Paradoxes disebowlement

These days I seem to have a thing for paradoxes.
One thing I do hate though is people preseting a false idea as a paradox. The brainteaser wannabe at http://hlavolamy.szm.sk/brainteasers tries to present a few in such a manner. Let's take a look.

Statement:
A slim crocodile living in Nile took a child. Mother begged to give him back. The crocodile could not only talk, he was also a great sophist, and so he stated: "If you guess, what I will do with him, I will return him. However, if you don't guess his fate I'll eat him." What statement shall the mother make to save her child ?

Since the declared purpose for the mother is to get her child back, we can safely say there's nothing she can state to achieve this purpose. Possible actions are, 'eat him' or 'return him'. Another obvious thing is that she has no chance to guess either unless the crocodile had already made his mind which is unlikely since this would mean the crocodile would actually leave everything to chance.
However stating 'you will eat him', would render the actual action of eating him impossible because such would mean the mother has guessed. But this would also render his return impossible because the return would render the statement false and would compell the crocodile to return to eating him.
The result is a stalemate in which the crocodile keeps the child.
Given the actual problem however, this is not a paradox, it's rather an impossibility.

Statement:
What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

A twist of logic doesn't account for a paradox since the keyword 'nothing' doesn't mean that actually having 'nothing' is better than bliss rather it's closer to 'no concept or object in existance'. This also rules out the slice of bread and we are left with a false conclusion.


Statement:
Let's say (hypothetically) there is a bullet, which can shoot through any barrier. Let's say there is also an absolutely bullet-proof armour, and nothing gets through it. What will happen, if such bullet hits such armour?

Obviously we will learn that one of the armorers involved was too confident in his creation.
The two are mutually exclusive and assuming the existance of both doesn't hold to the principles of logic, which glamorously point out to the existance of a false assumption. (this doesn't do justice to commercials though where such is a thing is bound to happen).



Statement:
-question: Is it possible to give what we don't have?
-answer: "Yes. Greedy man gives his cash with sorrow. However, he doesn't have the cash with sorrow, so he gives what he doesn't have."

As a side joke, in practice it's possible. People sell things they never really had all the time, it's called fraud. But in this test of logic, we won't try to answer the question, only to show that the answer given is wrong. Sorrow is a feeling caused by the obligation to give the money. We will skip the point that sorrow isn't something that is in fact given (maybe induced in a way) and go on to point out that the fact sorrow wasn't there before the obligation appeared, it doesn't mean the greedy man never had it.
Sorrow appears just before the transfer of the cash so at that moment the greedy man in fact has sorrow with which he gives the money. Therefore he doesn't give something he doesn't have.
Another point in support of this is that giving implies that a party receives something the other party loses (after the giving the other party doesn't have it anymore). However the sorrow persists even after the giving, so it only accompanied the act but wasn't in fact transfered along.