I don't know how to clearly capture my sentiment. Is there a logical fallacy for completely missing the intent of the argument because one aspect of it can be legalistically interpreted as completely invalid?
I am reminded of how Orthodox religious folks manage to get around scripture by fixating on a few qualifying words and weaseling (for lack of a better term) out of what seems to be intent of the law.
I am reminded of how Orthodox religious folks manage to get around scripture by fixating on a few qualifying words and weaseling (for lack of a better term) out of what seems to be intent of the law.