[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having your nails done & tanning does not make you a metro, I don't do either yet I still think I am the true defininition of a metro.

[/ QUOTE ]

TT, the second clause supports the statment "not all metros have their nails done/go tanning," not the statment "not all those who have their nails done/go tanning are metros."

just because it's not the case that all metros have their nails done and go to tanning salons does not mean that it's not the case that all men who have their nails done and go to tanning salons are metros.

please dont make me draw you a venn diagram.

[/ QUOTE ]

Venn away...

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

cmon don't ask if youre not serious.

i define set A as all metrosexuals, and set B as all people who go tanning and get their nails done.

someone suggests that B is a subset of A: "having your nails done & tanning makes you a metro."

you reply: no, B is not a subset of A, because i am not a member of B yet i am a member of A. "i don't do either yet I still think I am the true defininition of a metro."

but the fact that A has members that are not in B (like you) says nothing about whether B has members that are not in A. if B and A are not the same and B is in fact a subset of A, there HAVE to be members of A but not B (like you), so your point is actually no counterevidence at all.