It is not the case that there exists a party such that it is like an S-Club partay.
¬∃ x, y (Px ∧ Sy ∧ ¬Sx ∧ Lxy)
(Where P = “is a party”, S = “is an S-Club party, and L = “is like”)
But I have my doubts, people. Is this redundant? Must we state that y is merely an S-Club Party, or both a party and an S-Club party? By stating that both the unmatched S-Club party and the mundane, pointless non-S-Club parties are both parties, are we not asserting that they are alike, in that they both have the quality of partyness? Are we to take it that they are not alike in some abstract quality, or that the S-Club party is simply above and beyond all other parties in quality?
Like so many before me, you have left me with deep, seemingly unsolvable quandaries, seminal, multi-gendered British pop phenom The S-Club 7…
Brought to you with the gracious support of unopposablethumbs!
