I see no ideas for better reasoning here. At best, this is a more compelling illustration than most that these conflicting lines of reasoning can only be solved by appeal to wider knowledge, not by some formal trick.
Law specializes in resolving conflicting underlying pragmatic purposes.
Well, I've seen no trace of it, and your message doesn't change that. Perhaps when the field is ready to tackle reasoning by alanology and parable, the law will provide some good examples for the bag of tricks, but we're not there yet.