Gotta love how you say "lets be objective" then throw down a load of opinion.... learn the meaning of your words bud.but let's be objective. He was wrong, he shouldn't gave false hope to his patrons.
For the most part those arguing "in favor of Uber" are basing their arguments on available facts (this is called being objective, this is the philosophocal stance where you try to distance yourself from your emotions and focus on logic).
while those arguing "against Uber" are coming from a mostly emotional place, ie feeling betrayed, false hope etc, this is called being opinionated and while this doesn't necesseraly mean they are wrong, it does make it harder for them to win arguments when they fill their posts with ambiguous phrases like
- " he shouldn't gave false hope ",
Nobody "gives" hope, hope is an emotional state that is a reflection of your imagination.
Uber might have inspired you to feel this way through his words, but you need to tell us what those words were for this to be anything but meaningless drivel. - " uber gave uncertain promises "
There is no such thing as an uncertain promise, a promise is certain by definition, the word you I think you are looking for is "estimate". And quite frankly even if he made promises, shit happens, lines need to be redrawn from time to time. If you want to convince people he was being unreasonable you need to provide specifics:- What did he promise
- How was the promise broken
- Were explanations given
- How often did it happen
PS.
I am not defending Uber I don't know him, he could be a saint or he could be the devil, I don't know, most likely he is something inbetween, I am arguing against trolls, and yes I know you probably don't consider yourself a troll, but until you learn the meaning of your words and what facts are, that is exactly what you are.
Last edited: