> you didn't have the guts to write me a response

I did? Which is why you're here?

> or to really acknowledge what the guy you're responding to here said

I did? "If these odds aren't good enough for you to live up to your values, what are?" is a genuine question. Note that you didn't answer the question.

And everything said before _was_ a response to privilege, but to be more explicit: if you have the _privilege_ of discovering a vuln and the technical knowhow of recognizing its magnitude and potential effect on others, is it not YOU that are using your privilege for ill? "The indifference of good men...", etc, etc.

Listen. We're all cowards and bitches, me included. We all have faults, we all take the easy path, we all could do better. Me especially. I have a history that I'm not proud of, and my character is as flawed as anyone's. I apologize again for using crass language, perhaps if you're willing to extend some charity, substitute whatever language you feel like would be more appropriate. Unfortunately if I come up with other words they'd _still_ read as negative, so I'll refrain.

when you provide the respect of directly addressing me + the concerns I voice , I'm happy to read your points and acknowledge them in return. I'm here for a discussion, those things aren't directly connected to us personally if we don't want them to be. you seem to have targeted a widespread personal connection via emotive language, I understand the technique, it's just you kinda chose the emotion of insult, which tends to be reflected like other emotions. I'm not sure how to prove your final point wrong, aside from referring back to where I previously said you're probably right ... it's just the expression does not convey your point well. no offence I don't even want to address your counter arguments, they're ethereal at best, "you didn't answer my question that was posed in a rhetorical manner" + behaving as tho an indirect response has the same impact as a direct one. to be very clear I fully agree with the idea you're trying to convey so it's quite likely that I'm simply being too lazy to properly address your arguments.