“Also I was drunk when I left the first comment – surprise! – so excuse the typos”
Finals start tomorrow, and I find myself looking for a new way to procrastinate. What do I end up doing? Well, I translated into predicate logic an argument posted on a comment on this blog by one dammit sammi (see here for the original comment):
Paris Hilton is a skanky whore. She is in terrible sex tapes and on idiotic TV shows. She is a useless moron and if a useless moron is in terrible sex tapes then either that useless moron is a skanky whore or that useless moron is a failing porn star. But if that useles moron is on idiotic TV shows, that useless moron is not a failing porn star. This, Paris Hilton is not a failing porn star.
Sammi, I can safely say my logic professor would be proud to see an argument like this. I checked it out and it’s actually logically valid, meaning if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false (as far as I know, the premises are obviously true).
So for those of you that care, or actually know what the fuck I’m talking about, here is the symbollized argument in predicate logic, along with the interpretation:
UD: People
Wx: x is a skanky whore.
Sx: x is on terrible sex tapes.
Ix: x is on idiotic tv shows.
Mx: x is a useless moron.
Fx: x is a failing porn star.
p: Paris Hilton
I took logic in college, back in those green and golden days when I was just a drunk, not an ignorant drunk. Maybe my calling in life is to write pop culture text books. I’d make so much money because you really would have to buy new books every semester. “UGH! This logic problem references a pregnant Britney Spears. That is so Spring Break ‘05.” OK there’s your daily dose of stpid from Dammit Sami. K bye.