eodnhoj7

Then self-reference is subject to the fallacy of equivocation, in which case it cannot be a fallacy. I argue this in the above laws. Equivocation is n...

Not really, the law holds that "P" is a variable that can mean "anything", they just do not apply "anything" as the variable.

Yes that means all definitions are equal to all definitions and the law necessitates equivocation. There is no explanation the law, except outside the...

All "practical experience" can be many different things as it applies to many different people. Even discussing "practical experience" is a practical ...

As a matter of Fact the laws of Logic are subject to equivocation as "P=P" necessitates P can mean everything or anything, hence everything is equal t...

You said "practical experience" this is subject to equivocation if you are corrected (hence the argument is contradictory). If it is not, reproduction...

They are grounded in directed movement, even Einstein claimed nothing exists until something moves. I am arguing that logic is in a perpetual state of...

The first sentence began with "P=P, does not itself need to progress to further axioms." Then you had a long progressive argument of axioms used to de...

Your game is a word salad, along with confusing and now you are diverting blame. Circularity proves this as the form of the answer you provided does n...

Red herrings as well.... You do know Godels incompleteness theorem renders the foundation of logic incomplete right? It means they are in a perpetual ...

Ad hominums. You lost according to your own rules, you said "Practical" experience, hence "reproduction" as a continuum. You gave a list of definition...

You said to provide a practical example, you literally just gave definitions. Who loses there own game? ROFL!!!!!!!!! Then comes up with there own ass...

If P=P requires -P=-P to exist and is incomplete without -P then what is incomplete is void on its own terms as it must exist through further axioms. ...

The premise was that you show how it applies to practical life, not a series of definitions and assertions. Lol, you actually made up the rules and ca...

I just said in the above P=P is incomplete in the quote. Wow..... ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I owe both of you thanks for the laughs.

So about 30 minutes. You can type all the thoughts you want for your proof, because that proof is subject to you. The most you can do is turn my words...

Times up. Been 15 minutes.

So the laws of logic are subjective?

My reply to "agree...or not"? Is "or" what? You saying logic is subject to personal experience is what I have been arguing all along "logic has a subj...

Then my logic is automatically correct as I am arguing all logic is subjective, but the fallacy of ad hominem, equivocation (as one experience can mea...

2×9=18 is rambling to a toddler...all is relative.

You have not provide a practical example to your logic...why should I trust you? Proof. How is it practical? What is practical though considering you ...

Okay...How can the fallacies exist if the fallacies can be applied to eachother. Second. What is Logic? I provide sources stemming from the Greek as "...

Practical life is subject to equivocation. Considering you worked to pay for your internet service, and that internet service is spent proving some po...

So it is your point? So this is your logic and not the group consensus?

"A close similarity, connection or equivalence" is the definition. So you are arguing they are connected. This is just sophistry you are using as you ...

yeah a corellary, On iPad, but looking it up on Google (will post defintion site), it observes "a proposition following from one already proved." So o...

your are right "collerates as infer". If each of the same laws reach the same conclusion are they connected by the conclusion?

And that is my point, they are strictly belief, hence contradictory. It is a religious dogma...Hence those with the most force win and you subscribe t...

Actually the law of identity leading to the law of non contradiction, and vice versa observes them as connected and required to defined eachother. The...

-P requires the existence of P=P. P=P requires P cannot equal -P considering "equal" and "not equal" are not defined except through there relations. C...

Brian says they collaborate.

On second thought you can ignore the above if you wish and focus on the below: "This statement is false" is a paradox. If the statement is false it mu...

Actually Cleopatra you are really close. All logic is subjective, but what determines logic as objective is the replication of subjectivity into both ...

It does not reject them, it rather observes these laws on there own terms contradict themselves outside this framework. The framework is self maintain...

The frameworks fails on there own terms, however not relative to the above framework presented.

Fallacious to their own framework only. So the above represents a new framework.

I presented what the laws of logic really are above, read it, then pose the question again if you wish.

Yes I will have the last word, thank you, considering the nature of proof: Proof?

Source and proof? I doubt it... All philosophers adhere to the Prime Triadic Axioms whether they know it or not. They contradict themselves in not adm...

You tell me...do all philosophers adhere to those laws?

You provided none that fits the requirements I set: They cannot be subject to circularity or equivocation.

Win what exactly? your position contradicts itself as well as the "irrational epistemology" you argue. The nature of the axiom is defined above. Contr...

The Prime Triadic Nature of the Axiom: Actually the premises I argue are original, progress to eachother and further axioms, while maintaining themsel...

Taking it an authoritative statement is a fallacy according to the standard laws of logic.

Before I proceed to the law of non-contradiction, something you might want to understand: 3. Irrational Epistemology (http://www.importanceofphilosoph...

4. On Contradictions (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html) Contradiction A contradiction arises when two ideas each m...

Address above. However the Law of Identity is fault being P=P would require "=" to be defined under the same law in which it is not. It is void of mea...

Point of Origin as unification of all axioms and all axioms as inversive, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7 1. Where and how have you arrived at this? Linear De...

Then "=" is not the same as anything and effectively is nothing but a point of inversion between one P and many P's. "=" is not identified except thro...