On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Note that R1482 doesn't explicitly define precedence when there's no >> conflict, so precedence is not defined in the rules, so a "rules are >> silent" argument can be made on either side. It's all semantic. If >> Sentence A is in Rule A, and Sentence B is in Rule B, and Rule A > >> Rule B, but Sentence A and Sentence B are wholly unrelated and have no >> conflict, you can say either: >> >> 1. Rule A > Rule B, therefore sentence A > sentence B, but it doesn't >> matter or affect anything at the moment (ais523's opinion). >> >> 2. Rule A > Rule B, but sentence A and sentence B aren't in the same >> units, so comparisons aren't meaningful (Wooble's appeals argument). >> >> I personally prefer #1 (ais523) out of aesthetics, and also (in case >> Sentence C in Rule C somehow makes A and B conflict) the lines of >> precedence remain constant. > > Proto: > > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Paradox!" reading: > > Unless Rule 101 takes precedence over this rule, persons have no > rights.
Nice. A very good argument for keeping ais523's opinion. -Goethe
