Ah, well, I won't insist then... But I'll be ready to pounce when I see the chance!!
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 7/18/2020 11:30 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > I motion to reconsider, I don't believe it to be overly hypothetical when > > it refers to how Agora itself works. It's a question about Agora's > > fundamental way of working. > > First, I found this tidbit in CFJ 1895: > > R2160(d) allows us to assume counterfactual conditions; that is, we are > > permitted to treat certain, untrue conditions *as if* they were true. > > But we also reject the impossible (you can't "do something an infinite > > number of times" or act "as if 1+1=3", so it's meaningless to act "as if > > you can"). Some assumptions are so counterfactual that to "assume" them > > is to undermine the very nature of the game. > > Then, I thought I sent these Gratuitous Arguments when PSS recused emself, > but just saw them in my Drafts folder: > > > This is enough of an "overly hypothetical extapolation [...] to > > conditions that don't actually exist" to merit IRRELEVANT. If we start > > to ignore any particular set of facts (one example is the question of > > "personhood" of the deceased), the exact circumstances are important as > > to how that's interpreted. I can think of several circumstances in > > which we might start to "believe" that 2+2=5, all with different legal > > consequences. At least a couple of these situations are such a stretch > > from our current understandings that we can't say much about them, > > unless we know the path that was taken to get there. So in the > > abstract, this is IRRELEVANT. > > In other words, I agree with you that it *can* be relevant to talk about > these things in a CFJ, but the details of the exact belief might matter, > so if asked in this broad, abstract sense, it's overly hyphothetical. > > -G. > >
