2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

[rothschild]

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.

This is or was not a semantics issue.  You made a mistake; I pointed it out . . . and now you’re acting like an emotional, pissy, and triggered, liberal stooge claiming I rejected your premise based upon your error. 

Not true.

I never challenged your argument, based upon your mistaken misclassification of two companies. I questioned your ability to report factual information . . . and if I could rely on what you post, as such.  Period.



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.

That is not true or accurate. 

I never claimed that my “professional perspective” has any bearing on the accuracy of your mistaken misclassification.  I never asserted or claimed a “professional perspective” when answering your question.  

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.

I meant to state precisely what I did state. That you chose to assume otherwise is indication that your response was a straw man. Nor did I claim that your “professional perspective” had bearing on the accuracy of what I said.


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 is not true.  

I never discredited, challenged, or supported your globalist premise based upon your error, regarding Vanguard. 

Show me where I stated, that because you misstated the corporate structure of Vanguard, I discounted and invalidated your premise regarding the role of asset management companies and their relationship and position, with the global elitists.  THAT is an example logic chopping.

What I did is question your ability and credibility to be accurate with facts and statements . . . when you offer a premise or post anything . . . and strictly MY confidence for MY reliance upon them. MY confidence and MY reliance . . . no one else's . . . they can freely choose for themselves.

I never promoted or encouraged anyone from discounting your opinions or posts, snowflake.   


Two synonyms for discredit are: disprove, and invalidate.

That post was your rebuttal, consisting entirely of an attempt to discredit, disprove, invalidate (take your pick) what I'd written on the basis of a minor error concerning something that had nothing at all to do with my premise. That you did that in lieu of addressing my premise is a clear indication that you thought it was invalidated.

You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Good luck with that.


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?
[medium]
No. This was not logic chopping.  I questioned your ability to provide factual information for me to unquestioningly rely upon . . . regarding anything you post. 
Just like I do with your beloved MSM.

I hope your globalist handler is proud of you, for following the liberal stooge playbook, and redefining a term to fit your narrative!


I never expressed a desire for you to "unquestioningly rely upon" anything I've posted, nor would I, as the thought is repugnant to me.


For the record, I did a quick search and the source I relied on for Vanguard was inaccurate.

Good for you!  Checking and verifying accuracy and not relying on what someone posts!

And I bet you gave that source a lucid, well-deserved, and a right-solid scolding, for being shamefully inaccurate, too!  Damn those bastards who tricked you!

However, I can only imagine as to the number of other sources you’ve used, that were both incorrect and you failed to verify before posting.

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.

[size=medium]Glad to be of service! 

If or when rigor becomes a concern, may I suggest you consider ED medication?

Only after doing a quick web search . . . naturally.

Why would I invest more effort than I did to answer a question that was clearly intended as a "test"?

The only reason I bothered to answer it at all was to confirm what I already knew, that you think a gotcha point is a valid rebuttal.


My response, to your post is above, in red.

Please try and not take it personally . . . I know it's tough not to do as you've just you've entered the liberal stooge apprenticeship and your emotions and hormones are elevated.

For the record, I am not prone to accepting anything I read, as fact.  Except Stop signs.

I never question them.

XOXO

Why would I have hurt feelings when you've painted yourself into a corner, leaving me to watch as you try to squirm out of it by means of straw men and the like?

The only difficulty for me lies in slogging through the butchered format of your posts, but that's a small price to pay. ; )