[blml] 40B3?

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Eric Landau a écrit :
> On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
>
>   
>> Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read  
>> the
>> Laws as supporting that position.  That's why an interpretation is  
>> needed.
>>     
>
> But, as Herman has made quite clear, one cannot read the laws as  
> supporting the DWS.  The entire rationale for the DWS is based on the  
> premise that the laws are inconsistent, that a player may be forced  
> to break one law or another, and that it is therefore legitimate when  
> this occurs to choose for oneself which law to break.  The MS reads  
> the laws in such a way that there is no inconsistency, and argues  
> that the MS protocol breaks no laws.  ISTM that if we are to resolve  
> differences of interpretation by looking to intent, we must prefer  
> the interpretation that assumes a consistent lawbook over one that  
> assumes that the laws are written in such a way that they cannot be  
> followed.
>
>   
ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right way is to 
consder as permitted everything they permit, and consider as forbidden 
everything they forbid.
If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific 
situation, then two differentl courses of action are forbidden.
If this result in a Moton Fork situation, then Morton (er, the 
Lawmakers) should do something about it.

BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges.
"I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only other 
possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument.

One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly a priority. 
Despite many claims that this priority exist, it isn't written in TNFLB.

Best regards

    Alain