L'Emmerdeur wrote:Hermit wrote:Stop it please.The situation is as if Galaxian came along claiming he lives on Mars, someone saying there is no evidence he lives on Mars, and then a bunch of people asking the objector what evidence he has that Galaxian does not live on Mars.
I think the basic idea of the analogy is good. However, you've missed a turning (denoted in red below).
1. Galaxian claims he lives on Mars.
2. Another member claims that
Galaxian is lying about living on Mars.
3. Yet another member requests evidence in support of the claim that
Galaxian is lying.
My initial claim was that she FALSELY claimed to be native American. I've already clarified the difference between a falsehood and a lie, and I clarified that she might be stupid enough or deluded enough to really, honestly, truly believe she's native American. However, that idiotic or deluded belief doesn't make it less false.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Galaxian's claim is an affirmative statement for which it is reasonable to request evidence. The claim made by member 2 is also an affirmative statement for which it is reasonable to request evidence. There is a clear difference between the claim above and a claim that there is no evidence that Galaxian lives on Mars. If member 2 is asserting a lie on Galaxian's part, then he must have evidence of the lie, otherwise his claim is baseless and deserves to be challenged.
Part of the evidence that Galaxian doesn't live on Mars is that nobody lives on Mars, or can live on Mars, or has ever been to Mars. In order to believe Galaxian lives on Mars, we'd have to either have a Galaxian with superpowers, or a Galaxian who has greater technological capabilities than the rest of humanity, plus the ability to go undetected by rovers and the Mars orbiters, on a planet that has been continuously studied and mapped for the last 20-odd years.
Whether he's lying depends on subjective intent in addition to falsity. Evidence of intent might be an admission from Galaxian, which presumably we don't have. Or, objective evidence from which to conclude he knows or should know that the claim is false. The absurdity of the claim, coupled with our knowledge of his mental faculties, tends to show that he must know his assertion is false. Also, the fact that our communications with him are regular and uninterrupted for the most part, and without significant delay, tends to show he's nearby, and not millions of miles away on a planet that is sometimes on the other side of the sun from us.
In regards to Warren, her claim is so absurdly stupid, that a law school graduate, and someone smart enough to succeed on the faculty of both UPenn and Harvard Law, must know that she cannot claim to be a Native American based on some family lore and high cheekbones. She is also very "Progressive" and she must know how insulting such a claim is to Native Americans, who to her are supposed to be a marginalized group whose identity should not be coopted by White Anglo Saxons who have no real evidence that they are in fact any part of that group.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
In regards to Warren, she has evidence that Indians were among her ancestors.
If you consider family lore that has never been verified or corroborated "proof" and the racist claim that high cheekbones make her Native American, well, then that's your standard of evidence.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
I acknowledge that the evidence is rather weak,
Is "rather weak" a euphemism for "bullshit?"
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
but that doesn't negate its existence.
The proof of the claim is that she claims that someone who had no personal knowledge of a fact was told by someone else that some ancestor was native American. Oh, and you know how "they" all have high cheekbones, well so do we in our family. That's the proof whose existence is not negated. Generational hearsay within hearsay, reported by people without personal knowledge of the alleged facts, and claim to debunked racial morphology theory. I have a big dick, so I must have some African DNA.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.
It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
And you have the temerity to accuse others of acting embarrassingly.
