“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.
Thank you, but one Dr. Phil is one too many.
C.S. Lewis called the line of reasoning that you're presently attempting "Bulverism", which of course is mere question begging.
The good news for you is that in seeking to be teacher you have achieved being taught.
Which of course doesn't address the fact that the statements were stupid and in fact, were an Excluded middle fallacy.
Poor logic does not a good teacher make.
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.
Which was, as i pointed out, a 'ruse' to cut off argument on that basic point.
Sorry, you need present your case, as your apriori premise requires defense.
Logical fallacies do not good argumentation make.