Nigel Farage

“We don’t want that flag, we don’t want the anthem, we don’t want this political class. We want the whole thing consigned to the dustbin of history.”

“Just who the hell do you think you people are? You are very, very dangerous people indeed. Your obsession with creating this Euro-State means that you’re happy to destroy democracy. You appear to be happy for millions and millions of people to be unemployed and to be poor. Untold millions must suffer so that your Euro-Dream can continue.”

"If you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with are nationalism and violence."

I'm admittedly a bit surprised that this is coming from the Brits. They are though, for the moment, one of the few remaining European countries with a sense of national pride.

Here's the story:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-viral-anti-euro-rant-signal-rise-of-british-tea-party/

Thoughts on DADT (Part 2)

I wanted this to be a separate post because the first one was much longer than expected.

Hoping you read Part 1, and before you go assuming I'm a right wing bigot, please keep in mind that I read the Huffington Post just as often as I do the Wall Street Journal or FoxNews.com. I bring this up because I came across an interesting op-ed piece written by a 20 year Army vet and political science professor at the University of Delaware.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/its-the-military-stupid-d_b_790401.html

I agree with the bottom line of the first half. The military does break you down to build you up. Individuality is temporarily lost so that team unity may be found. This fundamental change in thought process is what separates the military from civilian worlds and gives a base-line credibility to all military members in the service. After all, if we weren't taught to place our needs second to those of the mission and our units, what 'service' would we be affording anyone?

I'd like to give you my thoughts on his last three paragraphs, mainly because I believe he uses good points to argue for something of no relation. It'd be like my telling you that pineapples are healthy, and therefor you should not read romance novels. There's an invalid or non-existent connection.



1. "Military personnel also promise to protect and defend the country and the constitution, to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" country and constitution, and to follow the orders of the president. This oath matters, and each and every service member should be reminded of their promise. That's all it will take to deal with the issue of gays in the military."

--- This is true. We have sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." Our allegiance is not to a political faction, not to a doctrine, not to a man, and certainly not to a social agenda or someone's views on "fairness" and "rights" unless said rights are spelled out in the Constitution. And guess what? Homosexuality, and homosexual discrimination, are not mentioned in the Constitution. This means any stance members of the military have on the issue are not in conflict with constitutional principles; and those principles, and that document, that are the sole recipient of our allegiance. I don't see this reminder is the answer to the DADT issue. Our dedication to the founding document will not, AT ALL, make people suddenly support homosexuality. I don't know what Mr. Wilson was thinking when he wrote this paragraph.



2. "On a final note, it is dangerous to make military personnel policy based on the opinions of the personnel themselves. Certainly, the military would not have been racially desegregated if internal opinion drove policy, and the same can be said about women and religious minorities. There are already silent policy debates about disabled persons (e.g. combat amputees) being able to serve, and with the Dream Act at the forefront of the political agenda, citizenship will come next."


--- This is a point I could not disagree with more. The military is an all volunteer organization. If it weren't, I'd be speaking out against DADT; but it's not. How can Mr. Wilson believe that it's unfair to honor the wishes and opinions of the people who comprise a voluntary body of individuals? Racial desegregation was an order from the President, but it was also tied to Constitutional rights. The same thing is said for both women in the service and religious minorities (which we've always had, by the way). The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religious beliefs and practices, so religious minorities are covered. Discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, and gender are covered under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1964, and 1991. Black acceptance into the military was guaranteed under the 13th and 14th Amendment as black Americans were full fledged citizens. It was integration that was a social issue, not acceptance (see DADT Part 1). The points Mr. Wilson is making here don't equate to the homosexual issue and are irrelevant. And if you want to see what military members think of the Dream Act, read their opinions here. The act deals with non-citizens, who wouldn't be protected under the Constitution per the 13th Amendment because they're, well...not citizens.



3. "If there is one institution that should reflect the composition of the United States, it is the military. Give service members the respect they deserve; the majority of us are tolerant, understanding, dedicated, and will faithfully follow the orders of the president."


--- No. No no no no no no no. The military should not be forced to reflect the composition of the United States. The military should reflect the composition of the people who serve. I am completely, 100% against affirmative action in the military (and in general) because it is racist. It gives advantages to people who are not of the majority, and this is unfair.  It is not the place of the military to be a petri dish for social change agendas proposed by civilians outside the chain of command, nor should the military be strong armed into "reflecting" the kind of harmonious society people think we have. Besides, if you're not in the service, and especially if you haven't served, who are you to tell our finest men and women how to do their job?


Yes, by all means, give them the respect they deserve. Listen to the opposition. Don't blind and mute the answers you don't want. Think the military is chomping at the bit to allow open homosexuality? Think again. 60% of marines and 50% of soldiers deployed think that openly allowing homosexuality will hinder their performance and negatively impact the mission. A negative mission impact has been one of the things that the gay activists have dismissed as fantasy. Yet here we have, from the colloquial horse's mouth, the views of the people who are the ones actively doing the mission. But no- don't listen to the people who are doing the mission as to what will or won't affect accomplishing said mission. Who wants to hear from CEO's how to run a company or from farmers how to grow crops? 


On a side not, why do all services have to be equal? Each one has different standards for height, weight, hair, dress, appearance, etc. Why can't the Marines make their own policy? Why do all services have to follow a one-size-fits-all policy? What ever happened to "diversity"? Why can't we "tolerate" each service's different viewpoints?


I completely agree with what Rick Santorum said. As someone currently serving, I can attest first hand that political correctness is reigning supreme (see DADT Part 1). Though we don't currently accept homosexuality, speaking out against it is verboten and supporting it earns silent acceptance and approval. People who are against homosexuality (for whatever reason) are often seen as bigoted, backwards, old fashioned, and wrong. People who are for it are seen as struggling pioneers for oppressed minority rights. It's hard NOT to be against homosexuality these days because you're pressured from without and within to accept it. 


Now, do I think DADT should be repealed? Yes, but not yet. I say 'yet' because contrary to what so many people believe, the country is nowhere near unified on the "gay rights" issue. And unlike in 1948, when it wasn't too happy about accepting black people openly, we have no congressional law and no Constitutional amendments making homosexual equality mandatory. Perhaps in the future, when the balance of opinion swings far enough left, we will repeal.


I say 'not' because we, the military, are worn down. We're fighting anti-drug wars in South America. We're fighting PR wars in Europe and Japan. We're fighting posturing wars in the Korean peninsula and with Iran. We're fighting a security war in Iraq and and internal conflict war in Afghanistan. We're fighting the war for deterrence under the ocean and in our silos. We're fighting the war against time as our technological advances slow and our equipment crumbles. And, perhaps soon, we'll be fighting a border protection war with Mexican drug empires. 

As a nation, we're fighting each other over taxes, policies, and politics. Our deficit is climbing, and we're nearing bankruptcy. Our unemployment is steadily going up while our government strikes out against the very businesses that power our economic engine. We're hurting, and the pain doesn't look to decrease soon.

As a military, we're juggling too many things at once. Our acquisition system is a festering sore that bleeds us out. We're downsizing, correcting, posturing, trying...and we're valiantly holding our own. With so many other problems that affect so many other people in America, I say now is not the time to fight over DADT. Are we really that hamstrung by the disapproval of homosexual lifestyle that we warrant losing a system which, for now, works? 

The Air Force core values are Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do. This fight over DADT goes against the second value as people place their self interests ahead of the bigger picture. Those who say "I'm queer, and I'm here; I'm gay, you can't make me go away" are putting Self before Service. Today is the perfect day for the military to calmly and capably keep doing the dangerous and thankless mission entrusted to it. Today is not the day for a bloody battle over the social agenda engineered to benefit the selves of a few.

Like Cogsworth said: "If it's not Baroque, don't fix it." 

3 Points About DADT (Part 1)

We’ve all heard the debate points over DADT. “People will refuse to re-enlist or will resign commissions.” “America is ready for the change.” “Allowing open homosexuality in the ranks will case order and discipline problems.” “Gay Americans have rights.”

All the clichéd and nonsensical arguments aside (especially that last one), I’ve come across three arguments against DADT that I haven’t heard before. As with the issue of gay marriage, I’m going to list the points and then give you a bit of my opinion. I’m going to forgo the moral/ethical/religious angles and focus on logic, law, precedent, and experience.

If you’re reading this, and disagree (at all) or agree (at all) or have anything to say (at all), please feel free to comment. One of the reasons I write is so that I can force myself to learn about new topics and examine both sides of an issue. If I don’t know what you’re thinking, or you don’t give me either feedback or new points to consider, I’m probably going to keep on writing slightly leaning towards my own opinions…and reading  the gist of my own thoughts can get quite old.

1.   DADT repeal and black integration are non-comparable.

Q: So what’s the issue?

A: Logic

Just like with gay marriage, you can’t compare integrating homosexuality with desegregation. Why?  They’re two different things. First, sex is more often a stronger self identifier than race. Do you make more decisions during the day (which type of deodorant to buy, what movies to watch, what magazines to read) because you’re a man or a woman or because you’re white or black? Second, the nation was at peace and relatively unified after WW2. Racial integration happened in 1948, and the Korean war didn’t start until the summer  of 1950. Finally, and this is the most important point, black and white units already existed and fought side by side. No, they weren’t fully integrated, but there were open, transparent, legal all black units. We don’t have legal, open, all homosexual units today; and, because of this difference, it’s important to note that in 1948 blacks were already officially accepted into the Armed Forces. You can’t make the comparison between repealing DADT and integrating black units because the military currently doesn’t accept open homosexuals or allow open homosexuality. If you want a more accurate comparison, you would have to say that repealing DADT is just like accepting the first black man into the military…but I haven’t heard anyone make that point yet.

2. DADT repeal will bring about discrimination…in favor of homosexuals.

Q: So what’s the issue?

A: Fairness, political correctness

This is where experience comes in, and I have two stories for you.

The first one is from the military college I attended. The college is divided into 40 groups of 100-120 students, and each semester a new student is selected to be the commander. Keep in mind that while my school did have many people of many ethnic, religious, and geographic backgrounds (as well as international students from almost every continent), demographically it was approx. 80% male. During the first semester of my senior year, a few students made their candidacy for commander known to our officer in charge (who was not a student). He weighed each applicant’s merits, interviewed them, and chose the one he thought was best suited to lead. Our squadron had 4 or 5 men apply for the job. One of them, a superb candidate, was prior enlisted, a technical major, well liked, and incredibly proficient. After all groups had chosen commanders, the results were submitted to the school leadership. Through fate and happenstance, every single commander chosen was male. Remembering the demographics, and noting that several groups did not have any women applying for the position, this was not very surprising. What was surprising was leaderships reaction. The situation was deemed unacceptable, and several groups were forced to choose commanders who weren’t male (and in some cases, who weren’t male OR white). We ended up with a commander who, though very smart, was more academic than military and nowhere near as qualified to lead. Not wanting to repeat the situation, our commanding officer gave the next semester’s command position to the girl’s roommate (who was also more academic than military) over another prior enlisted cadet.

The second story comes almost two years later. We were required to complete an online training course, “Homosexual Awareness Policy”, as part of our job. Our break room has inboxes to deposit certificates of completion when finished. During a commander’s call, it was brought up that someone had scratched out the word “-sexual” on the inbox label so that it now read “Homo Awareness Training”. Our commanding officer was very upset, commenting on this individuals unprofessional behavior and the fact that there is a zero tolerance policy for this kind of “discrimination”. I found it odd that someone would complain (remembering that Bert from Sesame Street tweeted a while back that his mohawk was more “mo” than “hawk”, or more frizzy than awesome, and members of the gay community reacted with excited appreciation…apparently “mo” is gay short slang for “homo”, which is a self identifying term)- but what I found more puzzling was that we were being told that we were expected to respect something that our official policy doesn’t condone. Imagine being told to respect capital punishment if your state doesn’t allow it. Does that make any sense?

People on the left tell me all the time that repealing DADT will ease gays’ fears of discrimination, and people on the right say that open homosexuality could breed even more angst as people could discriminate against gays more openly. But no one’s ever mentioned how discrimination AGAINST people who think open homosexuality is wrong will become the standard, and how favoritism for people who are gay will increase. The first time I heard of Gen. Chappie James wasn’t in a discussion about awesome fighter pilots, but in a speech about first black (fill in the blanks). People were more excited about his position of the first black General than his accomplishments. Ever heard of Nicole Malachowski? If you have, it wasn’t because she’s a competent pilot- it was because she’s the first female thunderbird pilot. People will get promoted due to their orientation (the first gay admiral, the first gay brigade commander, the first gay special operations colonel) and people will be discriminated against because of their views on orientation. Speaking of spec ops, since women aren’t allowed, will gay men be? The marines have a problem with open homosexuality in close quarters living because unlike other services marines bunk two-to-a-room for unit cohesion and the buddy system security. Imagine 7 guys dropped behind foreign lines for months with no-one but their own team to rely on, and 2 or even 4 of the men are gay. How would that affect unit mission? (Please don’t tell me “It shouldn’t!” We’re dealing in hypothetical realisms here, not hypothetical idealisms. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are people too. Sometimes being from rival schools causes small amounts of unit friction.)

And, since discrimination against people who aren’t pro-gay will happen, what of chaplains? Chaplains have three hats: one for members of their own faith (where they act as clergy), one for members of other faiths (where they act as facilitators, stand ins, and middle men so military members can eventually get what they need), and confidential counselors for people seeking non-religious help. If a man comes to a chaplain, priest, or rabbi with marital problems, and the chaplain, priest, or rabbi finds out it’s marital problems with another man, what’s the chaplain to do? Should the priest council a man who’s committing what the priest believes to be a grave sin? Surely he can’t say “Go and sin no more”, as Jesus would, because that would be anti-homosexual discrimination. And since chaplains are paid by the military to practice religion, supporting the thousands and thousands of believers in uniform, should chaplains be asked to violate their conscience to support DoD sexual policy?

3. DADT repeal could cause interstate legal issues.

Q: So what’s the issue?

A: State vs Federal law

One of the benefits of being in the military is health and legal care. Despite what they may tell you, health care is not free. We do pay for it. It's also the closest thing to socialized medicine in the US (which is another story). When a military member joins the force, his or her dependents (read: spouse and/or children) are enrolled in Tricare (military health company). This allows dependents and members to receive treatment or care when necessary at various military installations around the globe.  The key factor here is the dependency status. Without it, members would not be able to PCS (move) from base to base or station to station with their families. Dependency status gives spouses and children legal rights (ie, visitation in hospital, inheritability, tax filing purposes, etc) that any other married couple or person with children would normally have. The key word here is normally, and it's important because if DADT is repealed, the military would have to then tackle the issue of gay dependency.  

Repealing DADT will show that the DoD supports homosexuality and, as by product, gay "rights". The second most hotly contested issue at the moment is gay marriage. If the DoD were to open the ranks to homosexuals without caveat it would be faced with the issue of preexisting homosexual marriages. Since the federal government does not recognize a non male-female union as a valid marriage, the DoD's stance on the issue becomes a problem. This leaves the Department with two options. It could either not recognize any existing gay "spouses" as DoD dependents (this would result in a multitude of discrimination lawsuits against the Department) or it could honor the State laws on marriage, but only within the state. This, however, would be illegal as the higher governing body (the US Federal Government) does not recognize homosexual marriages... and the DoD cannot, and should not, go against higher standing federal statutes.

Of course, should DADT fade away, gay rights activists would use it as a stepping stone and valid excuse for national recognition of gay marriage. "Gay servicemen and women are no longer separate and unequal, but they are most certainly still unequal" these activists would say. Because gay men and women in uniform are not allowed to have same-sex spouses while serving, they would be used as an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation; and, since this is the exact type of discrimination that would be banned with the loss of DADT, recognition of homosexual marriage by the federal government would be the second and last step towards complete anti-discrimination. Once the federal government recognizes homosexual marriage for DoD purposes, pro-gay activists could use this as a basis for overturning both a State's right to decide the issue for itself and the DOMA.

Say a married gay man from Massachusetts or Iowa were to enlist, and was stationed in Texas after basic training. Under MA state law, he has a husband. Under Texas state law, he doesn't. Under Federal Law, per DOMA, gay marriage is officially neither recognized nor supported by the federal government. Per the 10th Amendment, gay marriage is Constitutionally a  States' rights issue by default because it is not an issue delegated to the federal government. What does this mean? This means that per both Constitution and federal law, the States have final say over who and isn't married within their borders. 

Section 2 of Public Law 104-199 states that:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

This means that no State is required to respect the homosexual marriage of another State if it doesn't want to. So what? you might ask. Military bases are DoD installations. The issue would be a base one, not a State one. Perhaps, but care is sometimes required off base. If a gay man's husband needed major surgery in downtown Huston, he would not be considered a spouse in the state. The military would essentially be paying for a servicemember's male "partner" to undergo surgery, not a servicemember's spouse. This also raises the question of whether or not the DoD is going against federal policy since the federal government of the United States does not recognize homosexual marriage. Who would have the upper hand here? States, and their rights of definition? The federal government, in it's non-acceptance of gay marriage? The DoD, in it's requirement to fully accept homosexuality?

Obviously these are questions that will present themselves, in some form or fashion, as the issue continues. In Part 2 I'll share a link or two and a few of my own thoughts on the issue. 

Liar's Paradox

This is a Facebook conversation a friend of mine and I had about the Liar's Paradox.

Let's assume False is 0 and True is 1

Pat's point in the discussion is that if the sentence is true, then it must be false- and then, because it is then false, it is not true. This creates an endless logical spiral where the sentence = 0 and that situation = 1, thereby making the sentence = 1 and the situation now equaling 0, which means the sentence = 0...throwing us into a clear paradox.

My point is that because we have no actual "thing" to judge as true or false to begin with, we have no paradox at all. If you turn the phrase into an equation, we don't have a simple x = y like "sun = hot". If we assumed (this sentence) = (false) is our equation, we must ask ourselves "what is 'this sentence' "? The answer is the four words "this sentence is false". Therefore, (this sentence is false) = (false), which means
((this sentence is false) is false) = (false). This can, and will, go on indefinitely. If you used the words "this sentence" (negating what sentence exactly is being discussed) as X, then we have (X(n+1) = 0) = 0, or
0 = 0- which is no paradox at all.

BUT, in order to have an illogical conclusion to logical reasoning, we must have a logical item of comparison; and reflexive sentences can be tricky. If I said "This sentence is English", we have points for validity; we have English (Latin) letters, English words, English syntax, English sounds, etc. But if I said to you "This sentence is true", what points do we have for validity? For "this sentence" is indeed "this sentence is true" therefore making "this sentence is true" true. We have no "thing" in the sentence, or referred to us BY the sentence, to make true or false. And because we have no basis in our quest for validity, we have no logical quest at all...

...and therefore no paradox.

But don't take my word for it. Enjoy!

Pat- must.. resist.. liar's paradox...

Me- everything i say is a lie?

Pat- something like that, yes

Me- this sentence is false?

Pat- indeed

Me- hhmm

is that even a legitimate sentence?

architecturally, not grammatically

Pat- not sure what you mean by "architecturally"

Me- it's grammatically correct

subject, verb, object

but "this sentence" = "false"

assuming you have true or false, it's a binary subject

1 or 0

so "this sentence" = 0

but "this sentence" can't be "x" by itself

no x = 0

because x (the sentence) encompasses 0

if 0 = false, and 1 = true, then the paradox basically says 0 = 1

and since "this sentence" is both a subject AND a qualifier, can you really have a sentence?

besides...there's no subject being verified

it's not like you're saying "all i say are lies"

but i suppose that's why it's paradoxical

Pat- you have successfully demonstrated that it is a paradox

I'm not sure why it wouldn't qualify as a sentence

Me- if i said "every word i say is a lie" we have something to judge

ie, the words i say

"my words" = "lies"

but with the liar's paradox we don't have that

"this sentence" = "false"

but "this sentence" is nothing. there's no substance here to test for validity

it's not like "my words".

BUT

if you take the string of words "this sentence is false" as what the sentence IS

then the paradox becomes hollow

Pat- hollow?

Me- i can't really think of a good term...

um...

not real? it's not really paradoxical because there's no substance to deal with initially?

i'm seeing it as a mathematical sentence

Pat- so "this sentence is grammatically correct" is not a sentence either?

Me- if you look at the word "sentence" as a stand alone non-variable, then TECHNICALLY it is correct

because "is" qualifies as a verb so long as you have an object to compare the subject too

but because "this sentence" conceptually encompasses every word from capitalization to punctuation, it's hard to make  

qualifier statements

Pat- it seems as though you are suggesting that we cannot talk about sentences

Me- this is, of course, unless you're saying "this sentence" with regards to ANOTHER sentence being examined

Pat- so is it the reflexive nature of it that is the problem?

Me- that's what i'm seeing

i see no "x"

it's more "x = 0" = "0"

but if that's the case then logically we have a 1

for if the sentence is false, then we have a truth

Pat- that is what a paradox is

Me- but we have no substance to make false to begin with

Pat- sure we do

Me- ?

Pat- unless you are suggesting that sentences can't be true or false

Me- ...something i never said

Pat- I didn't think you had

thus "unless"

Me- haha

Pat- but if sentences can be true or false, then that sentence can be true or false

it certainly seems to be making a truth claim

Me- but what have we to prove true?

"this sentence is false" is the sentence itself

Pat- yes

Me- so those four words must be false

and i can't parsel out a variable

so "this sentence is false" = "false" because "this sentence" = "this sentence is false"

Pat- yes

you're essentially demonstrating that it is a paradox. but I don't think that demonstrates your asserted solution

Me- your view of paradox lies in the 1 or 0 argument

mine lies in the fact that there is nothing concrete to be proven either true or false

because every time you try to make "this sentence" into an X, you have to take into account the entire line

Pat- are you asserting that reflexive statements never are true or false?

Me- no

hold on...

you could say "this sentence is not a latin sentence"

and that would be correct

because you would have substance for comparison (ie, the language in which it was written)

but to make an assertion about a sentence that has no real conceptual material FOR comparison makes the comparison  

invalid

besides, assuming we don't use the X(n+1) for every time we use "this sentence"...

"this sentence is false" = "false"
"x = 0" = "0"
"0" = "0"

is true

and 0 = 0 being true does not invalidate either 0 or (x = 0)=0 because they've just been proven to be equal

Pat- invalidate?

Me- "this sentence is not latin"
"this sentence" = "not latin"

this is a valid comparison because we have something to compare

ie, english to latin

"this sentence is not true"
"this sentence"= "not true"

this is an invalid comparison because we have nothing to validate

because "this sentence" encompasses its own validity

in the latin case, the sentence encompassed its own language (so to speak)

in order to prove a truth true, you must have some item or thought or fact to prove true

"this sentence is false" has no "thing" to prove false

the only "thing" we have is false

and false = false is no paradox

Pat- would you agree that "this sentence is true" is neither true nor false?

Me- yes- for, inversely, we have nothing to validate. the problem with the paradox is that we're attempting to compare or  

validate something, and our logical conclusion is an illogical one

my point is that we have nothing to compare or validate to begin with, and therefore cannot have a paradox

Pat- but sentences Are things. if "this sentence is in english" is both a sentence and true, then it is not immediately obvious to  

me that "this sentence is true" is not both of those things as well.

Me- yes- sentences are things. i agree with that.

but the english example gives us something to work with- we have an agreeable example of english writing. it's something  

that can be agreed upon outside of the concept of the sentence itself.

Pat- we don't have an agreeable concept of truth?

11:46pm

Me- we do, but truth is not as concrete as english

let's ignore pidgin and L337 and all that for now

if i asked you "why is the sentence english?" you'll point out that the words are in english, and the structure is english, and  

the letters are latin

but if i asked you "why is the sentence false?", what would you tell me?

what points in or about or of the sentence do we have to judge as false?

we don't. we have no points.

the only point we could have, in a way, is an equation to falsehood

thus the x = 0 argument i made earlier

and if x = 0 = 0, then 0 = 0

and that is true

but 0 being 0 isn't really a paradox

Pat- so, at base, you are asserting that "this sentence is true" or "this sentence is false" do not actually have truth values

yes?

Me- yes, but because it has no values to begin with

i'm disputing existence, not validity

or rather the inability to determine validity on the basis on non-existent values for comparison

Pat- those are different things. are you making an epistemic or an ontologic claim?

Me- i don't know- let me pull out my dictionary here...

nm. give me the cliff's notes.

Pat- are you making a claim about what we can know, or about what is?

Me- what is, in that the sentence "is" not one containing material for validity

i suppose we "can know" what is false but only if we have some"thing" to prove false

"this sentence is false" gives us no"thing" except the term "false"

Pat- if we substitute the variables in your equation, does the outcome differ? where true = 0 and false = 1?

Me- it shouldn't

Pat- what would it look like?

Me- this sentence is false

this sentence = 1

(this sentence = 1) = 1

(X(n+1) = 1) = 1

or, not using X, 1 =1

Pat- what is N?

Me- the sentence itself

every time you use the term "this sentence" you have to use all four words

Pat- and X is?

Me- the words "this sentence"

so ((this sentence is false) is false) = false

it's not a big n as in X(n+1) = Xn + X

it's supposed to be a subscript n+1

to show that everytime you use the phrase "this sentence" you must muse the words "this sentence is false"

since "this sentence" is what we're declaring is false

Pat- gotcha

assuming that the sentence is true, you derive that it is false

(at least, I am pretty sure that is an accurate summary of what you've done)

Me- lol

sounds about right

been a long time since i've done math

Pat- it's akin to symbolic logic, which I haven't done in a while I think you've taken a more convoluted route than  

is necessary, but that's ok

if you assume that the sentence is false, what would your equation look like?

Me- what do you mean?

as in false is 0?

12:32am

Pat- no. however you set your variables, you've assumed the truth of the statement (that the statement is in fact  

false), and derived not not false -> true.