Unread

of them before throwing them into one of two bowls - my good ones and the throw aways.

A little bit of the mold probably won't hurt you once its dry. I'm sure a few squeaked through out of a thousand peppers every year in my day,  but it might leave a bad taste in the flakes if there is enough of it. I suggest culling out the moldy ones. Meaning, the ones that you crack that are pretty much fully colored white, black, gray or green, inside. It wasn't like I inspected every angle of every pepper and looked deep down into the ends of every cayenne.  Just a quick glance to make sure they weren't obviously totally shot.

Love Alan Parsons Project...

this is very subtle idea: when attributes, as regards to its the parts, are used to to say something about the whole, the same is true with the inverse, when we take attributes of the whole and make inferences about its parts. Both can be seen as generalizations. 

Also can be considered as an errors of integration or division.

Generally, it's fine if you are making a scientific argument as you aren't using deductive reasoning, but instead a combination of abductive and inductive reasoning.  This is how almost all normal people think. But you run into possibility of being wrong when we try this with different subject matters. David Humes assumption about nature plays a strong role in why this might be.

You are right with the two general form you presented. But what i was talking about is a a bit of a different concept.

Fallacy

Some A are B,
C is A, ( or did you mean to say all C's are A's ?)
Therefore C is B.

That conclusion is invalid, as you pointed out. All we can correctly say to correct this is that Some C's are B's, which are generally weak inferences and not usfull, but we avoid overstating and extrapolating; hence, why politicians always use the modifier "some" , which you probably already knew that considering we are having this discursion.
 

All A are B,
C is A,
Therefore C is B.

This is is fine as it is.

Were are getting into the weeds now :)

When we get into very broad arguments,  when tend to approach the limits of reasonableness as almost all broad argument tend to  break down into completely ridiculous conclusions. 

To oversimplify my position, I have always held that Ron Paul's devotees have incorrectly ascribed their personal epiphanies onto all voters/donors who supported the doctor.  That Ron Paul helped create fertile ground for a 'libertarian moment' but that the moment is a mile wide and an inch deep rather than the opposite.

Stated differently, that a big majority of moderately-to-very-serious libertarians do support Rand Paul but that a few million others who supported his father --- let's call them 'cafeteria libertarians' --- are really all about single issues or news headlines and they have gone to Trump or Cruz, and if offended by Trump's style, to Carson, who's still higher than Rand.

It means that the unlikely collapse of Trump/Cruz/Carson would still stand to benefit Rand greatly.  Maybe stocks will tank as Audit the Fed hits the news on the 16th, maybe something will happen in the debate, who knows.  Unlikely collapse, but still possible, which is why I donated again yesterday.

running unopposed due to mass ignorance.