[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?

[inetknght]

> Why are you are reading emotion into this?

I'm reading that you're upset that the conversation has moved on because you're complaining that someone made a comment "out of context" and I disagree.

> if you can’t protect your data, then perhaps you don’t have the right to be in business

I fully agree.

> They didn’t agree. They added a decontextualized statement a bit like the one they were following

I read it as an agreement. I see you don't. You're clearly think it's an out-of-context opinion and I disagree about that.

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

It is, for sure, a political statement. But it's not a non-sequitur. Businesses that are uninsurable are arguably rent-seeking to stay in business.

> Why do you feel the need to defend these statements?

Different people have some very different opinions.

Because I can. Because I'm bored. Because I want to. Because it's not against any rule. Because I think you're wrong. Take your pick. Ultimately, your question here is rather out-of-context, unimportant, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Why do you feel the need to attack these statements? Why do you feel it's necessary to claim that an opinion is made out of context and doesn't contribute to the conversation? Why do you continue a long reply chain denying someone who disagrees with you? That's effectively what you've asked me.

[zepto]

>> Why are you are reading emotion into this?

> I'm reading that you're upset that the conversation has moved on because you're complaining that someone made a comment "out of context" and I disagree.

That’s you reading something in that isn’t there. There is no complaint.

>> They didn’t agree. They added a decontextualized statement a bit like the one they were following

> I read it as an agreement. I see you don't. You're clearly think it's an out-of-context opinion and I disagree about that.

Ok, but nothing supports this. It’s not a statement of agreement. You are welcome to read that into it if you like though.

> Businesses that are uninsurable are arguably rent-seeking to stay in business.

No. That clearly doesn’t follow.

>> Why do you feel the need to defend these statements? Different people have some very different opinions.

> Because I can. Because I'm bored. Because I want to. Because it's not against any rule. Because I think you're wrong. Take your pick.

> Why do you feel the need to attack these statements?

There is no attack. I think you are imagining that there is one. That is why I asked why you felt the need to defend the statements.

> Why do you feel it's necessary to claim that an opinion is made out of context and doesn't contribute to the conversation? Why do you continue a long reply chain denying someone who disagrees with you? That's effectively what you've asked me.

Because I was curious about why you were defending the statements, a question you haven’t answered.

[inetknght]

> a question you haven’t answered.

I have. You're ignoring it. Have a good day, sir.

[zepto]

> …Take your pick.

That’s not an answer. Perhaps you really don’t know your own motivation.