> Talk to me when your portfolio actually has seven digits figures attached to it. As a woman running a full-time trading business, mine already does-what's yours look like?How do you reply without sounding mad, moid?
>>62686953sounds like you got pwned in an internet argument are crying to biz about it
>>62686953Nicole, if you're such a horny owoman, you do you keep marrying gay men?
>>62686953Millionaires don't say seven digits. In fact they almost never discuss worth at all. For a few very good reasons
>>62686953no eggs
The primary logical fallacy in this statement is the Appeal to Wealth (known formally as Argumentum ad Crumenam), operating alongside an Ad Hominem attack.Appeal to Wealth (Argumentum ad Crumenam)This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that financial success dictates truth or correctness. By pointing to a seven-figure portfolio as a prerequisite for the conversation, the speaker conflates monetary wealth with logical validity. The implicit argument is: "I have more money, therefore my point is correct and yours is invalid." However, the size of a bank account has no bearing on whether a specific argument, trade thesis, or factual claim is logically sound.Ad HominemInstead of addressing the substance of whatever debate prompted this response, the speaker attacks the other person's personal circumstances—specifically, their presumed lack of wealth. Asking "what's yours look like" completely deflects from the actual topic and turns the disagreement into a personal financial scorecard.Gatekeeping (Poisoning the Well)The phrase "Talk to me when..." is a classic dismissal tactic used to avoid defending a position. The speaker sets an arbitrary, self-serving prerequisite for participation in the conversation. By demanding the opponent prove their net worth before being allowed a voice, the speaker attempts to preemptively invalidate any counterarguments without doing the work of actually refuting them.While the speaker’s status as a full-time professional trader certainly gives her relevant market experience, using the sheer dollar amount of her success as a blunt instrument to shut down a conversation bypasses logical reasoning entirely.I accept her concession
>>62686995KEK
>>62686963Hi Nicole
>>62686995Straw man: ad hom is an attack on character. Wealth doesn't equal characterStraw man: you attempt to apply formal language to describe informal action. An argument in logic is not the same as a debate.
>>62687016I accept your concession as well
>>62686953I see the image in your post. I'm fuming already. I'm getting madder as I read the green text. Then your question. I'm going to pop a blood vessel.
>>62687023Everyone can see you lost
>>62687025Yeah, roasties are annoying to see and hear
>>62686953>k
>>62686953I doubt we will ever have anything to talk about. But I wish you every happiness.
>why would I want to talk to you? You have no eggs and therefore I don't wish to seek a romantic relation with youLoved your ass in Eyes Wide Shut but then again everybody did. Didn't they.
>>62686953who are you why are you in my house
>>62686953I dunno. I hit pause on my vhs copy of Dead Calm and nutted several times to her beautiful, bare, porcelain ginger ass cheeks
I just play video games and watch anime all day. (For some reason, my harmless lifestyle just enrages women)
