Index ← 3893 CFJ 3894 3895 → text
===============================  CFJ 3894  ===============================

      The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
      "No Faking".


Caller:                        Cuddlebeam

Judge:                         Jason
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Cuddlebeam:                             22 Jan 2021 21:53:05
Assigned to Jason:                                24 Jan 2021 23:43:08
Judged FALSE by Jason:                            31 Jan 2021 20:23:51


Caller's Evidence:

On 1/22/2021 1:53 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead with it.


Gratuitous Arguments by nix and Gaelan:

nix wrote:
>>> There's no intent to mislead. CB is speaking untruthfully about that
>>> being the intent, as evidenced by the fact that in the rest of the
>>> message e openly acknowledges that people may see it as untrue.
Gaelan wrote:
>> But wait, e falsely claimed, with intent to mislead, that the statement
>> was false with an intent to mislead.

nix wrote:
> Since e pointed out both possibilities, there's no apparent attempt to 
> convince us of any specific interpretation. So there's nothing 
> misleading, regardless of the truth of the overall statement or any 
> parts of it.


Judge Jason's Evidence:

Rule 2471/1 (Power=1)
No Faking

      A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A
      statment is a lie if its publisher either knew or believed it to
      be not to be true at the time e published it (or, in the case of
      an action, not to be effective), and it was made with the intent
      to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
      it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
      clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
      part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
      falsity of the whole is what is significant.
      The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal
      announcement of intent is never a lie.

Judge Jason's Arguments:

The first statement in the message is "This statement is a lie and I
intend to mislead with it." There are two components to this statement.
The first is "This statement is a lie". This is clearly an attempt at a
paradox. However, because the Rules define the meaning of "lie", it may
not be one. To determine whether the statement is a lie, the two part
test in Rule 2471 must be applied. First, Cuddlebeam must have known or
believed it "to be not to be true". That is nonsense, but is easily
adjusted to mean that e believed it "not to be true". Cuddlebeam clearly
believed this part of the statement to be a paradox (based on off-list
discussion and the fact that it very much resembles the liar's paradox),
which is not a factually true statement.

This violates the law of the excluded middle, but there is Rules-based
precedent for this: CFJ judgments. Neither TRUE nor FALSE is not an
appropriate judgment if PARADOXICAL is. This supports finding that a
statement which the publisher believes to be paradoxical is one e
believes to "not be true".

Cuddlebeam's statement "This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead
with it." E believed part of the statement not to be true, therefore e
believed the entire statement not to be true. The next question is
whether e intended to mislead by publishing the statement. Because this
is a statement about someone's intent, we can only work based on
probabilities. As such, I will judge based on what I perceive to be the
most likely situation.

I find that, on a balance of probabilities, Cuddlebeam did not intend to
mislead with eir statement because e explicitly noted e might receive a
No Faking sentence for publishing the above statement.

Cuddlebeam's statement was a lie, but e did not intend to mislead with
it. Judged FALSE.