I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly
reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd 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.
