[akoboldfrying]

"Comparing X to Y feels gross [therefore don't do it]" is a gross argument. This type of argument never yields insight, and only serves to draw attention away from the interesting and relevant question being asked, which in this case is:

The top-level poster appears to be proposing a general rule for how people should behave. But how suitable is it really?

The way to explore that is to test it out by trying other inputs, as the GP did here.

[jfyi]

To be fair, the person you are replying to didn't use the argument you are describing. They stated it felt gross and then went into detail of the actual argument:

> He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

That is noticeably different than stating, "it feels gross so don't do it".

[akoboldfrying]

What you're calling their "actual argument" is also a bad argument. The original proposed rule (which amounts to "Don't do stuff if someone powerful can likely punish you for it") doesn't distinguish between commercial opportunists and real activists or whistleblowers, so their "actual argument" is spurious.

It also seems designed to shut down criticism of the original proposed rule -- or at least that's the only interpretation I can ascribe to it. This is bad because that original proposed rule is bad (in my opinion) and deserves criticism. Ihe best kind of criticism of any rule is "Let's try this other input, and see if you still agree with the conclusion".

[jfyi]

Haha, of course the original comment doesn't distinguish... that was the whole reason for pointing it out. It was done specifically to separate the two sets of actors for comparison.

It "being designed to shut down criticism" is a wildly subjective take at best and at worst way more spurious than anything they or I am suggesting. I think your bias is showing and you are doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."

[akoboldfrying]

> the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."

This "point" isn't connected in any way to the original proposed rule, which is what is under examination here. So when the GP sought to test that rule by applying it to a different type of person, this "point" does not amount to an objection -- it's simply irrelevant.

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

[jfyi]

It's simple enough, it's just nonsensical. You don't get to declare rules for discussion of a topic. When someone proposes something, it is valuable to explore how it fits in different scenarios. I don't think I can make that any simpler for you, and frankly, I don't know why I'd need to explain that to an adult acting in good faith.

So would you like to address the topic or would you rather continue playing pretend with imaginary rule sets for conversation?

Ironically, it's you who is attempting (and failing) to shut down criticism instead of addressing it.