statements

It seems misleading to say that intuitionistic logic assigns statements to one of the two values, True or False.

The question here is whether these statements about how life balances against resources are self-consistent or not.

Looking forward to see what the SN-ratio of all these strong statements is!

You would rather they make statements with a neutral tone, promising nothing?

I do agree with both of these statements which is why I try to level up on a constant basis.

If there were any statistics available to back these statements up, don't you think the far right would be trumpeting them for all they're worth?

That is, we start by assigning statements one of the two values ‘True‘ and ’False’.

He implied his involvement in this stuff in his own statements.

I remember having struggled with For statements when I was using basic and I really appreciate them way later in life.

I have no idea where you got this from but your statements don't follow any form of logic I'm familiar with.

I call the rules of reasoning, that is the rules of manipulation of statements including their lexicon, syntax and semantic, a logic.

In fairness, that's not all that different from prepared statements...

Just like you might define computable real numbers, you may similarly describe the "definable" real numbers, that is, those numbers which are uniquely specified by logical statements.

Statements like "a formal agreement between two or more parties" are of little use to someone starting from ground zero.

We know that there are statements that can neither be proved nor disproved, so we cannot make use of the law of excluded middle "a statement is true or it is not".

Whether or not you come out and say those statements (and many of your "traditionalist" colleagues are not afraid to say them outright), all of those statements are clearly implied and wildly hurtful to homosexual individuals, and their friends and family.