That's the point: the sympatheticness of the victim is completely irrelevant to the dynamic, yet seems to be enough to treat the cases as different.
If not, you agree that the the identities of the victims don't break the similarity.
And its laughable, reframing big pharma as some poor unprofitable wretches.
I wasn't saying HNers are biased, I'm saying they're inconsistent in reasoning about these cases. (They're biased too, but that wasn't the criticism I was making here.)
>And its laughable, reframing big pharma as some poor unprofitable wretches.
It's even more laughable thinking that "whether pharmas are unprofitable wretches" is relevant to the economic effects of pseudo-price controls after the fallacy and inconsistency are explained.
Its obvious to me we're not discussing this in good faith any more. Pendantry will get us nowhere.