[zepto]

Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question about what the statements I am responding have to do with it? They look like unrelated political sentiments.

[inetknght]

Ahh. Well the comment you replied to said:

> No business "deserves" to be in business.

The grandparent comment said:

> Not every business deserves to be in business, either.

The conversation moved on the word "business deserves to be in business"

[zepto]

When you say ‘the conversation moved on’, it seems like what you mean is, the commenter I replied to took a single phrase out of context.

[inetknght]

Yup that happens sometimes.

[zepto]

So what did you add here? Seems like just bullshit.

The person I was replying to took a phrase out of context and used it as an opportunity to advance an unrelated political agenda.

The topic of conversation didn’t change.

[inetknght]

> So what did you add here?

I explained to you how the conversation migrated.

> Seems like just bullshit.

I'm sorry you think that.

> The person I was replying to took a phrase out of context

It wasn't out of context. That's just how you interpreted it.

> used it as an opportunity to advance an unrelated political agenda.

It's not unrelated. Here, let me enumerate the thread again and provide some context:

> > @zepto: Insure against the losses associated with an unpaid ransom.

You offered a suggestion to businesses to help protect against ransoms.

> > @thisisnico: A lot of times the losses result in the loss of the business entirely.

Someone suggested that the insurance can't cover all of the losses.

> > @piptastic: Not every business deserves to be in business

Someone else suggested that being "in business" isn't a right.

> > @ryan_j_naughton: No business "deserves" to be in business.

Indeed, another person agreed. They then offered an corollary opinion.

> > We should fight the rent seekers who believe they are entitled to their markets and use regulatory capture to maintain their position

Here's where you started throwing a hissy-fit about politics. The conversation has moved on from what you first talked about. There's nothing wrong with offering an opinion, nor about it being political, and it's very much in-context with the movement of the conversation; first from "businesses should insure themselves" to "businesses can lose everything" followed by "businesses don't have a right to exist" and finally an opinion: "we should fight businesses".

[zepto]

> Here's where you started throwing a hissy-fit about politics.

Why are you are reading emotion into this?

> Someone else suggested that being "in business" isn't a right.

Yes, in the context of ransomware attacks. I.e. if you can’t protect your data, then perhaps you don’t have the right to be in business.

> > @ryan_j_naughton: No business "deserves" to be in business.

> Indeed, another person agreed. They then offered an corollary opinion.

No. They didn’t agree. They added a decontextualized statement a bit like the one they were following.

> > We should fight the rent seekers who believe they are entitled to their markets and use regulatory capture to maintain their position

And then added a political statement that was a complete non-sequitur to the conversation.

> There's nothing wrong with offering an opinion, nor about it being political.

Why do you feel the need to defend these statements?