"Truth is by definition exclusive."The above statement is an axiom. An axiom is a concept that is known to be true by inspection, but is not provable:
(1)self-evident truth or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight no process of reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer;as, the whole is greater than a part.
(2)an established principle in some art or science; a principle received without new proof.
(3)a statement universally accepted as true; a maxim.
Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary;2nd Ed; 1979; Simon & Schuster.
Axioms are the easiest to understand but probably the hardest to deal with in logical, rational thought. There are a number of axioms, of which the First Principles are the most salient in their necessity for supporting rationality. I will deal with only one here, after leading up to it with these observations:
First, the idea that "if it is true, then it is true", "if it exists, then it exists". Followed by "if it is true, then it is not false", "if it exists, then it does not NOT exist". These principles are virtually undeniable - but not provable in either a rational manner, nor an empirical manner. They are necessary, however, if thought is to be rational.
Now for the questionable axiom: "it cannot be partly true, and partly false", "it cannot partly exist, and partly not exist".
Consider that a concept is a single concept, not separable into components. Then that single entity is declared either completely true or completely false; to completely exist or completely not exist. Is this debatable?
In agenda-driven thought, this is a throw-away concept, and is not used if it is not useful. But for truth-driven thought, it is an essential truth. A partially false, single concept or entity is impossible in the same sense that a partially existing entity is impossible. Truth is exclusive; it contains no falseness.
Repeating for emphasis:
Truth is exclusive; it contains no falseness.
So this is a main determiner of truth: does it contain any falseness, or is it intended to prop up an agenda by infiltrating non-truth into the concept? Are the premises true? Is the process valid? Is it a single, premise-based, coherent entity? Or is the conclusion pre-assumed, with premises stacked in support?
In the previous post it is shown that abortion rights are considered axiomatic to some people. These rights cancel out other rights that previously were considered axiomatic, specifically the right to live. So we have two competing axioms, contradicting each other. Which then is the true axiom?
It is your exercise then to decide which "axiom" is the truth, exclusive of all other, contradictory axioms. Let me know what you decide and why.