On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 07:04 CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I messed up, sorry. Reposting: > > It's a very interesting point but I don't think there is any conflict > > How I see it, is that the rules are bugged and if you're Officer A, you're > screwed, no matter what you do. Just faulty rules. > > So I'd go with that if you don't do the thing in time, you get a card as > for breaking R1. If you do it, you get a card, for breaking R2. > > I don't see how an holistic view somehow invalidates that the Officer > should be able to get a card for violating R2, because R1 "saves" them. > There is no rule that enables that as far as I know. You could argue that > the interpretation rules lets you solve the "contradiction"; but I don't > see the contradiction. I see it as (with sloppy propositional logic): > > If you do p, you're screwed. (p-> you're screwed) > If you don't do p, you're screwed (not p-> you're screwed) > Ergo > anything-> you're screwed > > So in either p or not p, you're screwed. It's frustrating but its not > contradictory at all. > > For practical reasons, sure, I feel like Officer A shouldn't be screwed > over. But the rule are the rules. It can be later proposed to cancel all > criminal charges on them (because the rules were just junk and the guy > didn't deserve it), we have the power to do any fixes we want a posteriori. > Any problem is just temporary. > > Well - the problem is if an officer doesn't follow a Duty (meaning a SHALL) then e can get deputized out of office. And I know of situations where some of those SHALLs would be impossible - so you cant succeed at doing the shall.
