Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco your ability to reason, or even think is being polluted by ideology.


She pretended to be the real deal, writing Cherokee cook books saying the recipies had been handed down for generations when they were simply stolen from a French cookbook, listed herself as the only minority female staff at Harvard, and other blatant lies. She is a poser.

Less native in her than the average American.

---

. Show me where she "pretended." Who is to say the recipes weren't handed down. Do you have proof? Nope

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco your ability to reason, or even think is being polluted by ideology.


She pretended to be the real deal, writing Cherokee cook books saying the recipies had been handed down for generations when they were simply stolen from a French cookbook, listed herself as the only minority female staff at Harvard, and other blatant lies. She is a poser.

Less native in her than the average American.

---

. Show me where she "pretended." Who is to say the recipes weren't handed down. Do you have proof? Nope

---

She marketed herself as the first "woman of color" professor in Harvard history.

Making you look stupid isn't even any fun anymore, it's just sad.

---

Her recipe is a landmark discovery in Cherokee history, as it documents that Oklahoma Cherokees managed to continue to source crab meat for their omelets long after the Trail of Tears.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco your ability to reason, or even think is being polluted by ideology.


She pretended to be the real deal, writing Cherokee cook books saying the recipies had been handed down for generations when they were simply stolen from a French cookbook, listed herself as the only minority female staff at Harvard, and other blatant lies. She is a poser.

Less native in her than the average American.

---

. Show me where she "pretended." Who is to say the recipes weren't handed down. Do you have proof? Nope

---

She marketed herself as the first "woman of color" professor in Harvard history.

---

She was, except the "color" was somewhere between ecru and beige.

Waco1947 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Appeal to ridicule is a type of appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy which seeks to instill a particular emotion in the readers rathole than address the intended issue. The appeal to ridicule, which is also called reductio ad ridiculum, or more strangely the Horse laugh. That name is ridiculous, as this fallacy has nothing in common with horses (who spend most of their time grazing in the pastures and don't give two dumps about debating,) and any laugh one may get is a sort of fabricated Schadenfreude that has been engineered solely to make your target look like an idiot. The biggest difference from humor/satire is that humor is funny, and while appealing to ridicule is funny for those who oppose the targeted opinion/group, it makes those guilty look like dickholes. The formula goes like this:
* I don't agree with X.
* Therefore, X is stupid and deserves my mockery and ridicule
* Oh I know! I think I'll make an entire website that ridicules X and calls adherents of X a bunch of nasty names for everyone who agrees with me to laugh at to make themselves feel powerful! That's definitely the most rationalthing to do.
This can be a difficult fallacy to avoid, as some people are clearly very uninformed, and pointing out their stupidity is a very tempting thing.


* 1 Who uses this?
Everyone. Because face it, it's fun to laugh at people you don't like. I'll show them I'm a smarter person than them with my blunt honesty and delightfully cruel wit! Anyone with half a brain will laugh, it'll be a very swell time!

---

Objection, non-responsive. If you are going to blanket threads with logic lessons, at least try to apply them correctly.

---

. Yep, right logic lesson. Take look at how so many make fun of the test. They are following their leader. It's beyond sad it's shreds debates standards.

---

Still not how the logical fallacy goes. No one is "making fun of the test" rather the results. By addressing the results, the issue is being addressed. That you do not like the tone or the conclusion drawn based on the test results does not a logic issue make.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

And she actually embraces it....

---

"Our Heritage"??

So a trace from some long ago ancestor, a possible trace, is now Heritage.


What a looney bin, all these tests prove is she has been lying all along about this deep native American connection. There is virtually nothing there.

---

What's wrong with her stating a fact? She does not "embrace it" she simply states it.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

And she actually embraces it....

---

"Our Heritage"??

So a trace from some long ago ancestor, a possible trace, is now Heritage.


What a looney bin, all these tests prove is she has been lying all along about this deep native American connection. There is virtually nothing there.

---

What's wrong with her stating a fact? She does not "embrace it" she simply states it.

---

She did not "simply state it". She used it a basis for being hired and promoted at Harvard. Also, based on the test results, it cannot even be said with certainty that Warren's Cherokee heritage is factual.

303Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

And she actually embraces it....

---

"Our Heritage"??

So a trace from some long ago ancestor, a possible trace, is now Heritage.


What a looney bin, all these tests prove is she has been lying all along about this deep native American connection. There is virtually nothing there.

---

What's wrong with her stating a fact? She does not "embrace it" she simply states it.

---

She did not "simply state it". She used it a basis for being hired and promoted at Harvard. Also, based on the test results, it cannot even be said with certainty that Warren's Cherokee heritage is factual.

---

You conflating two issues
1) The result of the DNA test. She simply stated it. AND
2) the Harvard admissions or teaching position. She checked on the basis of verbal history. It was up to Harvard to double check it.

Waco1947's lack of reasoning ability is going to be the death of me

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Appeal to ridicule is a type of appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy which seeks to instill a particular emotion in the readers rathole than address the intended issue. The appeal to ridicule, which is also called reductio ad ridiculum, or more strangely the Horse laugh. That name is ridiculous, as this fallacy has nothing in common with horses (who spend most of their time grazing in the pastures and don't give two dumps about debating,) and any laugh one may get is a sort of fabricated Schadenfreude that has been engineered solely to make your target look like an idiot. The biggest difference from humor/satire is that humor is funny, and while appealing to ridicule is funny for those who oppose the targeted opinion/group, it makes those guilty look like dickholes. The formula goes like this:
* I don't agree with X.
* Therefore, X is stupid and deserves my mockery and ridicule
* Oh I know! I think I'll make an entire website that ridicules X and calls adherents of X a bunch of nasty names for everyone who agrees with me to laugh at to make themselves feel powerful! That's definitely the most rationalthing to do.
This can be a difficult fallacy to avoid, as some people are clearly very uninformed, and pointing out their stupidity is a very tempting thing.


* 1 Who uses this?
Everyone. Because face it, it's fun to laugh at people you don't like. I'll show them I'm a smarter person than them with my blunt honesty and delightfully cruel wit! Anyone with half a brain will laugh, it'll be a very swell time!

---

Objection, non-responsive. If you are going to blanket threads with logic lessons, at least try to apply them correctly.

---

. Yep, right logic lesson. Take look at how so many make fun of the test. They are following their leader. It's beyond sad it's shreds debates standards.

---

No Waco, people are not making fun of DNA tests, they are making fun of Ms. Warren pretending the results say something they clearly do not say.

---

Yep, my results from for a DNA swab, which is fun by the way, showed 8+% native. I knew one GR grandparent was mostly native, like 75% so likely from them. Did show other traces equal too or less than 1% from 7 or 8 places, and then of course 80 something percent European, mostly Scotch/Irish.

I only met 2 of my grandparents, the 2 other were long gone when I was born. Never came close to seeing a GR grandparent, so there is no Heritage there, just a very small part of my DNA.

So since I'm 11X more Irish than Native, why would I pretend to be a Native. She is like 1000X more European than Native, that is what you call the WHITEST of white folks.

We all got some mix, we almost all have some native, why play it up, when it ain't hardly anything.

And then saying Trump disrespected her "Heritage", what garbage, she has no Native heritage.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Appeal to ridicule is a type of appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy which seeks to instill a particular emotion in the readers rathole than address the intended issue. The appeal to ridicule, which is also called reductio ad ridiculum, or more strangely the Horse laugh. That name is ridiculous, as this fallacy has nothing in common with horses (who spend most of their time grazing in the pastures and don't give two dumps about debating,) and any laugh one may get is a sort of fabricated Schadenfreude that has been engineered solely to make your target look like an idiot. The biggest difference from humor/satire is that humor is funny, and while appealing to ridicule is funny for those who oppose the targeted opinion/group, it makes those guilty look like dickholes. The formula goes like this:
* I don't agree with X.
* Therefore, X is stupid and deserves my mockery and ridicule
* Oh I know! I think I'll make an entire website that ridicules X and calls adherents of X a bunch of nasty names for everyone who agrees with me to laugh at to make themselves feel powerful! That's definitely the most rationalthing to do.
This can be a difficult fallacy to avoid, as some people are clearly very uninformed, and pointing out their stupidity is a very tempting thing.


* 1 Who uses this?
Everyone. Because face it, it's fun to laugh at people you don't like. I'll show them I'm a smarter person than them with my blunt honesty and delightfully cruel wit! Anyone with half a brain will laugh, it'll be a very swell time!

---

Objection, non-responsive. If you are going to blanket threads with logic lessons, at least try to apply them correctly.

---

. Yep, right logic lesson. Take look at how so many make fun of the test. They are following their leader. It's beyond sad it's shreds debates standards.

---

No Waco, people are not making fun of DNA tests, they are making fun of Ms. Warren pretending the results say something they clearly do not say.

---

Yep, my results from for a DNA swab, which is fun by the way, showed 8+% native. I knew one GR grandparent was mostly native, like 75% so likely from them. Did show other traces equal too or less than 1% from 7 or 8 places, and then of course 80 something percent European, mostly Scotch/Irish.

I only met 2 of my grandparents, the 2 other were long gone when I was born. Never came close to seeing a GR grandparent, so there is no Heritage there, just a very small part of my DNA.

So since I'm 11X more Irish than Native, why would I pretend to be a Native. She is like 1000X more European than Native, that is what you call the WHITEST of white folks.

We all got some mix, we almost all have some native, why play it up, when it ain't hardly anything.

And then saying Trump disrespected her "Heritage", what garbage, she has no Native heritage.

---

. She did not say DT disrespected her heritage.

Forest Bueller said:

---

So since I'm 11X more Irish than Native, why would I pretend to be a Native.

---

Everyone knows that if you are predominantly Irish, you pretend to be Mexican, not Native American.

My family (including Fox News-watchers) sat together and talked about what they think of @realDonaldTrump's attacks on our heritage.

5:33 AM - Oct 15, 2018



Ok, then he ATTACKED her fake heritage. Disrespect, attack, same thing.

whitetrash said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

So since I'm 11X more Irish than Native, why would I pretend to be a Native.

---

Everyone knows that if you are predominantly Irish, you pretend to be Mexican, not Native American.

---

Funny you say that, when I actually got out in the sun all the time as a kid I would tan really dark and multiple people confused me for hispanic, not now, I need sun to keep the tan.

"Fake Heritage" is your straw man.

Waco1947 said:

---

"Fake Heritage" is your straw man.

---

No, "Fake Heritage" is her reality.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Fake Heritage" is your straw man.

---

No, "Fake Heritage" is her truth.

---

There ya go.

Waco1947 said:

---

"Fake Heritage" is your straw man.

---

Not according to the Native Americans that I quoted in response to your posts. You have continued to ignore their stated opinions in this thread.

I am native american. Like jim thorpe native american. and i disapprove this message.

BUwolverine2012 said:

---

I am native american. Like jim thorpe native american. and i disapprove this message.

---

I'm not native american like Jim Thorpe....but I am about 4 times more native American than EW and I disapprove this message.

It is not a lie. She has Native American blood, minuscule tho it is.

Waco1947 said:

---

It is not a lie. She has Native American blood, minuscule tho it is.

---

She has traces of what might be something like Native American blood, less than almost every other human in the country.

Just admit it, she got caught lying and doubled down on it, then her gamble blew up in her face.

Pretending anything else just makes you look hysterical and desperate ... like Warren herself.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Fake Heritage" is your straw man.

---

Not according to the Native Americans that I quoted in response to your posts. You have continued to ignore their stated opinions in this thread.

---

Yes, I have responded about those tribes that take exception to her. But as read their comments they are about their straw man like "citizenship." Liz is not seeking citizenship in a tribal nation

Me " Hysterical?" Talk about irony that's (pardon me) hysterical.
What's hysterical is the hysteria at calling a liar and jumping on Liz's announcement. It was a statement no more, no less

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Fake Heritage" is your straw man.

---

Not according to the Native Americans that I quoted in response to your posts. You have continued to ignore their stated opinions in this thread.

---

Yes, I have responded about those tribes that take exception to her. But as read their comments they are about their straw man like "citizenship." Liz is not seeking citizenship in a tribal nation

---

No, you did not respond to those quotes. There was a lot more criticism from them than just "citizenship".

Just because you don't like their criticisms doesn't make them "straw men".

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/opinions/elizabeth-warren-native-heritage-where-has-she-been-moya-smith/index.html

"When we needed her, she didn't lace up. She didn't show up. It's not enough to claim to be Native. You must also be there for your people, be a part of the community, and not only when it's convenient or when you want something -- like the presidency"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cherokee-nation-elizabeth-warren-dna-test-inappropriate_us_5bc50e4de4b0d38b587060a1

Chuck Hoskin Jr., secretary of state of the Cherokee Nation, said Warren was "undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship," Hoskin said. "Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong."

He added, "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven."

One of our finest football players, Bryce Petty, was featured as one of the faces of the Chickasaw Nation a few years ago. I would like to think he'll be President before Lizzy.

Forrest, I ll have to ask a Cherokee about that cook book. The Cherokee was the one who told me about the DNA test a few years ago. She thought it was more legit than some tests but told me her tribe wouldn't do it.
I plan to ask someone next weekend about the Cherokee's payouts to its members while watching the Aggs bounce Stidham's head like a Houston Rocket's basketball. "I think I got $1.53 from them this past year" or something similar was the last I heard.