Well, it wasn't an example. It was a question and the answer could not be reached by assuming.
Let me say as well that your definition is wrong. In fact, it makes no sense. What you are saying is that the B side of the statement is irrelevant. If that is the case, we can simply ignore it...
But your A hasn't been shown to be false. I also disagree with your definition of the rule. My understanding is for the statement to be true, the sides must either both be true or both be false. But I could be wrong. Care to share your source?
Actually, it is dependent upon A and B but I am willing to accept your B statement as false. Your A statement, however, could be true or false. I could think of several ways to make it true because you have not defined your terms or made your case for it.
Stephon Ross is a developer of large...
I still disagree. Whether the statement is true or false is dependent upon whether A or B is true or false. You have not established either. Therefore, the truth of the statement itself cannot be determined.
How is it evidence? Have you compared it with other universes? So what are the properties of God that would lead you to consider the universe evidence?
There is no empirical evidence. You can't just point to something and say that is evidence of X. You first have to demonstrate there is a connection between the evidence and X. I can't pick up a bit of sandstone from the ground and claim it is evidence of snakes. In order to demonstrate the...
Right now, the decision to use his own commercial property to host the G-7. A clear violation of the Emoluments Clause and using the powers of his office for personal enrichment.