I am actually not being vague.
““Simply put, if A is both true and false, at the same time and in the same place, then truth values, as used in classical logic, have no meaning, so anything goes.”
This is what you mean when you say anything follows from a contradiction, right?”
Yes.
“It starts with “if A is both true and false,” it starts with an “if”. That’s key. That “if,” though…for his argument to work, we have to assume that that “if” is valid, that A is both true and false. If A is NOT both true and false simultaneously, then everything that you said after doesn’t stand. The “anything goes” doesn’t stand. You see? That’s what I’m saying.”
Yeah…the problem is that neither of you know the vocabulary of logic, which is what is causing the confusion. I don’t know what it means for an “if” to be “valid”. I think you’re trying to say that the antecedent is true in “If A is both true and false, then every statement is true”, but I’m not sure. What actually happens is this - if A can be both true and false, then truth values mean nothing - every statement is true, and every statement is false, as you wish.
What I think browser may also be doing is trying to make a claim about (Googling…) dialetheism, which is an entire ‘nother can o’ worms.