We have a problem in the Wiki!

[woobadooba]

I am sorry if you find it to be illogical. But your rules of logic seem to ignore examples everywhere.

There are plenty of examples of people doing illogical things. Should we assume that what they are doing is logical simply because these things are happening in manifold places?

Hence your point is moot (logically inconsistent)!

Nor have you given a LOGICAL reason why someone cannot give input on something that they don't vote on.

It's not a matter of them choosing not to give a vote on something. It is a matter of is it logically consistent to tell these people that they can make up a rule that they are not allowed to vote on?

That is the question!

Does an expert in a court case make the decision? No. But his input is considered in the decision.

We are talking about making up rules, not some court case wherein input is used as a means to evidence or validate a claim. Thus you are speaking out of context.

The church business session would be a closer parallel than the church bord. Only members can vote. But the session can call in anyone they want to get advice.

So that makes the rule logically consistent? LOL

 

[tall73]

There are plenty of examples of people doing illogical things. Should we assume that what they are doing is logical simply because these things are happening in manifold places?

Hence your point is moot (logically inconsistent)!

So it is your view that many of our modern institutions are illogical including the legislative system, the judicial system, our church system of governance, etc. because Woob says?

Woob says is not a law of logic.

It's not a matter of them choosing not to give a vote on something. It is a matter of is it logically consistent to tell these people that they can make up a rule that they are not allowed to vote on?

Yes it is. Because they are not meeting the agreed on qualifications. They can still be advisors.

Please state what law of logic you are employing.

That is the question!

We are talking about making up rules, not some court case wherein input is used as a means to evidence or validate a claim. Thus you are speaking out of context.

Ever heard of a jury? They vote. Based on testimony not given by those voting. Ever hear of a committee? They give input. Ever wrote to your congressman? That is you who CANNOT vote but he can, and you get input. Eve been to a church board where they had a non-member present? Have you ever seen a mother ask her child's opinion before she tells the child what will happen (sometimes going with the child's opinion, and sometimes not, depending on what she thinks is best for the child?)

Did you vote on your family rules in your home when you were a child? Did you get to at least appeal to your parents? Have you ever proposed something to your boss and then they make the call?

Have you ever been to ANY meeting where someone talked who didn't have a vote but still helped with the decision?

Are all institutions which do this illogical?

Why?


Woob says is not a law of logic.

 

[woobadooba]

So it is your view that many of our modern institutions are illogical including the legislative system, the judicial system, our church system of governance, etc. because Woob says?

Don't skate around the issue!

It is my view that it is not logically consistent to not allow someone to vote for a rule, but to allow that person to make up that rule.

Yes it is. Because they are not meeting the agreed on qualifications. They can still be advisors.

No, it is not the same, because we aren't in court here. We are in a forum, trying to make up rules that certain people are not allowed to vote on.

Please state what law of logic you are employing.

The principle of non-contradiction

Ever heard of a jury? They vote. Based on testimony. Ever hear of a committee? They give input. Ever wrote to your congressman? That is you who CANNOT vote but he can, and you get input.

We aren't talking about making a decision on whether a person is guilty or not guilty of violating a law. We are talking about making up rules that enforce laws.

Entirely different context.

And since you are not willing to be reasonable enough to admit that you are wrong, I think we should end this here.

 

[tall73]

Don't skate around the issue!

It is my view that it is not logically consistent to not allow someone to vote for a rule, but to allow that person to make up that rule.

No, it is not the same, because we aren't in court here. We are in a forum, trying to make up rules that certain people are not allowed to vote on.

The principle of non-contradiction

We aren't talking about making a decision on whether a person is guilty or not guilty of violating a law. We are talking about making up rules that enforce laws.

Entirely different context.

There is no logical contradiction in someone helping form a rule who does not then get to vote.

"one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". Wikipedia

Now if I were to say that someone who cannot vote can vote, that would be contradiction.

And since you are not willing to be reasonable enough to admit that you are wrong, I think we should end this here.

You don't get a vote on whether I end it. But you can advise me!

See! Perfectly logical!

 

[woobadooba]

There is no logical contradiction in someone helping form a rule who does not then get to vote.

"one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". Wikipedia

Now if I were to say that someone who cannot vote can vote, that would be contradiction.

The contradiction lies in the fact that as he helps to make up the rule by sharing his opinion, he is not allowed to vote on his own idea in a poll.

That is why it is contradictory. It's like saying, your opinion matters to me now, but in the end it really doesn't, or, you have a voice now, but in the end you don't.

The bottom line here is that we aren't asking people for evidence, we are asking them for their vote on a rule, and if a person is not allowed to give his vote (opinion) in a poll, then he should likewise have no say in what is going to go into that poll. For, as soon as you give him permission to vote on what is going to go into that poll, in essence, you have allowed him to give his vote. Hence my reason for stating that this violates the law of non-contradiction. So it's not perfectly logical.

What would be perfectly logical is to allow those who are allowed to participate in the formulation of the ideas that are going to go up in a poll, to vote on those ideas as they appear in that poll. That is perfectly logical!

 

[sentipente]

Woob, what if that person gives their opinion to others via PM? Are you going to create a poll to cancel those other posters' views as well?

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, what if that person gives their opinion to others via PM? Are you going to create a poll to cancel those other posters' views as well?

We can only go by what we see--the facts. Dealing with hypothetical scenarios does not suffice to provide an answer for the argument.

 

[sentipente]

We can only go by what we see--the facts.

Does that mean that if it is not seen it is not a fact?

 

[woobadooba]

Does that mean that if it is not seen it is not a fact?

No, it just simply means that the source from which it derives will only be perceived as it is made manifest.

 

[sentipente]

Hmpff!!!

 

[tall73]

Your statement clearly did not fit the non-contradiction rule.

Nor is it a problem for people to have input who can't vote.

But bottom line, if you want a rule, you must vote on it in a real poll.

 

[woobadooba]

Your statement clearly did not fit the non-contradiction rule.

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.

 

[sentipente]

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.

If that is your argument you have no standing to make the complain unless you can show that you have been affected by the rule.

 

[woobadooba]

If that is your argument you have no standing to make the complain unless you can show that you have been affected by the rule.

It's called seeing the end of an argument.

It's not so much whether it bothers some and not others. It's the principle that matters here.

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.

 

[StormyOne]

It's called seeing the end of an argument.

It's not so much whether it bothers some and not others. It's the principle that matters here.

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.

there is no principle and the idea you are presenting is misguided...

In many committee meetings there are those who give input, be they ex-officio members or consultants, and are not allowed to vote on the final policy or action to be taken. It is done all the time. So I don't have any problem with people giving their ideas/suggestions but not being able to vote....

what is with this exclusivity thing?

 

[woobadooba]

there is no principle and the idea you are presenting is misguided...

In many committee meetings there are those who give input, be they ex-officio members or consultants, and are not allowed to vote on the final policy or action to be taken. It is done all the time. So I don't have any problem with people giving their ideas/suggestions but not being able to vote....

what is with this exclusivity thing?

So because they do this in a committee that makes it right?

Tall used the same argument, but couldn't see the futility of it. Just because we have examples outside of Foru.ms of people doing this, that doesn't suddenly make it right. For, even they are in the wrong, as they too are violating the principle of non-contradiction by telling people that they can participate in sharing their opinions to give options for people to vote on, while not allowing them to voice their opinion when it comes time to vote on the very same ideas that derived from them.

 

[StormyOne]

So because they do this in a committee that makes it right?

Tall used the same argument, but couldn't see the futility of it. Just because we have examples outside of Foru.ms of people doing this, that doesn't suddenly make it right. For, even they are in the wrong, as they too are violating the principle of non-contradiction by telling people that they can participate in sharing their opinions to give options for people to vote on, while not allowing them to voice their opinion when it comes time to vote on the very same ideas that derived from them.

it is a common practice and it is not wrong... except in your opinion.... I don't share it, and as I said, I see nothing wrong with people giving input but not voting... its a non-issue to me...

 

[DarylFawcett]

Giving voice without vote is a common thing that all levels of the SDA church, therefore, it's also a non-issue with me.

I personally do not have any problem with any SDA discussing the rules, or even suggesting a rule, as long as it is done respectively, as we all should be doing in the first place.

 

[woobadooba]

what is with this exclusivity thing?

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.

 

[DarylFawcett]

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