Not sure how I’m deciding certain standpoints when it’s convenient for me. There’s a big difference on acknowledging the past as a understanding of where we are today compared to justifying your actions of today morally based on the past decisions of others. The difference is this, “People in our past did some really shitty things, we acknowledge it, and it put us in our current position” vs “Someone in the past did shitty stuff, so it’s totally cool for me to be equally shitty”. Once again, your argument is textbook whatsboutism. Why
it’s a fallacy is because all your examples is trying to deflect your moral deficiencies on the basis of others. The conversation should be steered to on the morality of IP theft. Not whether others have done it or not.
I’m curious what you consider a legitimate moral conversation to look like. When I hear that I think “philosophy before 1800s” where you can appeal to moral absolutes via God (yet still end up in unsolved debates. It seems even harder today.
