I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they haven't found an actual paradox!
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of > the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. > > FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > still based on the forbidden interpretation. > -- >From R. Lee
