To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal

[Eodnhoj7]

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P , are biologically different to women, -P , yet both are equal through their humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P , are biologically different to women, -P , yet both are equal through their humanity.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

As I had argued that P is not-P within logic is never absolute but always must be qualified to the relevant context.

Equality is an ideal [thought and expectation] that you are demanding and imposing on reality.
In reality, P is never equal to not-P.
Btw, that 'men' are not the same as 'not-men i.e. women' do not imply one having advantage over the other, it can be either way in relation to specific context.

There is no way you can ever prove P(men) is the same as not-P[women].

Even within men in the context of particular individuals, individual-X [P] is not the same as individual-Y[not-P] whilst both are men.

Are you claiming "you" [P] are the same as 'Skepdick' [not-P]?
Even from the contents of your posts, the difference is already obvious.

[Skepdick]

As I had argued that P is not-P within logic is never absolute but always must be qualified to the relevant context.

Shame. You are stuck in the paradigm of Type-1 languages.

If you are using a Type-0 language context doesn't matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had argued that P is not-P within logic is never absolute but always must be qualified to the relevant context.

Shame. You are stuck in the paradigm of Type-1 languages.

If you are using a Type-0 language context doesn't matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

As usual you are one loose canon that shoot everywhere and always missing the target.

I stated "never absolute" which is precisely there are various types of Grammar, i.e. no absolute grammar.

Therefore whatever "P is not-P" in whatever the Grammar Type, it must be used in the relevant context of reality or nature [not linguistic as you presupposed].

Btw, you have nothing to counter re my latest responses in the previous 3 OPs?

Note, we agreed on various issues, but where we differed or you've raised a counter to my point [trying to be a smart alec, labelling me moron, dumb, idiot, stupid, shameful], you have NEVER once [if not never twice] demonstrated you are right and I am wrong.
As such these tags, moron, dumb, idiot, stupid, shameful, etc. rightly fall back on you.

My smart move is I will NEVER enter into a discussion that I have not done any extensive research and/or know reasonable well, so there is no opportunity for me to be wrong in my posting [with only a few slips and exceptions].

[Skepdick]

As usual you are one loose canon that shoot everywhere and always missing the target.

I stated "never absolute" which is precisely there are various types of Grammar, i.e. no absolute grammar.

Therefore whatever "P is not-P" in whatever the Grammar Type, it must be used in the relevant context of reality or nature [not linguistic as you presupposed].

Idiot. All contexts are linguistic constructs.

Btw, you have nothing to counter re my latest responses in the previous 3 OPs?

Yep. There is nothing to counter. You keep stringing random sentences together thinking you are making arguments.

Note, we agreed on various issues, but where we differed or you've raised a counter to my point [trying to be a smart alec, labelling me moron, dumb, idiot, stupid, shameful], you have NEVER once [if not never twice] demonstrated you are right and I am wrong.


As such these tags, moron, dumb, idiot, stupid, shameful, etc. rightly fall back on you.

My smart move is I will NEVER enter into a discussion that I have not done any extensive research and/or know reasonable well, so there is no opportunity for me to be wrong in my posting [with only a few slips and exceptions].

You are 100% correct.

I am not demonstrating that you are stupid - you are doing it all on your own.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As usual you are one loose canon that shoot everywhere and always missing the target.

I stated "never absolute" which is precisely there are various types of Grammar, i.e. no absolute grammar.

Therefore whatever "P is not-P" in whatever the Grammar Type, it must be used in the relevant context of reality or nature [not linguistic as you presupposed].

Idiot. All contexts are linguistic constructs.

Another loose canon shot.
Do you understand 'linguistic' is a specific context of human nature and reality.

• Linguistics is the scientific study of language.[1] It encompasses the analysis of every aspect of language, as well as the methods for studying and modelling them.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Btw, you have nothing to counter re my latest responses in the previous 3 OPs?

Yep. There is nothing to counter. You keep stringing random sentences together thinking you are making arguments.

Note, we agreed on various issues, but where we differed or you've raised a counter to my point [trying to be a smart alec, labelling me moron, dumb, idiot, stupid, shameful], you have NEVER once [if not never twice] demonstrated you are right and I am wrong.


As such these tags, moron, dumb, idiot, stupid, shameful, etc. rightly fall back on you.

My smart move is I will NEVER enter into a discussion that I have not done any extensive research and/or know reasonable well, so there is no opportunity for me to be wrong in my posting [with only a few slips and exceptions].

You are 100% correct.

I am not demonstrating that you are stupid - you are doing it all on your own.

Blabbering and noises.

[Skepdick]

Another loose canon shot.
Do you understand 'linguistic' is a specific context of human nature and reality.

• Linguistics is the scientific study of language.[1] It encompasses the analysis of every aspect of language, as well as the methods for studying and modelling them.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Idiot. In what context do you philosophise about contextuality?

Blabbering and noises.

Yep. Stop making them. You are embarrasing yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another loose canon shot.
Do you understand 'linguistic' is a specific context of human nature and reality.

• Linguistics is the scientific study of language.[1] It encompasses the analysis of every aspect of language, as well as the methods for studying and modelling them.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Idiot. In what context do you philosophise about contextuality?

Obviously in whatever the meta-philosophical context.

There is no such thing as a thing-in-itself so no contextuality-in-itself, i.e. unconditional context free states.
What the contextuality it is always conditional i.e. never absolutely absolute.

Blabbering and noises.

Yep. Stop making them. You are embarrasing yourself.

What I am stating are facts.

[Skepdick]

Another loose canon shot.
Do you understand 'linguistic' is a specific context of human nature and reality.

• Linguistics is the scientific study of language.[1] It encompasses the analysis of every aspect of language, as well as the methods for studying and modelling them.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Idiot. In what context do you philosophise about contextuality?

Obviously in whatever the meta-philosophical context.

And in what meta-meta-philosophical context do you philosophise about meta-philosophical context?

There is no such thing as a thing-in-itself so no contextuality-in-itself, i.e. unconditional context free states.
What the contextuality it is always conditional i.e. never absolutely absolute.

So what are you talking about when you talk about contexts/contextually? Do you even know?

What I am stating are facts.

No, they are just your interpretations. But you are trying to promote them to facts.

[Eodnhoj7]

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P , are biologically different to women, -P , yet both are equal through their humanity.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

As I had argued that P is not-P within logic is never absolute but always must be qualified to the relevant context.

Equality is an ideal [thought and expectation] that you are demanding and imposing on reality.
In reality, P is never equal to not-P.
Btw, that 'men' are not the same as 'not-men i.e. women' do not imply one having advantage over the other, it can be either way in relation to specific context.

There is no way you can ever prove P(men) is the same as not-P[women].

Even within men in the context of particular individuals, individual-X [P] is not the same as individual-Y[not-P] whilst both are men.

Are you claiming "you" [P] are the same as 'Skepdick' [not-P]?
Even from the contents of your posts, the difference is already obvious.

1. "but always must be qualified to the relevant context" necessitates that there must be absolutely certain contexts with these contexts as absolutes....therefore not all is relative.

2. If equality is an ideal that is imposed on reality, and ideals are part of reality, then equality is part of reality.

3. A square block is equal to a square hole as both unite into 1 and are mirror images of eachother. Both opposites equivocate through a middle phenomenon, in this case the square. The same is men and women as opposites, both are composed of the phenomenon "humanity". The same occurs for two seemingly different phenomenon, a horse and a blade of grass, both equivocate through there same composition as "cells". Two opposites equivocate through a medial phenomenon. Differences equate through a common median which connects said differences. "Individual X" and "Individual Y" equate as both being individuals much in the same manner 2+2 being different from 3+1 but both equivocating through the common median of 4.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P , are biologically different to women, -P , yet both are equal through their humanity.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

As I had argued that P is not-P within logic is never absolute but always must be qualified to the relevant context.

Equality is an ideal [thought and expectation] that you are demanding and imposing on reality.
In reality, P is never equal to not-P.
Btw, that 'men' are not the same as 'not-men i.e. women' do not imply one having advantage over the other, it can be either way in relation to specific context.

There is no way you can ever prove P(men) is the same as not-P[women].

Even within men in the context of particular individuals, individual-X [P] is not the same as individual-Y[not-P] whilst both are men.

Are you claiming "you" [P] are the same as 'Skepdick' [not-P]?
Even from the contents of your posts, the difference is already obvious.

1. "but always must be qualified to the relevant context" necessitates that there must be absolutely certain contexts with these contexts as absolutes....therefore not all is relative.

2. If equality is an ideal that is imposed on reality, and ideals are part of reality, then equality is part of reality.

3. A square block is equal to a square hole as both unite into 1 and are mirror images of eachother. Both opposites equivocate through a middle phenomenon, in this case the square. The same is men and women as opposites, both are composed of the phenomenon "humanity". The same occurs for two seemingly different phenomenon, a horse and a blade of grass, both equivocate through there same composition as "cells". Two opposites equivocate through a medial phenomenon. Differences equate through a common median which connects said differences. "Individual X" and "Individual Y" equate as both being individuals much in the same manner 2+2 being different from 3+1 but both equivocating through the common median of 4.

1. Nope, must in the sense it is inevitable and natural that whatever is realized as real is always conditioned to a specific context but it need not be absolute.
For example, "what is rain" can be realized within the common sense, conventional sense, scientific, quantum, etc. context. There is nothing absolute in such contexts.

2 In that case equality is part of reality within its specific context of the physical, science, justice, social, legal, etc. One cannot being in the term 'equality' along with its context implicitly or explicitly. Btw, are you familiar with Wittgenstein's Language Games.

3. That is not what the LNC is about.
If you reduce everything to stardust, then all things in diversity has a common root.
But that the Sun and Planet Earth originated from are made of stardust do not make them the same in various necessary contexts where the LNC applies.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

As I had argued that P is not-P within logic is never absolute but always must be qualified to the relevant context.

Equality is an ideal [thought and expectation] that you are demanding and imposing on reality.
In reality, P is never equal to not-P.
Btw, that 'men' are not the same as 'not-men i.e. women' do not imply one having advantage over the other, it can be either way in relation to specific context.

There is no way you can ever prove P(men) is the same as not-P[women].

Even within men in the context of particular individuals, individual-X [P] is not the same as individual-Y[not-P] whilst both are men.

Are you claiming "you" [P] are the same as 'Skepdick' [not-P]?
Even from the contents of your posts, the difference is already obvious.

1. "but always must be qualified to the relevant context" necessitates that there must be absolutely certain contexts with these contexts as absolutes....therefore not all is relative.

2. If equality is an ideal that is imposed on reality, and ideals are part of reality, then equality is part of reality.

3. A square block is equal to a square hole as both unite into 1 and are mirror images of eachother. Both opposites equivocate through a middle phenomenon, in this case the square. The same is men and women as opposites, both are composed of the phenomenon "humanity". The same occurs for two seemingly different phenomenon, a horse and a blade of grass, both equivocate through there same composition as "cells". Two opposites equivocate through a medial phenomenon. Differences equate through a common median which connects said differences. "Individual X" and "Individual Y" equate as both being individuals much in the same manner 2+2 being different from 3+1 but both equivocating through the common median of 4.

1. Nope, must in the sense it is inevitable and natural that whatever is realized as real is always conditioned to a specific context but it need not be absolute.
For example, "what is rain" can be realized within the common sense, conventional sense, scientific, quantum, etc. context. There is nothing absolute in such contexts.

2 In that case equality is part of reality within its specific context of the physical, science, justice, social, legal, etc. One cannot being in the term 'equality' along with its context implicitly or explicitly. Btw, are you familiar with Wittgenstein's Language Games.

3. That is not what the LNC is about.
If you reduce everything to stardust, then all things in diversity has a common root.
But that the Sun and Planet Earth originated from are made of stardust do not make them the same in various necessary contexts where the LNC applies.

1. "Because x occurs only through the context of y" necessitates "x occuring only through the context of y" as an absolute.

2. "Meaning is derived from use" is a statement whose "meaning is derived from use". Meaning as use necessitates meaning as absolute given one context is always defined through its use in another context with the relationship of these contexts, through use, always existing considering the nature of relativity underlying everything; ie "use" is constant and unchanging through the universality of relationships thus everything is meaningful.

3. The sun and planet earth both equate as "bodies composed of x". As having a common source seemingly different phenomenon equivocate through having common underlying phenomenon which compose them. For example, again, 2+2=3+1 observes 2+2 and 3+1 as inherently different organizations of sets yet both contain the common element of 4 which allows them to equivocate.

4. +P, a square peg, and -P, a square hole, both necessitate P as the common variable existing across the opposites (ie the "square" in this case). Two opposites equivocate through a middle term.

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

4. +P, a square peg, and -P, a square hole, both necessitate P as the common variable existing across the opposites (ie the "square" in this case). Two opposites equivocate through a middle term.

As I had asserted, in trying to be a smart-alec in this case exposed you as a smart-fool.

A square peg and a square hole are complementary items not contradictions [as defined].

What is contradictory to 'square' is 'round' thus the 'peg' and 'hole' are not critical in this case.

[Eodnhoj7]

....

4. +P, a square peg, and -P, a square hole, both necessitate P as the common variable existing across the opposites (ie the "square" in this case). Two opposites equivocate through a middle term.

As I had asserted, in trying to be a smart-alec in this case exposed you as a smart-fool.

A square peg and a square hole are complementary items not contradictions [as defined].

What is contradictory to 'square' is 'round' thus the 'peg' and 'hole' are not critical in this case.

1. False, the square peg is a substance (P) while the square hole is an absence of substance (-P). A peg and a hole are both opposites much in the same manner men and women are opposites. The peg lacks a hole while the hole lacks material equivalent to a peg.

2. A square and a circle are both loops given their beginning points are the same as their end points. Both the square and the circle equate through the common median of loop, they are complimentary in this sense. They are both shapes as well thus further extending how they are complimentary. A square is not the opposite of a circle as many other forms exist beside the square, the LNC observes opposites.

3. You are ignoring: 1. "Because x occurs only through the context of y" necessitates "x occuring only through the context of y" as an absolute. In arguing for the LNC, as only existing in specific contexts, you are arguing for absolutes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

4. +P, a square peg, and -P, a square hole, both necessitate P as the common variable existing across the opposites (ie the "square" in this case). Two opposites equivocate through a middle term.

As I had asserted, in trying to be a smart-alec in this case exposed you as a smart-fool.

A square peg and a square hole are complementary items not contradictions [as defined].

What is contradictory to 'square' is 'round' thus the 'peg' and 'hole' are not critical in this case.

1. False, the square peg is a substance (P) while the square hole is an absence of substance (-P). A peg and a hole are both opposites much in the same manner men and women are opposites. The peg lacks a hole while the hole lacks material equivalent to a peg.

2. A square and a circle are both loops given their beginning points are the same as their end points. Both the square and the circle equate through the common median of loop, they are complimentary in this sense. They are both shapes as well thus further extending how they are complimentary. A square is not the opposite of a circle as many other forms exist beside the square, the LNC observes opposites.

3. You are ignoring: 1. "Because x occurs only through the context of y" necessitates "x occuring only through the context of y" as an absolute. In arguing for the LNC, as only existing in specific contexts, you are arguing for absolutes.

I am giving a pass to all your attempts to be a smart-alec which is making you a smart-fool re the topic of contradiction, i.e.

• contradiction
  a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
  "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
  a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
  "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
  the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
  "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"