If we have A that is and isn’t alongside B that is and isn’t then are either A or B true or false? — I like sushi

this is incoherent, what does this even mean? you need to be more concise in your language, you have a very noticeable problem with clarity. you’re sounding like a muggle.

I am saying that A and B are absurd, not false. They cannot have truth value nor be regarded in an ontological or epistemic sense.

I’m sure you’ll disagree, but I hope you don’t?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What? A and B are absurdities. They cannot be true, false, not true or not false.

A is A, is, A is not A.

B is B, is, B is not B.

The trick of the mystic playing with logic is to run two absurdities parallel to make them appear like legit axioms that can be taken seriously.

Can you give an example of a parallel to your A,B,B,A example from this forums recent dubious claims?
Lets just speak plainly about your issue.

Lets just speak plainly about your issue. — DingoJones

I love plain speech. But it is blood in the water for the language Nazis.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I’m simply saying that A is not A necessarily leads to absurdity. If the propositions set out are inherently meaningless they don’t have any use.

Much like saying “the yellow banana is blue”. The difference in pure logic being that we’re not attaching our ideas directly to concrete objects. I am saying the phrase, regardless of what is it, is useless if people say it is contrary. The phrase above (banana) has semantic weight, but when we say “p” or “q” we’re not addressing the meaning directly, and if we’re saying some given phrase is and isn’t we’re not saying anything applicable to truth values. If there is no truth value there is no ontological or epistemic distinction.

I was asking about whether a person opposed this or not. They didn’t answer. The point was to see how far off track they are and whether or not they are worth engaging with - if they oppose what I’ve said then I’d like to see how they can (they cannot and no one can as far as any sane person can tell).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Absurdity is basically related to impossibility. Claiming the impossible e.g. a contradiction is absurd. Attempting the impossible e.g. searching for the meaning of life where there's none is absurd. While it's considered a vice in logic I think absurdity is an important aspect of human endeavor - planes, radio, tv, space exploration were all absurd at one point in time

My point was more about setting up propositions that refuse analysis. That is pretending that A is not A as a genuine claim and calling such p so it cannot be directly seen as utterly absurd.

I can then say p OR not p, but the point is hidden within the statement it says something is and isn’t. Regarding only the p as important is ignoring what is within (the issue of inference).

If I understand you correctly you're referring to hidden contradictions so deeply embedded that it's difficult to detect.

My point was more about setting up propositions that refuse analysis — I like sushi

If you can set up a proposition that refuse analysis, it means that your logic is wrong. The purpose of logic (the reason it was created) is to rule out all propositions that refuse analysis