I think we all agree that logic is fundamentally a set of rules. I think we also all agree that it could be described as a tool.

Now with that in mind...

Some people wish to play by one set of rules, and some people wish to play by another set of rules. And no one always plays by one single set of rules exclusive of all others.

Some people use one tool, and some people use other tools. And no one always uses one specific tool exclusive of all others.

But in any case, it is always “purpose” that drives the decision behind “which set of rules to follow” or “which tool to use”.

That is, one always chooses the rules/tools that will assist one in best achieving their purpose.

Comments? Agreements? Disagreements? Firebombs?

That is correct in the area of Political Science only. 2+2=22 is a joke, unless it is political science, or an election campaign, or a lawmakers’ debate. Assumption that we may have several tool sets of logic is from political science also. That is why political theorists are paid big bucks; it is not easy to sell lies.

Gotta have the right tools to do the job properly.

I think that "2+2=22" joke is a perfect illustratiion of my point - if one's purpose is "to make a joke", then "the right tool for the job" is illogic.

Exactly.