Something about Ron Paul doesn’t smell right. Despite the fact that he appears to advocate core conservative values such as upholding the constitution and limiting government power, instinct tells me not to touch Ron Paul with a ten foot pole. Conservatives understand this. He’s just too kooky. I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
This is a classic example of what is called the Excluded middle fallacy.
Let's demonstrate how that happens with the following statement of yours:
I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
There are actually four options here:
The fallacy is that you have attempted to force the reader into two, and only two options, when in fact, other possibilities exist.
In short, you're trying to dismiss Ron Paul without discussion or debate of particulars by limiting the other choices.
It’s true that on a certain level, tending to our own political and economic affairs here in the U.S. is where we should focus most of our resources. But the cauldrons of tyranny and terror are ever-present in far reaches of the world.
As a very wise morning drive radio host named Jim Quinn has often observed, "Remember, everything before "but" is BS.", at least from the perspective of the one making the statement. Let's ask you a question: How many Americans, and people residing in America died from terrorist attacks in the past 20 years?
...got an answer
...good!
Now, How many Americans, or residents of America have died in automobile accidents in the past 20 years? i'll bet you find that the last number is at least an order of magnitude greater than the first number.
Puts a perspective on our alleged 'terrorism problem' doesn't it?
When these wicked brews begin to boil over and spill their hateful contents onto our land, that’s the point where we must take action to extinguish the fire at its source. We did so in Japan and Germany sixty-odd years ago, and we are now doing it in Iraq.
We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?
Ron Paul’s behavior is consistent with two possibilities. The first possibility allows for the notion that Paul is an honest man with true libertarian beliefs who just doesn’t understand the reality of geopolitics, thus he is basically a kook hopelessly unfit for the oval office. The second possibility is less likely but nonetheless fun for the imagination: Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy, planned for decades, that covertly seeks something sinister—either a Hillary presidency (by means of dividing the conservative vote) or the downfall of the United States.
Another excluded middle fallacy. Hopefully you've now been better educated, and won't make these kinds of stupid mistakes again.
Have a good day.
“Now, How many Americans, or residents of America have died in automobile accidents in the past 20 years? i’ll bet you find that the last number is at least an order of magnitude greater than the first number.
“Puts a perspective on our alleged ‘terrorism problem’ doesn’t it?”
No, it does not.
Because the trajectory of automobile accidents does not include the possibility of an exponential increase in future deaths, whereas the terrorist phenomenon does.
“We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?”
That’s why I used the cauldron spilling over metaphor, because the parallel exists on a more general level than with a comparison of particular events or individuals.
The point is that entities external to us are the cause of problems taking place internally (both actualized and impending terrorist attacks). Therefore we must act in the external theater. This is precisely what happened in WWII.
Had we not taken out Saddam, his actions would have led to terrorist attacks against us increased both in frequency and intensity.
“The fallacy is that you have attempted to force the reader into two, and only two options, when in fact, other possibilities exist. In short, you’re trying to dismiss Ron Paul without discussion or debate of particulars by limiting the other choices.”
I will forgive your use of the word “stupid,” noting that your response is apparently generated from a particularly rigid style of thinking and that such a style is prone to angry outbursts.
The good news for you is that in seeking to be teacher you have achieved being taught.
Flexibility and adaptation take place on an abstract level, and are essential for the accurate interpretation of data. An accurate interpretation of my comments will include the understanding that they are based on the premise that getting out of Iraq is a bad idea. Therefore the option of “neither foolish nor evil” is not available to us. Sure, you can say maybe Ron Paul is “both foolish and evil,” but that would be kind of silly and useless. It is purely semantic and neither refutes nor advances either side of the argument. Cut down on the clutter and you will save a lot of time.
“We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?”
Your argument is asinine. Are you suggesting that we ought to use a war in which we did not preempt the enemy and which killed 55 million people in 6 years as an example of why preemption is wrong? I think Ron Paul supporters need to go back to the drawing board on that line of reasoning.
Do you consider pilots for the US Air Force, Americans?
If you were a pilot in the US Air Force and were fired upon countless times would you consider that an attack?
If you saw the pictures of gassed Kurds and intelligence indicated those weapons might still exist and be in the hands of the madman that perpetrated this upon fellow human beings; Would you say, "well we weren't attacked, let's wait for the attack"?
Keeping in mind, thousands of your fellow Americans have just been killed by terrorists would you be at all concerned that WMD's might be in the hands of a madman?
Bearing in mind also this madman lost a war and agreed to inspections and then behaved in such a way as to lead any reasonable person to believe he had something to hide.
A billionaire, with complete and absolute power would risk all that for no reason?
Tell me more of logic and fallacy.