Well the comparison whether good or bad is irrelevant. He has a good point, to some extent.
You pay for something that you want to get. Let's say this 50$ set 11 had some really strong stuff in it and many would spend on it because of that. Two weeks later it gets nerfed. They will feel cheated of the money and it's sort of justified, because you know what you spent for and that is, you didn't spend for something that will be nerfed at random.
But then what if something is underpowered and you got it for free? Should that be taken away from you or what?
Well either way. The games does cost a lot. A broken set will cost around 300$ to get and once it's nerfed into oblivion you'll probably rage quit the game, but does that mean we need to keep the game with the flaws it has?
See at the same time there are others who spend for a flawless or at least the idea of a flawless environment that can be fixed and if the broken cards aren't nerfed then they will think those in charge don't want to fix the issues!
Going along with the laptop analogy, if your laptop has a script on it that will send viruses to my laptop or your laptop kills those around you by resonating on the astral plane with those around you, then i think your laptop needs the nerf ...
But a better analogy would have been race cars from the whaky racers cartoons. If the crazed scientist's car uses the death ray to kill all before the race even starts then it does need to be toned down regardless of how much he spent on building it.