We have a problem in the Wiki!

[StormyOne]

As a result of the rule changes that have taken place here, it is now too easy for a person to just say he is an SDA and be acknowledged as one.

This is why we had to make up the rule. For, it would be too easy for people that have nothing better to do with their time but to stir up trouble in our forum, to be disruptive during the voting process, as they too would be allowed to participate in the rule making process.

I thought we all had the understanding that people who are not allowed to vote can't participate in the rule making process because of the reason that I just gave above. It is obvious however, that some of us didn't have this in mind when the rule was made. Yet, two people besides myself, voted 'no' in this poll. This indicates to me that I am not the only one that understood this when the rule was made.

LOL.... look around my brother, the trouble in this sub-forum was started and continues by all those who are adventists.... no one needs to sneak in here with a contrived sda icon to "stir" up trouble, its already here....

 

[sentipente]

For all we know it could have been non-SDAs who voted with you, possibly only to stir this up further.

Actually, I almost voted "No" because I am opposed to the philosophy behind the poll. Fortunately, I decided to read the poll prompt again and realize that to disagree with the poll was to agree with the pollster. If I was dealing with a professional pollster I would say it was deliberate.

 

[woobadooba]

LOL.... look around my brother, the trouble in this sub-forum was started and continues by all those who are adventists.... no one needs to sneak in here with a contrived sda icon to "stir" up trouble, its already here....

LOL

I know! And what a shame that is!

 

[sentipente]

LOL

I know! And what a shame that is!

So, why are you trying to manufacture some more?

 

[tall73]

The rule is not as simple as you think it is; and as much as you will disagree with what I had said, that still doesn't negate the fact that you are wrong.

To tell someone that he can participate in making a rule, but not allow that person to vote on the rule, is contradictory. This is like saying, you can share your opinion now, and we will use it to make rule options, but later on your opinion won't matter, even though it hasn't changed.

In actuality, your premise is like another form of abuse in that it takes something from someone for the purpose of making a rule option to vote on, while denying that person of the right to vote on his own idea. In other words, according to your argument, people are worth something when they are sharing ideas that can be used to make up rule options to vote on, but when it comes to voting on the very same ideas that they shared during the process, their opinion is worthless when it comes time to vote. This is what I see in your premise. I know you don't see it, and perhaps there are others that can't see it either, but it becomes quite evident when you look closely enough.

The status of qualified voter is not a judgment on the worth of the person. Therefore your argument is flawed.

There is no conflict whatsoever with ANYONE giving advice to us for possible use in the wiki.

If a former Adventist came into the wiki and gave advice I would consider it.

If a Catholic who had never been an Adventist came into the wiki and gave some advice, I would consider it. If a Baptist came in I would consider it.

If a word of faith came in I would consider it.

These are not eligible voters. But they might have good ideas.

 

[tall73]

In actuality, your premise is like another form of abuse in that it takes something from someone for the purpose of making a rule option to vote on, while denying that person of the right to vote on his own idea. In other words, according to your argument, people are worth something when they are sharing ideas that can be used to make up rule options to vote on, but when it comes to voting on the very same ideas that they shared during the process, their opinion is worthless when it comes time to vote

Then according to your view their opinion is "worthless" all the time.

Or perhaps it is not about worth, but about those who are eligible.

 

[tall73]

I

If a person is not allowed to give his opinion in a poll, but is allowed to participate in deciding on what will go into that poll, that is just complete nonsense, as it violates the principle of non-contradiction. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to see this.

Woob, you don't understand the law of non-contradiction. That is why others don't see it.

The law of non-contradiction is talking about things that CANNOT happen.


The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.
Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors. About.com


So let's see some other examples:



I am fat and I am not fat
She is pregnant and she is not pregnant.



Or in our little example...those who cannot vote can vote.

That is contradiction. It is referring to things that cannot be true in the sample respect at the same time.

However, as the numerous examples have shown people CAN give opinions and not vote. They are not logical contradictions.

You may not like the practice. But it is not a logical impossibility. And in this case it makes good sense. Someone who sees things from a different perspective than us might have good advice.

 

[woobadooba]

Then according to your view their opinion is "worthless" all the time.

Or perhaps it is not about worth, but about those who are eligible.

I was waiting for you to say this. For, I know that you are the kind of person that would throw a low blow like this.

You see, the problem that you have here is that the rule states that no one is to vote that doesn't meet the conditions for voting.

Does that then mean that I think those who don't meet the conditions for voting are worthless? Obviously not. For, I gave my reason why we made up the rule just a few posts ago. It has nothing to do with worth, but everything to do with integrity.

But let me put it to you another way. No one is allowed to voice their opinion in a poll unless they meet the conditions to do so, right?

Therefore, to state that they can voice their opinion in making up the poll, to decide on what will go in it, while denying them of the right to voice their opinion on what's in the poll when it comes time to give a vote, is nothing less than contradictory.

Hence your argument is not reasonable.

It would be better for you to just say that the logic of your point doesn't really follow the rule, but that you feel that people should be able to participate anyway.

I would have more respect for you if you would just be honest about this, rather than trying to make something that is illogical appear to be logical.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, you don't understand the law of non-contradiction. That is why others don't see it.

Just because you don't agree with me that doesn't mean I don't understand the principle.

Again, you are making it too simple. There are more advanced ways to apply it than to just say, a person can't be both fat and skinny at the same time and in the same sense.

I can tell you that a women is both obese and petite. This, of course, would be an example of a contradictory, or self-defeating statement. It is easy to identify it as such.

However, it can get more complex.

For example, I could say that there are no absolutes. This too, is a self-defeating statement, as it uses an absolute to suggest that there are no absolutes.

But then we can take it even further, and say that a person is allowed to put his opinion in a poll, but is not allowed to voice his opinion when it comes time to vote on what is in the poll.

This too, is contradictory, because it allows for an opinion to be in a poll, but doesn't allow for that same opinion to be voiced when it comes time to vote on its OWN opinion.

You see, it is you that doesn't understand the principle of non-contradiction (at least not the more advanced stages of it).

 

[tall73]

I was waiting for you to say this. For, I know that you are the kind of person that would throw a low blow like this.

It is a low blow to point out your false label that is emotionally charged and apply it to your own side? I don't see how.

I would say it is a low blow for you to say we thought they were worthless. We were the ones who let them have some opinion at all.

You see, the problem that you have here is that the rule states that no one is to vote that doesn't meet the conditions for voting.

How is that a problem?

Does that then mean that I think those who don't meet the conditions for voting are worthless? Obviously not. For, I gave my reason why we made up the rule just a few posts ago. It has nothing to do with worth, but everything to do with integrity.

Great! Then why do you say it is about worth to us then? We are allowing them to have input, or indeed, I would allow ANYONE to have input if it is on the point, though for integrity sake we did not allow them to vote.

There is no problem at all.

But let me put it to you another way. No one is allowed to voice their opinion in a poll unless they meet the conditions to do so, right?

Who said? The rule said one thing--they cannot vote.

Therefore, to state that they can voice their opinion in making up the poll, to decide on what will go in it, while denying them of the right to voice their opinion on what's in the poll when it comes time to give a vote, is nothing less than contradictory.

Your premise was flawed, so your argument was flawed. The rule said they cannot vote.

Hence your argument is not reasonable.

Disagreeing with woob is not the definition of unreasonable.

It would be better for you to just say that the logic of your point doesn't really follow the rule, but that you feel that people should be able to participate anyway.

My point EXACTLY follows the rule. Yours adds the "woob thinks" clause.

I would have more respect for you if you would just be honest about this, rather than trying to make something that is illogical appear to be logical.

Woob says is not a law of logic.

 

[woobadooba]

Tall,

you should pay closer attention to what people say.

I never accused you of deeming others to be worthless. If you had read what I said more closely you would have picked that up.

I suggested that that is what the rule implies if it does not remain consistent with itself.

There is a difference.

And I am not adding a 'woob thinks clause' to the rule. I am just simply trying to draw your attention to the SUPPRESSED clause that already exists within the rule!

 

[sentipente]

Tall,

you should pay closer attention to what people say.

I never accused you of deeming others to be worthless. If you had read what I said more closely you would have picked that up.

I suggested that that is what the rule implies if it does not remain consistent with itself.

There is a difference.

staff edit. He has consistently defended the rule so it is clear what you intend to say. staff edit.

 

[tall73]

Just because you don't agree with me that doesn't mean I don't understand the principle.

Again, you are making it too simple. There are more advanced ways to apply it than to just say, a person can't be both fat and skinny at the same time and in the same sense.

I can tell you that a women is both obese and petite. This, of course, would be an example of a contradictory, or self-defeating statement. It is easy to identify it as such.

However, it can get more complex.

For example, I could say that there are no absolutes. This too, is a self-defeating statement, as it uses an absolute to suggest that there are no absolutes.

But then we can take it even further, and say that a person is allowed to put his opinion in a poll, but is not allowed to voice his opinion when it comes time to vote on what is in the poll.

This too, is contradictory, because it allows for an opinion to be in a poll, but doesn't allow for that same opinion to be voiced when it comes time to vote on its OWN opinion.

So woob, if

"There are not absolutes" is an absolute, then is it possible for there to

a. be no absolutes
b. be an absolute?

No.

But it is possible for someone to have a say and not have a vote. So again, they are not the same. One is a logical IMPOSSIBILITY and the other is not. It happens all the time, as we have already demonstrated.

Now here is what I think you might be getting at.

You seem to be saying it is not FAIR for them to have a say but then not get a vote. Is that what you are saying?

I disagree. I think it is more fair for them to get a say, while realizing they are not an eligible voter, than for them not to get a say. You take away both their vote and their say. I think that is needlessly unfair.

You are limiting their rights, we are giving them more. And we are doing it for two reasons:

a. The rule never said they could not. It only said they could not vote.

b. We want all opinions that might be helpful.

 

[woobadooba]

Only in your mind. He has consistently defended the rule so it is clear what you intend to say. You don't have very good skills in debate or logic. Everytime you post along these lines you only look good to those who are biased towards you.

I am obviously not getting through to you guys.

So you, Tall, and anyone else that thinks their right about this rule can go on your marry way.

I no longer wish to respond to any of you about this.

 

[tall73]

As long as it is recognized that we need an official poll to enact a new rule to remove people from the wiki, then I am ready to end it.

 

[woobadooba]

As long as it is recognized that we need an official poll to enact a new rule to remove people from the wiki, then I am ready to end it.

I told you before that this was not put up as a poll to make a new rule, but as an easy way of getting a forum vote on our understanding of a rule.

 

[tall73]

I told you before that this was not put up as a poll to make a new rule, but as an easy way of getting a forum vote on our understanding of a rule.

Exactly. Which is why I said this poll means nothing. The language is not there. Your "understanding" is nowhere stated in the rule.

Rules on CF are enforced for what they say, not what they don't say. Otherwise anyone could say there SHOULD be something in the rule that helps them.

It either is or is not in the rule.

Or to state it another way....

your understanding is stated in the rule and it is also not stated in the rule.

See! non-contradiction. It either is or it is not.

And in this case it is not.


You also have not addressed the other issue. The poll is not public. Anyone on CF can vote. So how does that help us?

 

[woobadooba]

Exactly. Which is why I said this poll means nothing. The language is not there. Your "understanding" is nowhere stated in the rule.

Rules on CF are enforced for what they say, not what they don't say. Otherwise anyone could say there SHOULD be something in the rule that helps them.

It either is or is not in the rule.

Or to state it another way....

your understanding is stated in the rule and it is also not stated in the rule.

See! non-contradiction. It either is or it is not.

And in this case it is not.


You also have not addressed the other issue. The poll is not public. Anyone on CF can vote. So how does that help us?

You keep talking like you know the principle of non-contradiction, while denying the more advanced stages of it.

Again, if someone who is not allowed to vote on a rule says, "I suggest that we have a rule that says no one under 18 can post in this forum", and that suggestion goes in a poll to vote for or against; yet, you tell that person that he is not allowed to vote for the rule, how is that consistent when the rule option is his?

Here's another way to look at it. A vote constitutes an opinion. If someone says, "I think no one under 18 should be able to post in this forum", he is giving his opinion. If that opinion goes in the poll to vote for or against, and you tell him that he is not allowed to share his opinion when it comes time to vote, how then could that be consistent when he has already shared his opinion, and it is his opinion that is being voted on?

The bottom line is that it isn't consistent, because if a vote represents an opinion, his opinion was already given, as it is clearly stated in the poll. So to tell him that he can't give his opinion in a poll when his opinion has already been accepted and placed in the poll, is to be logically inconsistent. Of course, you could always argue that a vote isn't an opinion. However, that wouldn't be honest.

This is why I had said that the clause already exists within the rule. It's just a matter of seeing it. Of course, there are some that refuse to see it. There's nothing I can do about that.

 

[tall73]

Here's another way to look at it. A vote constitutes an opinion. If someone says, "I think no one under 18 should be able to post in this forum", he is giving his opinion. If that opinion goes in the poll to vote for or against, and you tell him that he is not allowed to share his opinion when it comes time to vote, how then could that be consistent when he has already shared his opinion, and it is his opinion that is being voted on?

A vote is an OFFICIAL opinion by someone who is eligible. There is nothing that keeps other people from having a non-official opinion and sharing it when it might be helpful.

It is not a LOGICAL contradiction. It just contradicts with Woob.

 

[sentipente]

I have never seen anyone invest so much energy in trying to make stupidity look good. What is this about?