Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hiring a prostitute does not imply low self esteem.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I didnt reply to his question of 'why this topic is important' because I dont believe it was sincere or relevant. If it wasnt an important topic, Id imagine a discussion wouldnt of taken place, or that he'd return.

But thanks for hashing over it. aleph_0's posts were really helpful. Thanks!

I understand. I posted it for better understanding and for it to be talked over with objective people. I suppose i could of been more clear on that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The implication is that poor self-esteem is not derived from a prostitute so long as he can get sex otherwise? This seems opposite of your first suggested implication, that merely having sex with a non-prostitute produces high self-esteem. The former would mean that one can get sex from a prostitute even though having the opportunity to get sex by some other means, and one could still have high self-esteem. The later describes a method of producing high self-esteem. So I'm not sure which you mean to argue is an implication. And both of these are distinct from the claim that, if you have no alternative but to hire a prostitute, then you have poor self-esteem.

And who are you suggesting is doing the implication? Cisco or the person for whom Cisco is acting as a proxy? I'm terribly unclear about what is being said here.

In any case, here is what the pseudo-argument claims: One is able to hire a prostitute and still have high self-esteem. The argument is faulty.

Here is what the initial provisional assumption (supposedly refuted by the pseudo-argument) claims: If anybody ever has the chance to have sex with a non-prostitute but still opts to have sex with a prostitute, then that person has low self-esteem. An implication of this claim is that, if one has high self-esteem then one has not slept with a prostitute when he could have slept with somebody else. Another implication is that, if one has not slept with a prostitute while he has the chance to sleep with a non-prostitute, then it is logically possible for him to have high self-esteem. But I see no way that this implies that, if one sleeps with a non-prostitute, then one has high self-esteem. Nor does it imply that, if one has high self-esteem, then one has slept with a non-prostitute.

For example, take the case that "If anything is a mammal then it is an animal." An implication of this is that, if something is not an animal then it is not a mammal. But it is not an implication of this that, if something is an animal then it is a mammal. Also, not being a mammal does not imply not being an animal. The logical "direction" is one-way. The same goes for the initial provisional assumption. Whenever the antecedent conditions (having the chance to sleep with a non-prostitute but still sleeping with a prostitute) are met, then the consequent follows (low self-esteem). However, having the consequent (low self-esteem) does not imply the antecedent (having the chance to sleep with a non-prostitute but still sleeping with a prostitute). And likewise, not having the antecedent does not imply not having the consequent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The implication is that poor self-esteem is not derived from a prostitute so long as he can get sex otherwise? This seems opposite of your first suggested implication, that merely having sex with a non-prostitute produces high self-esteem. The former would mean that one can get sex from a prostitute even though having the opportunity to get sex by some other means, and one could still have high self-esteem. The later describes a method of producing high self-esteem. So I'm not sure which you mean to argue is an implication. And both of these are distinct from the claim that, if you have no alternative but to hire a prostitute, then you have poor self-esteem.

And who are you suggesting is doing the implication? Cisco or the person for whom Cisco is acting as a proxy? I'm terribly unclear about what is being said here.

In any case, here is what the pseudo-argument claims: One is able to hire a prostitute and still have high self-esteem. The argument is faulty.

Here is what the initial provisional assumption (supposedly refuted by the pseudo-argument) claims: If anybody ever has the chance to have sex with a non-prostitute but still opts to have sex with a prostitute, then that person has low self-esteem. An implication of this claim is that, if one has high self-esteem then one has not slept with a prostitute when he could have slept with somebody else. Another implication is that, if one has not slept with a prostitute while he has the chance to sleep with a non-prostitute, then it is logically possible for him to have high self-esteem. But I see no way that this implies that, if one sleeps with a non-prostitute, then one has high self-esteem. Nor does it imply that, if one has high self-esteem, then one has slept with a non-prostitute.

For example, take the case that "If anything is a mammal then it is an animal." An implication of this is that, if something is not an animal then it is not a mammal. But it is not an implication of this that, if something is an animal then it is a mammal. Also, not being a mammal does not imply not being an animal. The logical "direction" is one-way. The same goes for the initial provisional assumption. Whenever the antecedent conditions (having the chance to sleep with a non-prostitute but still sleeping with a prostitute) are met, then the consequent follows (low self-esteem). However, having the consequent (low self-esteem) does not imply the antecedent (having the chance to sleep with a non-prostitute but still sleeping with a prostitute). And likewise, not having the antecedent does not imply not having the consequent.

I highly disagree with the view point of the persons post I forwarded here. It is not my opinion at all. And i dont think Ive expressed my viewpoint here yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...