Absolutely Fuzzed - 31/05/2004: "AMWTGTKWIOTFT"

This is not a funny post. Instead, it's a serious dilemma. Perhaps the more enlightened folk out there can help me out: I've been kept awake for nights on end because of this.

Right. With that out of the way, I present to you, culled from the depths of my depravity-- a problem I aptly name...

The AMWTGTKWIOTFT dilemma! (All Men Want To Get To Know Women In Order To Fuck Them)

P1) If it is not the case that it is possible that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them, then women will not feel unease at their boyfriends' desire to know other women.

C3) Therefore, it is possible that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them. (1, 2)

P4) If it is possible that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them, then the implications for social relationships between the sexes would be profoundly disturbing.

P5) We do not (normally) conceive of any implications for social relationships between the sexes which are profoundly disturbing.

C6) Therefore, it is not the case that it is possible that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them. (4, 5)

(6) contradicts (3). There has to be a flaw in the argument somewhere, but where does it lie?

Women should not feel unease at their boyfriends' desire to know other women because it is not the case that there is a possibility that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them.

Problem: This involves denying women's very natural feelings of unease (And men's as well, because there's no denying that you can feel uneasy when guys want to get to know your girl).

We should accept, and realize, that there are very disturbing implications for social relationships.

Problem: The catch being, should we accept this, all females will never look at their guy friends the same way again.

In saying that NOT all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them, do we have to accept one of the above, problems and all? Or is it a false dilemma?

The problem lies in, among other things, the fact that the existence of the possibility that all men wanting to get to know women in order to fuck them seems necessary, even though it may not be sufficient, for women to feel unease at their boyfriends' desire to know other women.

A is necessary for B if it is the case that B cannot happen without A. For instance, oxygen is necessary for fire, since there cannot be fire without oxygen. But it is not sufficient, since there have to be other conditions present (besides oxygen) for fire.

In less technical terms, while there can be other reasons why women feel unease at their boyfriends' desires to know other women, women cannot feel unease at their boyfriends' desires to know other women (B) without the possibility that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them (A).

(By the way, a lack of trust and inherent insecurities are both reducible to the possession of the belief that there is a possibility that all men want to get to know women in order to fuck them.)

Go figure. I have a couple of ways around the dilemma, but I'm not going to do your thinking for you.

the flaw lies in generalisation of the menfolk.

if C3 is true, then womanfolk will not be safe in the presence of males.

it also seems like this post assume that what men sees in woman are purely sexual, it would be a very disturbing thought to harbour in one's mind... imagine every pair of eyes that lays on you tries to undress you mentally...

IMHO, the way around it is a clear path ahead. Don't believe AMWTGTKWIOTFT.

Sorry, you can't attack a conclusion. You have to work on the premises.

There are only two choices: EITHER men do OR men don't. If you say men do, then the implications would be disturbing indeed. However, if you say men don't, then you'll have to deny that women have a reason to feel unease at their boyfriends' desires to know other women.

Either way, the conclusion seems equally unacceptable. Therein lies the dilemma. So we are left with impaling ourselves on the horn of our choice, or point out the flaw in the arguments presented.

Don't blame me. I only explained the dilemma; I didn't cause it.

It's TRUE! I admit it :)

All Men Want To Get To Know Women In Order To **** Them.

BUT,

All WoMen Want To Get To Know Men In Order To **** Them.

TOO.

The above applies to heterosexual men and women only.

scue me sir, i ting this method of logical argument dates back to that fella socrates and plato. what they call ah? semantics? . i ting they were greeks la. that's why sometimes we say it's all greek to me hehe. semantics is vely problematic wan due to the limitations of words but we don wanna get into that. mahai, that time, in greece and in rome, they had orgies; nothing disturbing about people farking other people or things. even in many animal kingdoms natural for males and females to hv multiple partners.

so wat's wrong with p4 and p5? we choose not to be disturbed about our relationships lor: we're governed by social, legal, religious structures that try to prevent chaos thru the "deception" of monogamy. aiya chim la.

Julian--
It's more Aristotelian logic, actually.

And it's not about semantics; nothing to do with Platonic Forms or anything like that. It's just two simple (valid, but unsound) arguments which have two opposing conclusions.

Anyway, we can either agree with premise 4 and 5, or not. What we choose to do is a separate issue from what we should accept. It's the same thing with morals; we can argue for the non-existence of objective moral standards and still allow ourselves to act as though there exist such standards for the purposes of social stability. So is there an error in contemporary sexual theory? Your guess is as good as mine.

Be that as it may, all this is purely academic. As you should very well know, getting laid requires a different set of skills other than the analytical.

eh my name not julian ler... wrong postulation, hehe. but i leave u wif a quote from sir arthur conan doyle, who shot some pretty wild substance in his day, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"; that is the weakness, even futility, of logical argument, aristotelian or otherwise. by saying that, of course, i have become a guilty participant. just live, young man, go forth and multiply.

Bertrand Russell. What, you're going to throw Gödel at me next?

Don't bother trying to impress me with your knowledge of formal, non-classical or symbolic logic, because:

1)I'm neither a mathematician or a logician. Nor do I deal with programming languages or digital systems. And I certainly don't claim any expertise in those areas.

2)I'm just putting up a simple, classical valid argument. Nothing to do with the advances of logic in the past 100 years. If you want to translate whatever that's up there into quantifiers and Boolean functions and so forth, be my guest. But I strongly suggest you spend your time trying to show someone else how smart you think you are instead, because I really don't give jackshit.

Comprende?

there is no EITHER OR statement that will summarize this argument. you just have to accept the fact that SOME men do and SOME men don't.

eg. u cant say that ALL MEN ARE STRAIGHT, or ALL WOMEN GIVE GOOD HEAD... there are always exceptions to the case, and in your case, the majority splits (conveniently) between the two 'true or false' categories.

'There are only two choices: EITHER men do OR men don't.' is such a close-minded statement, which is surprising coming from a philosophy major like yourself.

S--

OK, at least you attacked my argument, which is more than I can say for most people who commented. Except for that last paragraph, which was ad hominem (attacking the man). Close-minded? Tsk tsk.

I didn't say my argument was correct. I merely presented it as such, and if one or more of the premises are wrong-- if, like you say, one of them is a false dilemma, then fine, it's an unsound argument.

In counter to your attack on my use of the ALL or "A" statements, I'd ask you how we can differentiate any one individual man from another. And if there's no way we can tell what the difference is, then you can't say if it's "some" or "all", definitively.

I'm not convinced that saying "some" is correct simply because it avoids the dilemma.

One more thing: relax. It's not like I'm seriously trying to convince everyone that AMWTGTKWIOTFT. If someone can point out the flaws, good; everyone learns, including me. And in case you hadn't noticed, I don't write serious articles. Not here, anyway.

P.S. I never claimed anywhere that I was a philosophy major.