The person is making a valid point about the inconsistency in how non compliance was handled in traditional finance and blockchain.
The person is making a valid point about the inconsistency in how non compliance was handled in traditional finance and blockchain.
Perhaps folks think that is not a "valid point" here because it is off topic, seeking to distract from the topic of whether this particular guilty person should be punished.
Saying "so and so did it too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)?
Are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon?
Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
It’s of course on topic to talk about the bigger picture of whether people in general are charged with these specific types of crimes or should be.
I hate the whole fallacy callout stuff in general. God didn’t create them, half barely work, none work in every situation, and they’re just abused to death by people to shut down conversation in a shallow way.
Saying "so and so did a thing too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)?
In that scenario, are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon?
Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
Without tying it back to the topic like that, the reply is only tangentially related, like replying "I go to a bank" to any topic that mentions or involves banks. Like, ok, great, at least it's not insulting posters, but not super constructive in discussing the topic (the Binance founder's crimes and pardon).