2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

[rothschild]

Would you trust the opinions and conclusions of a person who engages in logic chopping?

I answered that question with a high degree of certainty that you'd respond in this manner. You didn't disappoint.

Just to be clear . . . I believe you meant to state:  "I asked (not, I answered) that question with a high degree of certainty . . . ", to solicit an answer from me.

As such, that is the assumption, upon which, I am basing my response. 

Questioning one's truth, or accuracy in statements, facts or terms, has nothing to do with logic chopping.  Neither is asking for a definition of a term used.

You and Piggy declared America is Fascist . . . without providing an example to support your claim.  And . . . when asked to do so, your pedantic response was along the lines of it really can't be defined and therefore, its irrelevant.
  
You're kinda like Justice Jackson.  No doubt, in her court tenure, she will deliberate on a case involving women's issues . . . and yet she can't define what a woman is!   
 
My question was not logic chopping . . . as I never challenged your use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), nor implied it was a fallacious component to support any of your arguments.
 
Remember, it was you who asked me, in a roundabout way to respond ("I'll defer to you to provide . . .") regarding Asset Management and the significance of my question . . . and I did.

By doing so, I learned another thing about you . . . you misunderstand, misapply and assert the concept of logic chopping (just like publicly traded companies), to fit YOUR narrative.

Plus the fact you can't admit your error(s) in your posts.

Just like a good and obedient, liberal stooge!   

I can do semantics if you insist, but it isn't going to go any better for you than treating our discussion as an audit.

I answered your question per your request. That I then asked for your professional perspective has no bearing on that. That you claim it does shows you either intentionally engage in sophistry, or are ignorant re fallacies. Since you're clearly implying that it's an either/or proposition, feel free to try and substantiate it.

In the bolded statement you get it backwards: if you *had* challenged my use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), or implied it was a fallacious component to support any of my arguments, there would be no basis for claiming you had engaged in logic chopping. Instead, you used one minor error that has no bearing at all on my premise that the establishment of a global government is sucessfully being advanced by people I describe as globalists, to discredit everything I've presented, and my general credibility. That's an extreme example of logic chopping, coupled with ad hominem. I'm somewhat surprised that you'd engage in reasoning that is so blatantly fallacious. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

For the record, I did a quick search and the source I relied on for Vanguard was inaccurate. I wasn't concerned with rigor, I merely wanted to see how you'd respond. You've now provided a sufficient number of examples that this can fairly be said to be your modus operandi.