On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 07:04 CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I messed up, sorry. Reposting: > > Thanks for thinking of format. Much appreciated :). > > > 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. > > I don't think there's a "problem" or "contradiction" with this interpretation, > and that's what used to be written into the rules. It used to say "If you > violate A RULE, you get a penalty". Now it says if you violate "the rules", > which could be read either way. So I'm curious which is preferred overall, > and think (after discussion) we should legislate the preference to make it > clear.
I should add: if we think about this legalistically and not in formal logic space, you *would* consider precedence. This happens in my real-world job (of government regulations); Law A says X, Law B says not X. Our lawyers don't say "just pick one, you're screwed either way", rather they delve into case law to figure out if one has precedence over the other. Now we still might get sued by the X-Interest Group or the Not-X Interest Group, so we might be screwed the first time, but then the judge of the lawsuit would in fact pick the One Right Course for the future. The judge *wouldn't* say "you're screwed in perpetuity, you're going to be liable every time this comes up." (this message brought to you by the Legal Society of Agora: motto: It's Not Logicians All The Way Down).
