef 5y ago
There's no assumption in what I wrote, that's just a question. Meanwhile, GP is explicitly putting words in my mouth, but I guess it's ok because my comment was just whataboutism, right?