I am terribly sorry I missed your request. I've been busy tending to my daughter and hastily dashing out some code I need for a teaching opportunity next week. I can see it caused you enough distress to post twice.
Let me be straightforward with you, since you seem to be the sort that will not appreciate the standard cultural niceties.
So perhaps maybe you just did a poor job to express your specific point as you tripped over yourself to demonstrate to everyone you have read a bit of philosophy and logic. But it certainly would be reasonable that you entered a conversation without invitation responding to
> That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect.
With:
> However, if you study the truth table a bit longer, you will realize that you should stop reading any text which contains fallacious or self-contradictory logic.
Implying that if you could construe any single statement in my post as lacking in robustness from a logical perspective, then you should simply ignore the entire thing. This is regardless of the author's intent that this actually be a real point, or perhaps just a literary device or joke. One might actually read the whole post first, notice there is some technical substance, and come to a different conclusion before posting.
This impression is further reinforced by your frustration over rate limiting as you implied that my response, specifically saying that I didn't actually present my tautology as anything but a cute literary device to open what I considered to be a rather dry if somewhat acidic post.
You said,
> I've been rate-limited, so any fallacious (or non) arguments posted in response will need to wait a while for a proper response (some have already been typed up).
Which from my perspective certainly looks like you were ready to fire off a post explaining to me with as many latin words as possible aimed at trying to prove exactly that.
Perhaps, in the future, you may want to consider efficacy first and strict correctness secondly when discussing things in a casual forum with the (entirely barbaric, I agree) feature of "downvoting." Or perhaps just not entering conversations you don't have anything substantial to add to.
You might feel some irritation at this, because it can seem like an anti-intellectual stance. Sadly, you're existing in a community that has to deal with many people perpetually misusing terms like "ad hominem" and "genetic fallacy" and "truth table" in the worst way, to the point where it's a cognitive shortcut to simply pass it by or perhaps even express this cultural signal via downvotes.
I don't like it very much either, but cultural norms are not something we rationally argue with but instead can only hope to influence gradually.