Can you explain about what you think the comment means?

I think it is a good point to enter the conversation because it should shift to which regulations are being removed and their consequence. Rather than the notion of less regulation being inherently catastrophic.

Another answer would be yes, NYSE is already full of scams, why would we go further?

The position I am pointing it is a little weird without more information is yes NYSE is good but I can’t support the Texas version.

The comment you originally responded to never implied that NYSE was good (at least by my reading). Just that crime would noticably increase if regulations were decreased in this instance. In other words, a worsening of the status quo.

Perhaps you didn't intend it but your original reply reads as though your "question" is actually an assertion about his position and that you disagree with it. AKA a strawman.

> never implied that NYSE was good

If they don't like NYSE then there isn't much conversation to be had here. Texas is just another exchange, which they already take issue with.

If they like NYSE, but not this, I'm interested to learn why. That's why I asked.

Opinions are usually more nuanced than "it's good/not good", and reducing someone's opinion to that is straw-manning.