On 5/9/08, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
There is no reason for em to do that because e has every reason to believe that I will be a law-abiding citizen and not approve it. Besides, proposing a change could potentially be considered "consent". I argue that because arranging to leave the contract would require me to exacerbate my violation of Rule 1742 by consenting to a proposed change, given the reasonable assumption that ehird will not consent to a change that I propose, I could not (at the time Wooble initiated the case, or at any time after the contract was formed) avoid breaking the rules in a way at least as serious as alleged, and so should be EXCUSED.
