>>508136481
>you assume the premises are true
first off, youre not a robot anon
structuring an argument for logical consideration is different than coming to a logical conclusion.

but you seem to be missing that crucial next step, determining if the premises themselves are reliable before accepting the conclusion as reliable.
its important (for normies and machines esp.) before considering an argument that you actually have the preconditionary structure of the premises in place to consider the validity of an argument.
but you, in this sense, very much like jews, neglected the second step. their problem is they are almost always operating from a conclusion, rather than from logically examining its premises in order to arrive there, as a logician would.

anybody can reframe and restructure an argument using a linguistic sleight of hand, but the actual logic part doesnt come in until afterward. logically, you would think youd need to avoid questions not framed as logicians prefer in ma syntax style, but this too is a fallacy, especially in regards to the premise in question, which employs what you would understand as illogicality as a defense mechanism in order to weed out probably jews and the like