The foolishness of Jinx: tautology and definition

infspire
I am reflecting on the fact that earlier Jinx implied all definitions are tautological.
02:12 infspire
Example.
infspire
I have an object which is an A.
infspire
How do I identify an object of type A?
02:13 infspire
Type A objects are defined as such: A type A object has property B.
infspire
Jinx claims that is tautological for the following reason:
infspire
[Objects with the property of B] have property B.
02:14 infspire
Jinx
infspire
"[Systems that do not reform through peaceful communication] don't reform through peaceful communication"
infspire
I claimed some systems are of type Unjust.
infspire
How do I identify a system of type Unjust?
infspire
Systems Unjust are defined as such: A system is of type Unjust if it has property "doesn't reform through peaceful communication".
infspire
He then replaced Unjust with its definition:
infspire
A system "doesn't reform through peaceful communication" doesn't reform through peaceful communication.
infspire
And he claimed this was a tautology.
infspire
It's even more foolish than I previously grasped.
infspire
In mathematics, definitions generally include iff, i.e. if and only if. If and only if is a bidirectional implication.
infspire
A implies B and B implies A.
infspire
We can reveal the foolishness even further.
infspire
Let us remove the word 'unjust' entirely, as that is the name of the property.
infspire
1. Some systems do not allow reform through peaceful communication.
infspire
2. A system which does not allow reform through peaceful communication, for sufficient period, deserves coercion towards those reforms up to an including violent compulsion.
infspire
3. America is such a system.
infspire
Actually, let me try that again:
infspire
3. America has not allowed reform through peaceful communication for a sufficient period of time.
infspire
So, (2) is of form A implies B.
infspire
(3) is A is true.
infspire
Therefore, B is true.
infspire
Where does unjust fit into this scheme, then?
infspire
It is an object reference for A.
infspire
That is, it's a 'definition'.
infspire
Jinx is a fool, and an incredibly bad-faithed actor.
infspire
There are several other ways to understand all of this, of course.
02:27 infspire
For example, one could posit 'unjust' as an lvalue in C++ and 'system which doesn't reform through peaceful communication for sufficient period of time' as an rvalue.
infspire
Another method: System is an abstract base class, and Unjust System a concrete class with a value of false for a peaceful_reformation field.
infspire
Then, references to this object are of an entirely different type than the value of that field.
infspire
This immediately cuts any cycles Jinx false perceived between antecedent and consequent.
infspire
falsely*