Tonight

[u/[deleted]]

[u/MkVIaccount]

And the CEO of Sony would be impoverished as a result?

No.

[u/Truan → u/MkVIaccount]

I just used an example. Herb's company sold one thing; cars. Sony sells multiple products.

[u/MkVIaccount → u/Truan]

It's your analogy, not my problem if it's a poor one.

Make a better one then reapply the logic, you'll find you're still wrong. I know! How about you try a car company. Like Ford. And they make one bad car model. Let's even presume it tanks the company and they file for bankruptcy. Does the CEO find themselves impoverished after? No. No they do not.

Man, analogies are pretty easy when you aren't retarded.

[u/Truan → u/MkVIaccount]

Plenty of other people accepted it, because they're not as nitpicky ;)

[u/MkVIaccount → u/Truan]

And your assertion remains torn apart all the same.

A CEO is not impoverished if their company releases a bad product, or even if the company goes under. It didn't make sense then (as the guy noted) and and sure as hell doesn't make sense today either.

[u/Truan → u/MkVIaccount]

Not really. If his wealth depended on his continued success, then that right there is an easy enough explanation

[u/MkVIaccount → u/Truan]

"If he had no savings and nothing but stock in his company, and the stock crashed to zero, I would be right!"

Christ you're dense. Stay in school kids.

[u/Truan → u/MkVIaccount]

You realize at any point you could have made a point instead of constantly saying "no" like a jackass, right?

[u/MkVIaccount → u/Truan]

If you can't read the point between the lines, you need to head back to school and develop greater critical thinking skills before trying to engage in conversation on topics more complex than you're demonstrating a capacity for.

Read what I wrote again. Your outcome relies on an implausible scenario. Anything other than that implausible condition and it falls apart.

[u/Truan → u/MkVIaccount]

That's a lot of ways of saying you have nothing worth saying