Oh believe me, I caught that bit. And my summary of the entire article stands. To paraphrase what he's saying here: why is selling things to people who can eas

Oh believe me, I caught that bit. And my summary of the entire article stands. To paraphrase what he's saying here: why is selling things to people who can easily afford them "ok" when exploiting the poverty of historically disadvantaged groups and getting them possibly maimed or killed is not ok? The fact that he even thinks this approaches an interesting argument reinforces my point: intellectually and morally bankrupt. The guy isn't smart enough to realise that his unanswerable rhetorical questions have obvious answers.