"My friend's view was, first, that privileged access, ... were so egregiously wrong it need not be discussed further."

Can you dial down the snark and explain what argument you're making that doesn't fall under the above?

My apologies. To me, it seemed that labelling the ideas of privileged access and secret order types to be so egregiously wrong and not worthy of discussion a bit dismissive when there has been evidence that these sort of activies have occured before.

Fair enough. What my wording meant is that there's no point in discussing them in the debate sense. They just shouldn't exist. Period. The liquidity argument is more complex and debatable.

Ahh got ya.