On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the
>>> same reason.
>>>
>>> -root
>>
>> Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out; I wasn't paying attention to that CFJ.
>
> Goethe didn't address the "is biological" example, but e did address
> the "is wearing a hat" example. Eir arguments there were wrong:
> whether a person is wearing a hat is not (currently) part of the
> gamestate, so there is no gamestate for such a ratification to change,
> so such a ratification is impossible. If the rules did somewhere
> refer to a legal fiction of "is wearing a hat" (as opposed to a
> physical truth, such as the current use of "is biological" by R2150),
> then Goethe's argument would hold.
Um, it asked whether general "types" of conditions were *in principle*
subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked
for points purposes or something. It was one of those "hypothetical"
types of questions, not a specific one. Why is that wrong?
> I'm up in the air as to whether to appeal the judgement. The overall
> judgement of UNDETERMINED is probably correct.
As is often the case for overly-hypothetical statements where you need
more specifics to figure out subcases.
-Goethe
