Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Story Post: TABLOID HEADLINE: It’s a meta-tabloid!

In this TABLOID HEADLINE, Purplebeard asserts that Josh’s statements are contradictory:

... the Commitments don’t need to be false or even mutually exclusive, just contradictory.

BUT in a comment on this CFJ Purplebeard agrees that they are perfectly compatable:

The statements themselves are in direct opposition, even though their contextual meanings and in-game interpretations are perfectly compatible.

WHICH IS IT?

Comments

Purplebeard:

02-05-2013 16:10:17 UTC

The entire point I was making is that two contradictory statements may still be compatible when taken into context, so I obviously don’t think I contradicted myself there.

If I were to say that x is equal to 5 and then later say that x equals 3, those two statements would obviously contradict each other.* However, they may both still be true (for example, x is quorum and four people went idle in the interim).


* Yes, I realise that I’m probably opening myself up to another one of these here.

RaichuKFM:

02-05-2013 17:16:11 UTC

If compatible, they aren’t contradictory. This is all semantics; We need to define “Contradictory” for the purposes of this rule. If they are compatible statements I believe they aren’t contradictory. But Purplebeard’s definition of contradictory didn’t change. These statements don’t even contradict, they supplement each other. I believe Purple’s definition is wrong, but I don’t believe its self-contradictory. So, against even though this does nothing.

RaichuKFM:

02-05-2013 17:17:41 UTC

By “these statements” I meant the text cited in this Tabloid.

Klisz:

02-06-2013 06:36:28 UTC

against