I thought I have already explained that.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:33 amYou are a great politician indeed. You still haven't SHOWED ME how to CHOOSE between classical and constructive logic.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:25 am When people arrive at consensus, say by a show of hand or voting papers, they do it because they share the same belief in that specific issue.
Note the example ....,
when in tiger country and you hear the sound of the broken twig, it is either it is a tiger or there is no tiger, thus no excluded middle. If you ruminate and toy with the idea of maybe or maybe not, you are sure to be lunch to a tiger in one of those excluded-middle sessions.
I did go into details in that post.
It is very unfortunate if your trainers used the concept of violence and that could be exploited the violent prone.Having acted in self-defence and having CONSCIOUSLY TRAINED TO BE SKILLED AT VIOLENCE. You don't know what you are talking about.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am When one is acting in self-defense one do not have a conscious awareness of the act as violent.
EFFECTIVE self-deffence requires conscious and WILLING AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE. The sooner you neutralize the threat - the less likely YOU are to sustain any injuries.
You are deflecting.Because that is the mathematics you have CHOSEN!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am What is the moral/ethic element in mathematics where 1 +1 = 2 or in geometry where all triangles must have three sides, and the likes.
How did you CHOOSE the mathematics where 1+1 = 2. Why didn't you CHOOSE the mathematics where 1+1 = 10 ?
There are no ethical consideration within a 1 + 1 = 2 F&S or a binary F&S, etc.
To choose either would be outside the scope of the specific F&S which may not involve ethical elements at all.
There is only an ethical elements when there are consequences that effect the human individual[s] or group.