Only a little question.

[lawtonfogle]

Ok, so this is not big life changing question, but maybe then a question which can be debated could count as a change to the normal topics here.

Situation. A rule is in effect where an event will (say you get in trouble) happen if the rule is broken. Now, the rule says discussions can only be about a single subject (lets say educational, just to show the subject is broad). Someone makes a claim (which is the only other allowed form of talking) that you broke the rule. You try to explain that the subject of the discussion was the subject allowed. Realizing the person will not change their oppinion, you go see an athority, who rules that they discussion was about the subject, and so you do not get in trouble (aka have the event happen), but arguing that the your discussion was about the subject is not about the subject, and so you get in trouble for arguing with the first person that your discussion was on subject.

Is their logic correct. I myself think that any discussion pertaining directly to a discussion that was about the subject is still about the discussion. Please don't say I am right or wrong, but try to explain (most of you do anyways, but there are a few who don't). Thank you. (This may be considered phylosophy, but I thought it could also be considered ethics).

 

[Silent Bob]

Is their logic correct.

Logically yes. Unless someone has taken provisions for this event that allows a discussion to happen on accusations of rule breaks. Also logically you are in bureaucracy hell.

For instance in thread A we are discussing jelly, person A calls person B an idiot. Person B starts discussing the breaking of the CF rule on flaming. Now we are no longer talking jelly so the conversation is off-topic. If there was a rule about going off topic then the thread would be closed and person A and B would be spanked with a jelly spoon.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Logically yes. Unless someone has taken provisions for this event that allows a discussion to happen on accusations of rule breaks. Also logically you are in bureaucracy hell.

For instance in thread A we are discussing jelly, person A calls person B an idiot. Person B starts discussing the breaking of the CF rule on flaming. Now we are no longer talking jelly so the conversation is off-topic. If there was a rule about going off topic then the thread would be closed and person A and B would be spanked with a jelly spoon.

Ok, but say this is how it went.

B - You are stupid for saying .... about jelly.

A - No I am not, becuase I was saying ... about jelly.

B - But you said that ... about jelly.

A - No I did not say ... about jelly.

C - Since you are not talking directly about Jelly, you both are in trouble.

 

[Silent Bob]

Then C is probably wrong and he should be spanked with a jelly spoon. Is this about a debate club? I cannot think any other instance where discussion is so restricted.

 

[kopilo]

Ok, but say this is how it went.

B - You are stupid for saying .... about jelly.

A - No I am not, becuase I was saying ... about jelly.

B - But you said that ... about jelly.

A - No I did not say ... about jelly.

C - Since you are not talking directly about Jelly, you both are in trouble.

In discussion there should be some room for rebuttal..

Maybe you could refer to [SIZE=-1]www.fallacyfiles.org and see if they have anything on the subject at hand.
[/SIZE]