On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zefram wrote: > Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person". Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that (~P -> P) -> P, then we could also say (~Q -> Q) -> Q, where Q = ~P. so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...) paradox at all. Unless I misunderstood her first statement.
In order to use the statement to prove either P or Q, one must first assert either (~P -> P), or (~Q -> Q). Without that, it's just an arbitrary tautology. That's the part I'm not getting here; how does "the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person"? -root
