"I am not a prostitute" declares the prostitute
JohnSmith69
layin low but staying high
Here's the logic:
1. All women use sex to get things of value including money from men.
2. All women are not prostitutes.
3. Therefore I am not a prostitute even though I have sex with men for money.
http://dailym.ai/1AhrfWl
Anybody see any flaws in that reasoning ?
1. All women use sex to get things of value including money from men.
2. All women are not prostitutes.
3. Therefore I am not a prostitute even though I have sex with men for money.
http://dailym.ai/1AhrfWl
Anybody see any flaws in that reasoning ?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
16 comments
I think we may need to redefine our terms. "Prostitute" should mean a streetwalker who has sex with anyone for money. The sugar baby is more like a courtesan of years gone by. She may be a prostitute, but she's a selective, high-class prostitute.
Women are great hypocrites. They judge other women harshly--as sluts, tramps, whores--but they give themselves a pass.
I met a stripper who said she used to work at the P________ Club, but did not like it because she was treated like a prostitute. I took her to VIP not expecting much, but as we were alone she got naked and sucked and fucked.
(1) All men who are worldly, powerful, and virile sleep with young babes.
(2) All men are *not* delusional PLs who pay for sex.
(3)Therefore, I'm not a PL, but instead a worldly, powerful, and virile dude who sleeps with young babes.
The girl peddles her virginity in hope of a ring, The girl who gives it up after the third date for 3 dinners, a movie and a few drinks.
What is the difference it is the way of the world. You would never take a dancer whether you are fucking her not to a fancy business function but you may take an expensive call girl who knows how to act. Everyone has their place in the scheme of things.
Actual logical flaw (I think) is EQUIVOCATION in the word "all." In logical studies, EQUIVOCATION = using one word misleadingly by using it with different meanings.
Statement #1 uses "all" to mean "any human who is female." (There's already a problem there -- lesbians? pre-pubescents? ugly politicians like Merkel and Clinton? etc..)
Statement #2 uses "not all" to mean something OTHER than {"the opposite of any human who is female" (which, presumably, would be all humans who are male, hermaphroditic, trans-gendered non-female, or whatever other option there might be)}. Statement #2 does NOT use the word "all" to mean the thing between the {} marks in the previous sentence.
Rather, Statement #2 uses "not all" to mean "some." In the mind of the author, Statement #2 is NOT saying, "If you are female you are a prostitute" (although, thanks to EQUIVOCATION, it kind-of looks that way). In the mind of the author, Statement #2 is saying, "Some women are not prostitutes." (In fact, this much is a true statement, of course -- some women are butt-ugly and old, so even if they WANTED to be prostitutes, they couldn't actually GET any money for sexual access to their own pussies; therefore, they have to be house mothers, for example.)
Consequently, the whole logical syllogism falls apart. When re-written to eliminate the EQUIVOCATION, you get something like the following:
1.a. I am a woman.
1.b. All women use sex to get things of value.
2. Some women are not prostitutes.
3. Therefore I am not a prostitute.
Item 1.a. was of course implied by the original, so we need not fault the author for omitting it on the first occasion. But the absence of a connection from 2 to 3 is much more clear now. Just because SOME certain OTHER women are defined as "not prostitutes" can, in NO WAY, prove that THIS PARTICULAR woman is also not a prostitute.
"Hi, I'm black. Some black men are not criminals. Therefore you should not arrest me." Sounds a bit familiar ...
This annoying logical diversion brought to you by an annoying logical diverter. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7QNw1LR…
they aren't any different than a stripper doing OTC which is pretty much the same as a prostitute. The only difference is these girls get more gifts and dinners than the average stripper and would be insulted if you stuffed a $1 in their panties... now they'd be okay with $20s though.
I like how the one in the article was saying she's about to be engaged to her first sugar daddy but she's still seeing others on the side that the original one doesn't know about. Yep just like a prostitute or stripper they're all about getting their money, so they're the same as all the others! lol