> If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market

It's not really a winning argument to say "We should be allowed to make money doing this harmful thing because many other people are also making money in a very different way with a different set of risks and potential harms"

▲

m3047 7 hours ago | parent [-]

What is a "winning argument"? Let's say two parties in an argument both make ad hominem arguments against the other party. Is the winning party's ad hominem "winning"? Just because the party won? There is no question of merit? What if both parties level the identical ad hominem argument against the other party? It's "winning" because survivorship bias and convenient amnesia (the winner gets to rewrite history)? What's going on here?

	▲	autoexec 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What's going on is that a company was caught doing something deplorable and dangerous and because they couldn't deny their actions were a problem their spokesperson just pointed to stock market short sellers and said "What about them!" It's embarrassing that Kalshi's spokesman thought that statement would make the company look any better.