> Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You would do well to consider your own criticism. I will not be holding my breath waiting for the penny to drop for you, though. You have that self assured idiocy I instantly recognise from hackneyed talking heads spinning nonsense about topics they don't grasp purely to make those more questioning abandon their pesky skepticism and critical analysis about all things conventional.

Keep it up, your attacks serve merely to convince me I'm on the right path.

Silk Road had sections for items whose sole and explicit purpose was to harm others for profit.

I understand that you are unwilling to admit this (instead trying to make this an argument about something other than SR), but he did.

I find it completely unsurprising that you are incapable of admitting this.

p.s. there is a lot of research indicating that extremists become more strident when presented with facts that undermine their ideology. As such, your final sentence is completely predictable.

I admitted it in my first response. I said it was a misdemeanor if he were guilty of everything he had allegedly done relative to the actions of the prosecuting entity. If you were right and I were claiming SR was some pure bastion of light and holiness I would instead have said he was completely innocent.

My point was the relative culpability of the two actors in question. You're not presenting any new facts, you're just sounding off on the righteousness of the state without consideration to the crimes on that rap sheet to which I have taken exception. It is you who are doubling down on your idiocy absent understanding of the actual point being made.