On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and, > therefore, for my innocence.) > > These arguments relate to CFJ 1943. > > The Argument: > > I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated > its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract > obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I > could not have done anything else, I plead EXCUSED. > > The Rebuttal: > > The argument is invalid because I could have not made the > contract in the first place, thus avoiding breaking the rules. > Therefore, I should be found GUILTY. > > The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: > > I should not be found GUILTY because my religion - > Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and > it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to > avoid breaking the rules. Therefore, I plead EXCUSED. > > The Agoracontractian Religion: > > This religion has two commandments, given by God at the > beginning of time. These commandments MUST be obeyed > by its adherents. I am the only member of this religion. > > 1. A member of the Agoracontractian religion must make > the Ducks & Platypuses Agoran contract. > 2. These commandments are an Agoran public contract.
I think you're trying to say that this is a Public Contract to which you are a party, but it is not, since if you were the only party it would dissolve immediately (it requires at least two parties) and no effective announcement of it having more than two parties has been made. Regardless the contract which at issue seems to have a loophole of allowing you to propose and not oppose a proposal that would modify the contract. Since you have not done so, I believe a verdict of EXCUSED is plainly not reasonable. Not that it would be reasonable by conflict with another contract (as you seem to imply) because of R1742's clause stating that the obligation is not impaired by conflicts with other contracts. -woggle
