No where in my post did I use the word relativism. Nowhere did I suggest the "laws" (that's just a word we use to describe a useful convention) of logic are just opinions or that every opinion is equally as valid as any other.

I'm sorry my post was so poorly written to imply I support relativism as you're describing it. I've been a programmer for over 20 years. Code either works or it doesn't. As with logic, there's no room for relativistic, subjective opinions when it comes to code that works and code that doesn't. I've also seen code break because the "laws" were broken due to something like a buffer overflow or some other hack which was previously undiscovered. This shows the "laws" really were just super useful conventions and sometimes those conventions need to be updated with a patch to the language.

There are many different forms of logic, used for different purposes at different times. Again, useful conventions. This is why epistemology is so critically important. If someone thinks tea-leave reading is just as valid an epistemology as logic, reason, evidence, skepticism, and the scientific method then we can demonstrate how poorly their method predicts future events and corresponds to our observed reality. All truth claims and epistemologies are not equally valid and we can demonstrate this using conventions which work without having to claim those conventions are the ultimate, supreme, unchanging Truth.