On Tue, 15 May 2012, Ed Murphy wrote: > > If the statement is required to be in the CFJ, doesn't it "arise from > > the case itself"? The "not arising from the case itself" clause was > > specifically put in to block "this statement is false" wins. > > > > Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictory in that any hypothetical > > situation mentioned arises from the case itself, because the case is > > what raises them? > > I interpret Rule 2358 as allowing hypothetical situations that could > exist independently of the case.
So... the "arising from the case" was put in explicitly, to block hypothetical paradox wins. Later on, "hypothetical" was added, but didn't remove "arising from the case". My interpretation is that hypothetical paradoxes were therefore broken from the get-go as they always contradicted the "arising from the case" clause (and by Cretans, the "arising from the case" wins). Also: it seems your interpretation allows the most trivial wins: "If horses could fly and snakes could walk and omd were me and I was omd, posting 'I am a tree' would be illegal'". In other words, any statement with a counterfactual tied to a hypothetical would win. (IMO, almost all hypotheticals should be IRRELEVANT, anyway; if you can't set it up to be a real, we don't need to discuss it. We should bring in Standing). -G.
