Males and Females
- Thread starter damnromulans
- Start date
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I met a lovely Korean-Canadian girl at a friend's birthday party the other night. She definitely likes the cookiecutter and I like her too. Unfortunately I'm heading to Boston for winter break tomorrow, but I'm going to ask her out soon (perhaps to a steak dinner?). Wish me luck.
Now now sir, God has nothing to do with this - this is all logic!
P1: A slut is defined as "a sexually promiscuous* being; an immoral** or dissolute*** being"
P2: For a woman to be a slut, one must first define what a slut is; accordingly they must meet all of the criteria of the definitions listed.
P1B: Since the definitions of said acts are taken from a living tome of knowledge that reflects the culture at large's usage and understanding of said terms, it can be inferred that said factual definitions reflect the cultures thought processes and are thus applicable to the argument at hand as facts (i.e. a = a; if a = b, b = c, then a = c).
P3: Due to the law of transitivity, if one meets the criteria of being a slut, then they are a slut.
P4: Sluts may not have feelings, or may disregard them entirely
P5: People cannot not have feelings
C: A being that has no feelings is not human, therefore it is possible sluts may not be human
Evidence: Death Aflame has stated this woman is “easy”, which is a synonym for someone that is promiscuous (promiscuity being the first prerequisites for defining a person as a slut):
The proposed slut has met the first qualifier we have placed as she is promiscuous. But what about the second?
The second can be inferred via the process of identifying the members of the party in question: one male – no relationship. One female – no relationship. One female – in a relationship.
To violate a relationship, which is typically regarded as a pact of both trust and mutual exclusivity, is widely considered a very immoral thing (as shown by the boards discussion on pages 43-48. To be fair, we shall treat both of these requirements (trust and mutual exclusivity) as disjunctive. Therefore we may account for “open” relationships where mutual exclusivity is not the norm.
This disjunction however does not save our harlot from slutdom. As shown again via the message-boards, the boyfriend did not know of the sexual encounter; furthermore, to deny the boyfriend knowledge of the encounter would violate the clause of truth. In an open relationship, such a topic would not be a problem for discussion – as shown here however it is. Thus we may deduce that she in fact does not have an open relationship and requires the hiding of truth. Therefore both truth and mutual exclusivity are false in her case, and the disjunction does not allow her any saving grace
Definition 3 is also disjunctive:
One may be dissolute if and only if:
indifferent to moral restraints (A)
given to immoral or improper conduct (B)
Here we assume the reasoning for her hiding information from her boyfriend is due to a form of moral consciousness (not wanting to hurt someone). A can then be assumed to be false. However, given actions that arose B may assumed to be true.
A(f) v B(t) = T
By means of a logical disjunction based on sound and valid premises, we my also say this woman meets the third piece of criteria we have set for defining a slut.
Now that we have identified this woman as a slut, we shall see if she is in fact human.
P4: Sluts may not have feelings, or may disregard them entirely
P5: People cannot not have feelings
C: A being that has no feelings is not human, therefore it is possible sluts may not be human.
Premise 3 here invalidates Premise 4 on the basis that evidence has shown that this slut indeed has feelings. However, Premise 3 has also shown that she has disregarded the moral obligation she has held to her boyfriend. If we treat this as a disjunction (one must not have feeling or disregard them entirely) then we may say that Premise 4 is true, but the entire conclusion that was originally drawn is false. This is due to Premise 5, as it sets the precedent: this person indeed does have feelings, therefore they are in fact human.
So yeah, although this slut is in fact a human being... she is a terrible one.
THEREFORE! I rescind my initial statement. Perhaps I should argue that one should not care how a being of lesser worth is treated?
P1: A slut is defined as "a sexually promiscuous* being; an immoral** or dissolute*** being"
P2: For a woman to be a slut, one must first define what a slut is; accordingly they must meet all of the criteria of the definitions listed.
P1B: Since the definitions of said acts are taken from a living tome of knowledge that reflects the culture at large's usage and understanding of said terms, it can be inferred that said factual definitions reflect the cultures thought processes and are thus applicable to the argument at hand as facts (i.e. a = a; if a = b, b = c, then a = c).
P3: Due to the law of transitivity, if one meets the criteria of being a slut, then they are a slut.
P4: Sluts may not have feelings, or may disregard them entirely
P5: People cannot not have feelings
C: A being that has no feelings is not human, therefore it is possible sluts may not be human
Evidence: Death Aflame has stated this woman is “easy”, which is a synonym for someone that is promiscuous (promiscuity being the first prerequisites for defining a person as a slut):
The proposed slut has met the first qualifier we have placed as she is promiscuous. But what about the second?
The second can be inferred via the process of identifying the members of the party in question: one male – no relationship. One female – no relationship. One female – in a relationship.
To violate a relationship, which is typically regarded as a pact of both trust and mutual exclusivity, is widely considered a very immoral thing (as shown by the boards discussion on pages 43-48. To be fair, we shall treat both of these requirements (trust and mutual exclusivity) as disjunctive. Therefore we may account for “open” relationships where mutual exclusivity is not the norm.
This disjunction however does not save our harlot from slutdom. As shown again via the message-boards, the boyfriend did not know of the sexual encounter; furthermore, to deny the boyfriend knowledge of the encounter would violate the clause of truth. In an open relationship, such a topic would not be a problem for discussion – as shown here however it is. Thus we may deduce that she in fact does not have an open relationship and requires the hiding of truth. Therefore both truth and mutual exclusivity are false in her case, and the disjunction does not allow her any saving grace
Definition 3 is also disjunctive:
One may be dissolute if and only if:
indifferent to moral restraints (A)
given to immoral or improper conduct (B)
Here we assume the reasoning for her hiding information from her boyfriend is due to a form of moral consciousness (not wanting to hurt someone). A can then be assumed to be false. However, given actions that arose B may assumed to be true.
A(f) v B(t) = T
By means of a logical disjunction based on sound and valid premises, we my also say this woman meets the third piece of criteria we have set for defining a slut.
Now that we have identified this woman as a slut, we shall see if she is in fact human.
P4: Sluts may not have feelings, or may disregard them entirely
P5: People cannot not have feelings
C: A being that has no feelings is not human, therefore it is possible sluts may not be human.
Premise 3 here invalidates Premise 4 on the basis that evidence has shown that this slut indeed has feelings. However, Premise 3 has also shown that she has disregarded the moral obligation she has held to her boyfriend. If we treat this as a disjunction (one must not have feeling or disregard them entirely) then we may say that Premise 4 is true, but the entire conclusion that was originally drawn is false. This is due to Premise 5, as it sets the precedent: this person indeed does have feelings, therefore they are in fact human.
So yeah, although this slut is in fact a human being... she is a terrible one.
THEREFORE! I rescind my initial statement. Perhaps I should argue that one should not care how a being of lesser worth is treated?
rms
Active Member
stephahnie
Member
Eligos
Problem Yet to be Solved
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
i intellectulol'd
you should probably give the source of your definition for "slut" to support your claim that it is "a living tome of knowledge that reflects the culture at large's usage and understanding of" the word. also P4 with its "may" and "may not" seems so weak as to be hardly worth mentioning. other than that, bravo on your pioneering work in the field of propositional slutology.
zabu of nΩd;9559789 said:
Good sir, that living tome is the dictionary.
P4 is week because it evokes the question of what a human is/what it is to be human. Since there are so many various articulations of what it is and what it is not to be a human being... well, I focused on the emotional quotient. We are social animals, and will snap/die without companionship. Focusing on feelings was my way of also bypassing the intellectual quotient, as I feel no sane person would deny a human being solely because they are retards (in one sense or another). I also avoided genetic stipulations for potential future references (i.e. how far into the gradation of evolution do we look? How far back? Where is the dividing line?).
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
You should invite her for a KIMCHEE AND DOG MEAT DINNER slathered in maple syrup. Wishing the best for you!
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Yes but without a citation I have no way of telling if that dictionary is Merriam-Webster's or Bubba McDingbat's.
I should also add that I am not aware of any canonical usage of the word "slut" that does not apply to a human. Although the initial ambiguity in this regard is somewhat fundamental to the humor value in your argument, it does reveal that we could have done away with nearly all of the argument by simply pointing out that, by P5 and the evidence that the subject in question has feelings, the subject is clearly human.
You seem to be talking about P5 here (which I have no problem with), not P4. I realise though that I misspoke somewhat about P4, as it is not exactly weak but actually illogical since sluts are people and people cannot not have feelings.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
Wow Pessimism, you've clearly thought a lot about my situation. Much more than I have in fact, but this is also your folly for you overlook this fact: I am getting good-great sex frequently.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Thanks, but that sounds gross. Dog is fine on its own but seriously, maple syrup?
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Eligos
Problem Yet to be Solved
So tomorrow, the girl I was going to ask out on Wednesday is going to be at work, if her schedule last week is anything to judge by. And I'm gonna go for it.
challenge_everything
Active Member
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
unknown
fuck ftagn
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
nice, NickSimilar threads
