> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
> that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to
> B.
>
> The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y <
> X & X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I
> agree with that.
>
> BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a
> conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t
> see how that can be characterized as a conflict.
And to draw out the conclusions of my view—let X be higher powered than Y.
In that case:
{X = Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to X by R1030 step 1 (give effect
to higher powered rule)
{X > Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1
{Y < X & X = Y} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1
{X > Y & Y > X} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1
{X < Y & Y > X} — no conflict; give precedence to Y by agreement of both rules
and do not apply R1030
{X > Y & Y < X} — no conflict; give precedence to X by agreement of both rules
and do not apply R1030
{X < Y & Y < X} — conflict; give precedence to Y by step 1 (because X tells us
to do that?); or give precedence to X because of step 1????
{X < Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to Y by step 1 (because X tells us
to do that?); or give precedence to X because of step 1????
The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differences between the
situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and the other
is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT priority/deference answers,
versus when both rules give CONSISTENT priority/deference (in which case no
conflict because the rules agree, and therefore no R1030).
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
>>>> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
>>>> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
>>>> "deference" as something that never happens.
>>>
>>> None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
>>> would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
>>
>> Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
>> on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
>> what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
>>
>> Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
>> instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
>> /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
>> R1030.
>>
