5 ms·
I...do agree that it sounds ridiculous, and my point was that that was not what the original commenter was saying. Your interpretation of their comment is far-
by Gerardo1 2y ago
I...do agree that it sounds ridiculous, and my point was that that was not what the original commenter was saying.
Your interpretation of their comment is far-fetched, and not a useful entry into a conversation about their point.
- grandempire 2y agoCan you explain about what you think the comment means? I think it is a good point to enter the conversation because it should shift to which regulations are being removed and their consequence. Rather than the notion of less regulation being inherently catastrophic. Another answer would be yes, NYSE is already full of scams, why would we go further? The position I am pointing it is a little weird without more information is yes NYSE is good but I can’t support the Texas version.
- fc417fc802 2y agoThe comment you originally responded to never implied that NYSE was good (at least by my reading). Just that crime would noticably increase if regulations were decreased in this instance. In other words, a worsening of the status quo. Perhaps you didn't intend it but your original reply reads as though your "question" is actually an assertion about his position and that you disagree with it. AKA a strawman.
- grandempire 2y ago> never implied that NYSE was good If they don't like NYSE then there isn't much conversation to be had here. Texas is just another exchange, which they already take issue with. If they like NYSE, but not this, I'm interested to learn why. That's why I asked.
- Gerardo1 2y agoOpinions are usually more nuanced than "it's good/not good", and reducing someone's opinion to that is straw-manning.