> I never called anyone immoral or even implied it. If I thought so, then I would have just said it clearly.
Lets quote:
"To my ears/eyes, those sentences above seem like a carefully crafted but still flimsy excuse. It’s like a lie that you tell yourself over and over so much that you end up believing it"
You called them liars. Most people consider lying to be immoral. You implied they had ulterior motives. The implication is that these motives were evil because people don't lie about good motivations.
> However, I was making 2 points in my original comment.
Yes i know, but they are separate points that don't build on each other. I disagree with both but i only find one of the points objectionable and was only contending one of them. What, do you think that people can only fully disagree or agree with you? That people have to disagree or agree with both points.
> It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral.
I have not commented on literally every thread on the internet. You caught me. However just because someone called them immoral doesn't mean i find their comment objectionable.
That said, are you really trying to argue that two wrongs make a right? If you want me to conceed that there exists other bad people on the internet, i'll happily agree with that.
> If you remember, the original comment that I replied to said “Devil’s advocate”. That meant that this subthread was supposed to explore a viewpoint that others weren’t commenting as much.
No, it means the original commenter doesn't neccesarily agree with the view being espoused. Given you said you agree with said view, you are obviously not claiming to be playing devils advocate. In any case, devil's advocate isn't a blank cheque to behave any way you want.
> It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral.
But i don't have an issue with their comment. While i might not 100% agree with his metaphor, i think his comment was reasonable. He did not call them liars with no evidence. He did not misleadingly imply the authors agreed that one should only do security research covered by safe harbour provisions when they didn't. Etc.
I may disagree with them being immoral but i don't object to calling them such if backed up with reasonable argument. I object to calling them liars (or accusing them of any other moral sin) without evidence. That's something you did that most other people haven't, which is why i am fixated on your comment not theirs.
