1

There is a meta aspect to this question. Let's say Stack Exchange A allows questions about A and its uses. The question may take the form of: is it legal to use A to do x?

The answers can be:

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. The laws about A say nothing about x, but the laws about B do.

Now ideally (in my opinion) the third answer should be a comment, and the user can then go and ask their question on Stack Exchange B. But Stack Exchange A deemed the question that received the third answer on-topic.

The way I see it, if that type of question can't be answered with yes/no, then x is unrelated to A (off-topic), but I can't prove whether this is a logical argument.


Edit:

After some searching, I think (not sure) that there is a fallacy of division:

  1. The 2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream
  2. Carlos is a 2nd grader in Jefferson elementary
  3. Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

Compared to the example posed here (from the perspective of the review queue):

  1. The site discusses a lot of uses for A
  2. The question asks is it legal to use A to do x
  3. Therefore, asking about x will always be on-topic for the site

If this is correct, it only proves x is not always related to A just because A is used to do x, but it does not address if there is a logical argument (e.g., based on an answer given) that would prove/disprove a relation – that question remains open either way.


Note: I provided the SE example to explain what made me think about such a logic-related question. I thought omitting the details are encouraged here (being impartial). I'm not sure why it was migrated. (But it's fine – this is just a note to explain that I was/am not seeking an SE related dispute resolution.)

migrated from philosophy.stackexchange.com Feb 24 at 19:19

This question came from our site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

  • To me the question described might be irrelevant, or leading (i.e. a 'loaded' question). – Bread Feb 22 at 23:15
  • 1
    @Bread - Thanks for the input, it helped me realize I need to expand more on how the question might be related to A. Please check the update. – user37444 Feb 23 at 0:19
  • What might be flawed in this question is that it appears unclear. I don't know what you are trying to ask. – Frank Hubeny Feb 23 at 1:56
  • @FrankHubeny - Agreed. I've now simplified it, to what I hope is an answerable question. – user37444 Feb 23 at 4:08
2

is it legal to use A to do x?
The answers can be:

Yes
No
The laws about A say nothing about x, but the laws about B do.

x is related to A when A and B, (where B is the subject of various laws that specifically address x), share some more abstract property that's relevant to x.

Suppose in a certain town it's illegal to walk a pet lion on public sidewalks without a special leash; or put another way, in this town it is legal to use a special leash to walk a pet lion.

Smith tries to walk his pet tiger using a shoelace instead of a special leash, but is arrested by an officer who's never seen a tiger, and thinks it must be a lion.

At Smith's trial, Smith argues that a tiger is not a lion, and therefore no law was broken. The judge disagrees, finding that for the intended purpose of the law, (restraint of a big cat), Smith's tiger might as well be a lion.

Or in the language quoted above: The laws about tigers (A) say nothing about special leashes, but the laws about lions (B) do.

  • This is interesting but I'm having hard time wrapping my head around it. What is A, B, and x in this situation? Can you clarify it in terms of is it legal to use A to do x? Thanks. – user37444 Feb 23 at 14:11
  • @user37444, See revised answer. – agc Feb 24 at 3:42
  • Thank you very much, the new intro is clear, but the rest still confuses me. Shouldn't (A) and (B) be (Stack Exchange Leash) and (SE Shoelace), respectively? Those are the things used in doing an action, e.g., leash/shoelace used to walk an animal. – user37444 Feb 24 at 13:47
  • @user37444, It's more general to talk about laws, (its more on-topic here), than specifics about SE as such -- typically SE disputes usually belong on a Meta.SE page. Note: I'm unfamiliar with the specific dispute that inspired this question; the present big cat metaphor might be less apt than one tailored with that dispute in mind, but then it'd become a meta thing. – agc Feb 24 at 18:20
  • I provided the SE example to explain what made me think about such a question. I thought omitting the details are encouraged here (being impartial). I'm still not sure why it was migrated; you (and others) have been helpful though. Shall I try and find an example that is laws-related to ask the question again? – user37444 Feb 24 at 22:08

You must log in to answer this question.