Comments by "RuddsReels" (@RuddsReels) on "Better Bachelor"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AvaiLeon You talk about me never having a flowing conversation, but it's you that is incapable of responding to my flowing conversation of morality, since you can only talk about what a grift means.
So I have to talk to you in a robotic manner or something like "I am now talking about the moral implications, please respond with Y for yes for conversation to proceed" just to get you to look at the topic in a different light? You must be fun at parties.
Let me explain the sequence on how we got here:
- Daniel Seelye said "It takes two to grift." meaning "it takes two to tango", meaning both are to blame. He did not mean it was an actual grift.
- You enter, being pedantic and splitting hairs, have to mention that the situation was not a grift.
- I enter, knowing it was not a grift and not even challenging you on your statement that it was not a grift, reply to you regarding the other point you said which was "She is actually selling what was advertised." You saying this, gives off the impression, you think the behaviour is fine since you only appear to care if it was a grift or not.
- I also say "would you have the same outlook for a drug dealer selling drugs? He is also selling what was advertised.". Which states that IF you are fine with the morality of the transaction in the video, then would you also be fine with the scenario I mentioned because it's the same principle.
- You didn't answer my question, which was intended to understand if you agreed with the situation in the video. But you responded thinking I'm questioning you because you said it was not a grift. But I obviously wasn't. You keep sticking to this story makes me suspect you are being coy.
Then lots of back and forth.
Do you understand my position now?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1