I also explained why I agreed with the statement, explained why I felt that the straw man claim was spurious, and linked to an article that explained how I felt about the use of fallacies thus.
> If you look at their other comments, it's very obvious they're not saying it should be free of regulation.
>
> For you to have said you still agree with that assessment
There's a difference of meaning here.
Original criticizer and I are saying that this person thinks that this event is free of regulation from the SEC because they're the wrong body.
Not free from all regulation. You misunderstand what I, and I think also they, have said.
.
> For you to have said you still agree with that assessment, even after clarification was made, was you being completely unreasonable.
Another possibility is that you've misunderstood the meaning?
I wish people would be less condemning in this thread.
The strawman was > You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!"
Sounds like "free of all regulation" to me.
Maybe you didn't mean "all regulation", but then in addition to confusingly saying it wasn't a strawman you really flubbed the wording on "the claim that someone can merely opt out of regulation" by not making that distinction clear.
You have located the strawman.