http://www.upc-online.org/phil_veg.html

Karen Davis is the voice of clarity once again.

If the law of noncontradiction is a particular that means there's just one instance of it, at a specific spatio-temporal location. Do you agree with that?

If the law of noncontradiction is a particular that means there's just one instance of it, at a specific spatio-temporal location. Do you agree with that? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't agree. But seeing as we are going to go around in circles and disagree on how things are defined or used, let's just end the convo here. Small re-cap:

I stated that logic, math and ethics all have axioms in which one would accept to move forward with further reasoning. You state that logic and math point to objective facts, while ethics does not. You then stated that "something can't be itself and not itself at the same time." is an objective fact, while I tried to correct you and state that this is an axiom called 'the law of noncontradiction'. You claimed it wasn't the same as the law of noncontradiction, while I claim the two are identical, but just worded trivially different. We then go off on a tangent about how this relates to metaphysics (universals/particulars), in which the discussion becomes even less productive than it was initially.

Side Rebuttal: I could claim that my system of logic has an axiom that states "something CAN be itself and not itself at the same time." - In which I could then claim this is an objective fact, and be in the same position as you are, but on the opposing side.

In conclusion, you can claim anything to be an objective fact, but that does not make it so.

No, I don't agree. — chatterbears

If you don't agree with that then you don't think that the principle/law of noncontradiction is a particular.

I don't want to move on to other stuff (and I especially don't want you to fall back on what's essentially a script for you) until you understand the distinction between particulars and universals or abstracts, because you're not going to understand what I'm saying until you understand that distinction. For example, "You state that logic and math point to objective facts"--I expressly did NOT say that. I said something far more nuanced than that, but you're not going to be able to understand what I said if you don't have a handle on what particulars versus abstracts or universals amounts to.

No worries. Let's just move on and chalk up this discussion as a miscommunication.

It is true that a lot of humans see other species as beneath them. Isn’t it weird that when we go to the butchers, they say fresh ham...not slaughted pig. Beef...not dead cow. Lamb is still called lamb and more than half of us forget it was a baby sheep, and chicken is still called chicken!
YES we are omnivores...but we mainly lean towards vegetarian due to our digestive track, teeth and lack of claws. I personally do eat meat time to time, but what bothers me more is the manner these animals are treated and than “humanely” *cough* killed. So if that’s the case...why can we also eat meat? It’s to do with a time Neanderthals and Homo sapiens co-existed. A time of little to no vegetation lead Homo sapiens to kill animals for food. But the Neanderthals couldn’t catch up. They starved. (Apparently)

Yes. Because we should be living in peace wuth the rest of the world. Especially other sentient beings.

https://youtu.be/ZUsiY8FxoWs