whataboutism thread several times? Why again?

When he crashes and burns in one thread, he runs to start a new one to re-frame the discussion in a way he believes will be more favorable to his position.

We see with this thread that he now is taking one statement from a single webpage and trying to make it the be-all, end-all definition of whataboutism so he can proclaim himself innocent of using the fallacy once and for all.

It's dishonest, deceitful, and despicable. But also exactly what we've unfortunately come to expect.

That a behavior is immoral or criminal is inherent in whataboutism, because if it could be defended on its own merits, there would be no need to point out that it occurs everywhere. If the speaker does explicitly acknowledge that something is a crime that also occurs elsewhere, it can be (and I have) inferred that the speaker wishes to excuse crime itself. This inference is supported by the fact that said speaker has opposed certain measures that could identify instances of abuse on the grounds that it will not stop all or most occurrences.

For example. A driver is pulled over for speeding.
Officer: Do you know you were speeding?
Driver: Yes.
Officer: Do you know speeding is illegal?
Driver: Yes, but everybody does it.
Officer: I still have to give you a ticket.
Driver: Don't you have something better to do? Everybody will still speed.
Officer: I've stopped one speeder.
Driver: What about China? People still speed in China.
Officer: I have no jurisdiction in China.
Driver: It doesn't matter that you have no jurisdiction in China. I am just trying to point out that speeding is a human behavior. My lead foot is not the cause of my speeding. I speed because I'm human. You might as well give me a ticket for being human.
Officer: Are you trying to make excuses for speeding?
Driver: Of course not, I did acknowledge it's a crime.
Officer: Then why shouldn't I give you a ticket?
Driver: Because everybody speeds and you can't give everybody a ticket.
Officer: That sounds like an excuse.
Driver: No it isn't.
Officer: Yes it is.
Driver: It can't be an excuse if I acknowledge I committed a crime.
Officer: Yes it can, because your intent is to stop me from giving you a ticket.
Driver: No that's not my intent at all. I want you to stop all speeders, but that's impossible. Do you have any suggestions for how we can stop all speeders?
Officer: My job is to stop one speeder at a time.
Driver: But that leaves 99.99999999% of all speeders still speeding.
Officer: That's why I give out a lot of tickets.
Driver: You see. You give out tickets, but people still speed. You shouldn't even try to catch me because everybody else will still speed.
Officer: People don't speed much on this road because they know I am watching.
Driver: See, most people speed on other roads. You can't blame me for speeding on this road, when people are speeding on other roads. You should go to those other roads and catch all the speeders there.
Officer: Are you going to confess to speeding without double talk or do I have to arrest you?
Driver: Can I call my priest?

The above is a simulation of a real conversation. Certain details have been changed to protect the guilty.