I think the misunderstanding comes from you saying "A does not imply B" and the other poster misunderstanding that as "A implies not B". This is a rather common mistake in arguments I find ):
The comment went beyond saying A does not imply B to say that A is completely unrelated to B, even outside of degenerate scenarios such as addiction. Claiming that purchases are completely uncorrelated with receiving value from something is a much stronger and obviously false claim to anyone who thinks about it for more than a minute.
Given the downvotes on imgabe’s comments, it seems that understanding is sufficiently uncommon / extreme and easily corrected by rereading, so as to render this additional data point too much of an outlier to factor it into any conclusions.
Nobody disputes it’s possible to have the same understanding, it’s just not reasonable, and not realistic to claim it as a function of the way the point was initially written.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. Either you are not understanding or are deliberately creating a strawman.