Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ice

Find The Loopholes

29 posts in this topic

I don't know how long this thread will last or if it will even get any replies BUT I know people like to be argumentative just for the sake of it and this seemed like an interesting thing to do. You know in those stories or movies(which usually consist of spells) where the person has to say a spell or a rule or something perfectly so nothing goes wrong? For example, they may say "I command you to answer my question!" Well, there are tons of loopholes in that. If anything, I've learned from these movies and books to be VERY specific. So, who wants to find some loopholes? :D

 

Let's start with the one I just used. "I command you to answer my question!"

 

I won't take any obvious loopholes in case someone needs them. So I'm gonna say that one loophole is, "You didn't specify which language I have to answer in."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can lie.

 

I can tell you the truth in exact words, in a way that would be technically true but tell you nothing that you want.

 

My answer could be phrased in the form of a punch to the face.

 

I could answer truthfully, without distortion or deceit. Then cut your face off and wear it as a trophy.

 

I can say something like "I FIND IT FASCINATING WHEN THE FLAP JAW SPACE SURROUNDS HARI KARI ROCK I NEED SCISSORS!!!61" because you never asked me to be coherent.

 

I could answer your question... that is, a question that you asked me a week ago and I didn't answer.

 

...

 

Okay I'll stop now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could answer.... two years later.

 

I could answer, very very softly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could completely ignore the command, since my name isn't "You".

I could answer by saying "my question".

This is the reason why legal jargon was invented. XD

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaaand that was both funny and clever, Taco.

We ready for a new loophole-filled order? And if anyone has an idea for one, feel free to post :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pretty common one:

"In exchange for your soul, I shall grant you three wishes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike Mephistopheles, I'm a fan of up-front payments. *pulls out pistol*

 

The three wishes will be the three most trivial wishes you've thought of in the last month. E.G "Damn, I wish I could actually get a cab around here."

 

Your wishes are finally granted. Five hundred and thirty years later.

 

The next day, three meteorites land on your front yard, because they're technically equivalent, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pretty common one:

"In exchange for your soul, I shall grant you three wishes."

Assuming it's said out loud, you could proceed to give them the sole of your shoe. ^^

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granting you three wishes could just mean allowing you to wish for it. I don't have to make them come true.

On the side of the man, he could argue whether humans have souls in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could sell my soul to 17 other claimants. And then you'll be arguing about it while I get an achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the only ones I could think of have already been mentioned. I stuck, I know :(

Alrighty, if no one has anymore loopholes for this one, let's move on.

"Wash my shoes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wash my shoes."

How is this magic-related??

 

I guess I'll do it later. Like, next year or something. And it doesn't have to be manually, right? I'll just throw it into the washing machine and call it a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wash them. With your blood. That's not a problem, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gotta be an imperative or there's no fun in screwing it up! 

 

I can wash the shoes and put them back onto your feet while they're still wet. Wet socks, yay! They can't dry out within a day, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, your shoes are in the middle of the Pacific now.

Don't get eaten by a Kaiju while you're looking for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wash them, then throw them away.

 

Or perhaps I'll just put them in a bucket of water. You didn't specify how thorough the washing has to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you aren't fond of what I'm doing, why don't you give everyone a magic one to do, Eth? Though I won't be restricting them to a single category(as I feel that would get boring faster than this will)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a classic one.

 

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

How could a robot potentially hurt or kill a human without breaking any of the three laws?

 

To clarify, under the first law, "harm" includes killing, hurting or injuring the human in any way. Feel free to give your robots special abilities, like... mind reading, possessing extremely high processing power/data acquisition abilities, being able to see into the future, etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Asimov #grammarnazi

The robot could be caught in a Morton's Fork situation where both options lead to people dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait so....(solely to screw up your wording again since I AM looking for loopholes here), since the wording is "or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm(including death)", wouldn't that mean my theory on suffocation would still be valid? For example, I protect the human but the human becomes suffocated(either purposefully by me or accidentally through a series of events I will not bother trying to think through as I'm doing good to stay awake to type this). Suffocation does not injure the body at all, I followed the rule of protection, and we can create a scenario that my robot is suffocating him in which 'inaction' would not exist because my robot is acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online