Full donut disclosure.

you are responding to a comment that started by justifying parasitism. To make an effective counter argument along the lines you've chosen, you need to address that part of the comment and explain why parasites in nature don't "deserve" to exist, or at least show that they are also unethical. That is/ought to be something easy to prove, right?

Responding to a comment does not imply that one disagrees with the entirety or any part of said comment and does not necessitate crafting an effective counter argument. In fact, I am not making an argument as to parasitism, parasites, or their right to exist at all.

The closest thing I am making to an argument is that, as a human, if you find what you believe to be a bug in a system and you choose to exploit the bug repeatedly for your own gain while keeping it a secret to yourself, this is, in fact, the least ethical choice you, as a human, can make. (More ethical choices include: not telling anyone but walking away and never exploiting the bug again, telling the system maintainers about the bug confidentially, exposing the bug publicly, etc...)

And I guess, in some way, my response is implying that wanting other humans to make the least ethical choice in these sorts of situations and displaying animosity towards those who make a more ethical choice is a little bit strange.

> the least ethical choice you, as a human, can make

you assigned me "human", but I identify as a parasite

i follow the laws of logic, and if the logic of the system gives me a donut, I will take the donut. if the logic changes and i don't get a donut, i will not complain. It is not unethical to follow the logic of the system.

now, as to you as a human, are you saying that you have never downloaded a youtube video to a file on your disk?

No, I am not saying anything like that. I think we must be talking past eachother here.