Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Merry Christmas, everybody!
...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... -1 Timothy 1:15
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. -Romans 3:23
...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." -Acts 16:31
Counterpoint:
but yeah i'm generally against bans
but spammers, people who threaten bodily harm etc and those who post zero content and just insult others should all go
I agree. Bans should be handed out to only the worst of the worst. Bans should not be handed out because someone is in a bad mood or can't handle their emotions. Also MOD's shouldn't be allowed to make decisions just because they have succumbed to peer pressure. Mods should also provide the specific reason they are banning a poster. Also, Mods need to be consistent in their decisions. They shouldn't take action against a poster after they have made it clear that anything goes in a particular forum. I'm not gonna mention a name just yet. Mod's should not play favorites. A poster should be judged by his content in the thread in question and not for his opinions in other threads. Mods should not discriminate against a poster based on his political beliefs.
The only poster who I think should be banned is SRM. I think he is a liability for 2 plus 2. He has been neutered a bit but it's only a matter of time before he threatens somebody again or says something that should not be allowed on the forums. He is a trouble maker and any MOD who defends him should be looked into.
Merry Christmas, everybody!
...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... -1 Timothy 1:15
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. -Romans 3:23
...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." -Acts 16:31
Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just not create sinners?
.
[QUOTE=chatgpt]John21 has a hangover so he asked me to help unpack this.
The Sherlock Holmes joke is an analogy for SQL NULL. Everyone agrees Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street, but that address refers to a fictional person—it feels concrete because of shared convention, yet it doesn’t actually point to a real referent.
This issue goes back to early logic. Classical logic had trouble with fictional or unknown subjects (“the present king of France”😉, because it assumed terms must refer to something real. Russell’s response wasn’t so much a logical inevitability as a semantic hack: a way of reworking meaning so we could talk sensibly without pretending nonexistent things exist.
NULL in SQL is similar. It isn’t a value like others; it’s a semantic marker for “no known referent.” The trouble starts when people treat it as a regular value just because it’s familiar and widely used.
The joke is that consensus and convention don’t turn a placeholder into a thing—whether it’s Sherlock Holmes or NULL.
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was a joke about meinongianism
Basically the statement “Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker St” is false because Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character in a novel so on the street Baker St, no person picked out by the proper name Sherlock Holmes ever lived there.
Of course that’s contentious because some people want to say thar Sherlock Holmes did live on Baker St, in the novels, so it’s true in that sense thar Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker St. The question is what does the proposition “Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker St” refer to, the fictional world or the actual world?
Basically the statement “Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker St” is false because Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character in a novel so on the street Baker St, no person picked out by the proper name Sherlock Holmes ever lived there.Of course that’s contentious because some people want to say thar Sherlock Holmes did live on Baker St, in the novels, so it’s true in that sense thar
I need wayyyy more mind altering substances to have that conversation and enjoy it.
The new king sacrifices immediate meaning and is willing to endure an incomprehensible reality.
Yes. This one also should be celebrated.
Traditional Christians understand the idea of the sinful being reconciled with the sinless, the rejected being reconciled with the accepted, the dead being reconciled with the living.
This is immediately meaningful to them. They understand this form of mercy, which is the mercy of ascension.
Still, Christ also taught the mercy of descension.
Traditional Christians cannot yet comprehend the suffering of the sinless and accepted.
They don’t understand the idea that undisturbed perfection has no meaning, and therefore isn’t really perfect.
Traditional Christianity doesn’t appreciate the pain of meaninglessness. The pain of paradise. The pain of painlessness.
It’s been 2,000 years and Christ still hasn’t returned. How much resistance is there for the sinless to descend into sin and for the accepted to descend into rejection? Much.
The human being who descends into the depths of sin, rejection, incoherence, and death, for the sake of offering the ascended a mission of mercy that can’t be resisted — honor him on this Christmas.
He gives mercy to the ascended. He saves souls from the hell of heaven.
Basically the statement “Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker St” is false because Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character in a novel so on the street Baker St, no person picked out by the proper name Sherlock Holmes ever lived there.Of course that’s contentious because some people want to say thar Sherlock Holmes did live on Baker St, in the novels, so it’s
The problem with saying the proposition "The king of France is bald" is false is that it renders it's negation "The king of France is not bald" as true in classical logic.
So in that sense it's just as false to say "Sherlock Holmes doesn't live on Baker Street," even though if we went to Baker Street we wouldn't find a Sherlock Holmes and could claim that proposition is true.
Yes. This one also should be celebrated.Traditional Christians understand the idea of the sinful being reconciled with the sinless, the rejected being reconciled with the accepted, the dead being reconciled with the living. This is immediately meaningful to them. They understand this form of mercy, which is the mercy of ascension.Still, Christ also taught the mercy of descensio
TLDR: Dumb people believe dumb things.
The problem with saying the proposition "The king of France is bald" is false is that it renders it's negation "The king of France is not bald" as true in classical logic.
[code]
try
{
if (KingOfFrance.IsBald)
{
//Do something
}
else
{
//Do something else
}
}
catch (NullReferenceException e)
{
Logger.Log("Fuck about and find out", e);
throw;
}
[/code]
Fixed on my end, caller's problem now.
The problem with saying the proposition "The king of France is bald" is false is that it renders it's negation "The king of France is not bald" as true in classical logic.
So in that sense it's just as false to say "Sherlock Holmes doesn't live on Baker Street," even though if we went to Baker Street we wouldn't find a Sherlock Holmes and could claim that proposition is true.
some think this pesky logic stuff doesn't matter but Im grappling with the very real problem of when to open the 7th bottle of wine
Only seven? Sorry to hear you’re on your own this Christmas.
We'd have had you over for some wonderful food and an evening of Arsenal highlights on the TV.
Only seven? Sorry to hear you’re on your own this Christmas.
We'd have had you over for some wonderful food and an evening of Arsenal highlights on the TV.
Nah, it's probably these:
Only seven? Sorry to hear you’re on your own this Christmas.
We'd have had you over for some wonderful food and an evening of Arsenal highlights on the TV.
That's jolly kind but brutal enough that I have to watch the cricket soon
The problem with saying the proposition "The king of France is bald" is false is that it renders it's negation "The king of France is not bald" as true in classical logic.
So in that sense it's just as false to say "Sherlock Holmes doesn't live on Baker Street," even though if we went to Baker Street we wouldn't find a Sherlock Holmes and could claim that proposition is true.
No, the problem with that statement if we want to keep along with the idea of reference is that there’s no one referent that “the King of France” picks out, at least not intrinsically. Once the proper spaciotemporal stipulations are made, we can then evaluate the statement as being true or false without equivocating on who “the king of france” picks out.
It is a pretty dry conversation topic as far as conversation topics go, but some people get enjoyment out of it like Russel, Frege, Wittgenstein, Quine, and other pretty sensible philosophers that I enjoy reading. It’s good to know because it kind of deflates some of the more annoying rhetoric of theists that think we need some kind of divine mind to determine the truth or falsity of propositions.
I agree. Bans should be handed out to only the worst of the worst. Bans should not be handed out because someone is in a bad mood or can't handle their emotions. Also MOD's shouldn't be allowed to make decisions just because they have succumbed to peer pressure. Mods should also provide the specific reason they are banning a poster. Also, Mods need to be consistent in their dec
Get on it, PAM!
