[Jo Nuvark]

[...You can't beat the enemy by voting with them to teach your guys a lesson...]

Yes. What we have here is a paradox.

[photodawg]

Yes. What we have here is a paradox.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

No, what we have here is cutting our noses off to spite our faces. (smile). nothing paradoxical about that.

[photodawg]

[...You can't beat the enemy by voting with them to teach your guys a lesson...]

Yes. What we have here is a paradox.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I understand the meaning of paradox. And thanks, by the way for the very precise definition of the term. I am enlightened.
However, the statement in question is not paradoxical. By asserting the paradox, you are arguing that indeed by teaching your guys a lesson by voting for the enemy, you can defeat the enemy. That only becomes true if you defeat the enemy. Since this did not occur, in that the enemy won, your statement is false not paradoxical. the homily you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, more accurately describes the meaning of the statement in question because it describes the existing relationship between the two premises contained in the statement accepting the validity of the conclusion. Am I wrong on this?