On Wed, 6 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> Oh ffs were you just waiting for a completely boring one for me.
>>
>> Judgement
>>
>> By CFJ1945 UNDETERMINED (i.e. false except that "under certain
>> circumstances, with very clear aggravating circumstances, it is
>> just about possible to breach rule 101 in the manner described
>> (if it was done with intent, and clear malice...)"
>
> My reading of CFJ 1945 would lead to TRUE here; my argument in that
> case was for UNIMPUGNED, which was rejected because to actually fail
> to treat Agora right good forever is a violation of the rule. I take
> the "under certain circumstances..." bit to be saying that only very
> drastic actions show a failure to treat Agora right good forever, but
> that if one did fail to treat Agora right good forever then one would
> be in clear breach of R101.
You could just as easily say false. If you fail at a particular
instant to treat Agora right good, that doesn't mean you've failed,
as (for example) you could make up for it so that your net treatment
of Agora as time of treatment -> infinity was "good". Since we
can never actually measure the net treatment (because we never
know the full treatment from here-> forever, it is not a condition
that can be failed so it is meaningless to ask if it breaks a
rule. This argues more strongly for a reading of UNDETERMINED
or perhaps IRRELEVANT ("forever" is as hypothetical as you can get).
So we've got arguments for true, false, irrelevant, undetermined.
I think that means we've got a good meta-meta argument for
UNDETERMINED.
-Goethe
