On Sun, 2017-11-26 at 18:12 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > If it is LEGAL for me to pend Self-Indulgence, then it will repeal > Rule > 101. In this case, its effect is not solely limited to destroying a > contract (or any of the other effects that would cause its pending to be > protected by Rule 2525). Thus, pending it is unprotected and No > Self-Indulgence is free to restrict it. So it must actually be ILLEGAL. > > If it is ILLEGAL for me to pend Self-Indulgence, then it will not repeal > Rule 101. In this case, its effect is solely limited to destroying a > contract, and pending it is protected. Thus No Self-Indulgence cannot > impose on me an obligation not to pend it, so it must be LEGAL (Given that, > as is in fact the case, there is nothing else that would make it illegal).
Gratuitous arguments (made without reading forwards in the thread, so apologies if they've already been made): The mere fact that you seem to have come to a paradoxical conclusion here implies the "If…" conditional in the proposal is too ambiguous to evaluate, and thus the proposal wouldn't repeal rule 101 in any case. -- ais523
