Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Veni, Vidi, Vacancy

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 11:35  PM, Glotmorf wrote:

> On 5/4/03 at 11:25 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:
>
> > Ah, but what you do not realize is that penguins are irrelevant to the
> > issue at hand. I submit to the players that the Baron is not, and has
> > never been, a penguin. E is, however, a Toad.
> >
> > I cite r1183: On any roll from 83 to 90, a random player becomes a
> > Penguin, the effects of which are identical to becoming a Toad.
> >
> > What are the effects of becoming a Toad? The object is now a Toad.
> > What are the effects of becoming a Penguin? They're identical to the
> > effects of becoming a Toad; thus, an object that has become a Penguin
> > is now a Toad.
> >
> > Thus, when the Baron became a Penguin, e in fact ended up as a Toad;
> > and as nothing has change about said toadliness, e is still such now,
> > Q.E.D.
>
> Sorry, dude.  Dad the Lawyer and I got into this a couple times.
>
> Suppose two elements under the law happen to have apparently identical 
> properties, such that they are treated the same way under similar 
> circumstances.  Does that mean the elements are interchangable?

If one of the elements is defined to be identical to the other, then 
the two can be used interchangeably - a change to one element is, de 
facto, a change to the other.

> No, because they are defined separately.  Therefore, even if the rules 
> don't distinguish the effects of one from another *at this time*, the 
> fact that the rules *could* distinguish them means they are by 
> necessity two separate items.
>
> The cheesier example is from programming.  Creating ints a and b, and 
> then having a = b, does not mean a has become b; changing a doesn't 
> change b.

But creating a and b, and then declaring b to be a reference to the 
same object as a, does mean that the two are the same - changing a will 
change b. (Any python programmer has experienced this at some point)

> Besides, by your claim that being a toad is an effect of becoming a 
> toad, it would make the rule paradoxical.  If being a toad is an 
> effect of becoming a toad, then having become a toad as a result of 
> sleeping with a siren is also an effect of becoming a toad; however, a 
> penguin did not become a penguin or a toad as a result of sleeping 
> with a siren, so that effect at least doesn't carry over.

The only effect that directly follows from the event "$OBJECT becomes a 
Toad" is that $OBJECT is now a Toad. "$OBJECT becomes a Toad" does not 
in any way, shape, or form imply that $OBJECT had intimate connections 
with a Siren. Indeed, it is possible to become a toad in a number of 
ways - unlucky Dark Hand rolls, Caffeine burnout, etc.

> So either the penguin rule combined with the toad rule is paradoxical, 
> or the fact that a penguin is defined in a separate rule regulates a 
> penguin's existence as a penguin and not a toad.

"Penguin" is never defined. There is no such thing as a Penguin. There 
is "the act of becoming a Penguin", which is defined to be the same as 
"the act of becoming a Toad"; "the act of becoming a Toad" causes the 
object taking the action to end up as a toad.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss