Subject: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: Jeffrey Reinecke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 21:27:47
Tom, I ask of you this: I will present a step by step explicit logic
structure which shows that I was within my right with my decree. I don't
want any speech and debate tricks, I want simple, straight out answers and
explinations as to why any one step isn't legal. If you can't find a
striaghtforward reason why, then it would suggest that I am not wrong. My
interpretation is as legal as yours. But, as I say later, is one man's
legal interpretation, backed up by logic, any better than the next man's
(1) By law 115, since I may do ANYTHING, not "prohibited or regulated by
LAW" (not actions, law!!), I may declare my free will as I had done
earlier, and that no one can ever trample on it in any way (to put it in
normal words as opposed to legalese). If you don't agree with me here,
point out the law which explicitly, or implicitly states otherwise. I
want a law, not an action. If you can't do this, go to step 2.
(2) By 101 "All citizens...must always abide by the laws then in effect".
This forces me to follow only laws. 115 let;s you create a structure
that is not prohibited by law. So ask of you this: Where in the laws does
it say that I can't declare a free will. 115 doesn't say that, not in the
law. But since actions aren't laws, 115 does not stop me from creating a
contradictory action. Remember, don't tell me why you are right, tell me
why I am wrong.
(3) Now we have two things, created under 115, that don't violate any
laws, and 101 only makes a citizen follow the laws. With me here?
(4) There is nothing in Simplex even implying that actions can't
contradict. Furthermore, there is nothing that even implies that
conflicting actions can be resolved by chronology, or any other method.
Can you disprove that!
(5) Therefore, I have legally created an action that violates your
action. Furthermore, there is NOTHING ANYWHERE in the laws which even
imply an order of precedence for actions. Even if you make an action that
makes a precedence, it is not a law, and I must only follow laws, as
stated by 101.
I ask of you to only find what is wrong with my logic, and explain to me,
in a coherent, clean, straightforward logic, why this is flawed. It is
well known in logic based sciences, that the more complicated a string of
logic is, the better the chance of a flaw. Mine is a straight forward
logic chain, that offers a completely logical, legal, and otherwise valid
interpretation of the laws. Your interpretation may be different, but
does that make you any more right? One man's interpretation is just as
valid and legal as anothers!