The arguments for Natalie as a upstanding citizen of morality are complete and utter bullshit.
They all knew the game Russell was playing. They knew what Russell was doing, they knew most of the tactics he was employing and they decided to go along with him. Yet somehow they're "better" because they didn't do it?
Is someone who hires a hitman to kill someone more moral then someone who murders a person themselves?
Natalie deserves about $0.10 from the way she played the game. Somehow because she stayed in the shadows that was a tactic? How is it a tactic when you realize you have NO CHANCE to win YOU HAVE NO SHOT to maneuver and shape the game to your advantage and so what you do is align yourself with someone else who does all the work?
All the 'dirty' work... And then claim you yourself are some kind of a better person because you didn't do it.
Natalie and Mick would have both been sitting on the jury if it wasn't for Ruselll and hell Natalie probably wouldn't have even made it to the merger if it wasn't for her alliance with Russell...
I'm sick and tired of people standing on some kind of moral high horse regarding Survivor. THIS IS SURVIVOR! It's a game for $1million with very little in the way of rules on how you play the game to get it. Natalie realized it was a game she was incapable of playing and let Russell play it for her and her ultimate argument for winning was not what she did during he course of the game, but what she did not do.
That she did not use the same tactics Russell did. That argument is extremely flawed for one major reason. Number one it says she would be capable of those tactics, was that skilled a manipulator, but ultimately did not do it because of her morality. Ignoring whether or not she really could have done all the moves Russell did, she is a moral person? She is moral when she knew what Russell was doing? That he was lying and cheating and manipulating everyone and still deciding to 'use him' to her advantage? That makes her moral?
It was a completely bullshit argument for the million which the simpletons on the jury bought because they didn't like losing to Russell. They all recognized he was the reason they didn't have a chance for $1million because he outmaneuvered them all. So they voted for Natalie.
They all knew the game Russell was playing. They knew what Russell was doing, they knew most of the tactics he was employing and they decided to go along with him. Yet somehow they're "better" because they didn't do it?
Is someone who hires a hitman to kill someone more moral then someone who murders a person themselves?
Natalie deserves about $0.10 from the way she played the game. Somehow because she stayed in the shadows that was a tactic? How is it a tactic when you realize you have NO CHANCE to win YOU HAVE NO SHOT to maneuver and shape the game to your advantage and so what you do is align yourself with someone else who does all the work?
All the 'dirty' work... And then claim you yourself are some kind of a better person because you didn't do it.
Natalie and Mick would have both been sitting on the jury if it wasn't for Ruselll and hell Natalie probably wouldn't have even made it to the merger if it wasn't for her alliance with Russell...
I'm sick and tired of people standing on some kind of moral high horse regarding Survivor. THIS IS SURVIVOR! It's a game for $1million with very little in the way of rules on how you play the game to get it. Natalie realized it was a game she was incapable of playing and let Russell play it for her and her ultimate argument for winning was not what she did during he course of the game, but what she did not do.
That she did not use the same tactics Russell did. That argument is extremely flawed for one major reason. Number one it says she would be capable of those tactics, was that skilled a manipulator, but ultimately did not do it because of her morality. Ignoring whether or not she really could have done all the moves Russell did, she is a moral person? She is moral when she knew what Russell was doing? That he was lying and cheating and manipulating everyone and still deciding to 'use him' to her advantage? That makes her moral?
It was a completely bullshit argument for the million which the simpletons on the jury bought because they didn't like losing to Russell. They all recognized he was the reason they didn't have a chance for $1million because he outmaneuvered them all. So they voted for Natalie.