Gallop has proof she married her brother?
You’re taking the wrong thing from this.
By this time, actually before the 2008 election, Obama had already released a birth certificate that would be regarded as proof of birth in any court in the world, AND the head of Hawaii’s vital records bureau publicly stated that he personally verified the accuracy of that document with the original records AND the Republican Governor, who was campaigning at the time for Obama’s opponent, certified that the document provided was genuine.
After all of that 62% of Americans didn’t think Obama was “definitely” born in the USA, and 44% couldn’t even say he was “probably” born in the USA.
That’s completely fucking twisted.
Even after the long form was produced, which, by the way, is a level of documentation never demanded of anyone for anything in the history of this country, 35% of Americans couldn’t say he was “probably” born in the USA.
These conspiracy theories are insidious diseases infecting our population, and should be given no quarter.
I figured people would react that way, but the fact remains that the earlier claim, that there would be no point in Omar and her family providing evidence because people will believe what they’re going to believe, is clearly shown by this example to be false.
And there has not been any action by Omar equivalent to Obama releasing his short form birth certificate. She won’t even answer questions, never mind providing evidence to back up the putative answers.
Going back to the Obama thing, maybe the most important stat there was not broken down in my post. The percentage who believed Obama was definitely born in the US went from 38% to 47% after he released the long form birth certificate. Given that he won with 51% of the vote the following year, that seems significant.
The point is, just because you think evidence is unnecessary and it’s beneath your contempt to imagine needing it, this is politics and swing voters don’t necessarily see things the same way as you do. But even more importantly, they aren’t necessarily locked into the opposing, Fox News/Breitbart camp either, just because they aren’t in yours.
I made no claim that anyone married anyone or didn’t marry anyone. Go back and look, there’s no text saying anything about any marriages or anything with that link.
I was responding to criticism of the reliability of the sources I used. I said nothing about what the source said, implied, or whether it even had anything to do with Ilhan Omar. I could have just linked to the top page of the website rather than that specific page, in terms of what I was responding to. I was giving an example of a source which, as said, is free of all possible connection to right wing sources.
How did you get to the place where you forgot what you had yourself stated, invented a commentary around a link that I posted which did not exist, and somehow feel like replying to that imagined commentary was rational? And that’s all ignoring that the original accusation was, to begin with, predicated on no knowledge one way or the other about what I did or did not use as sources beyond my statements that I had solely utilized things which I had been able to independently verify.
Who are you talking with?
Why ‘thankfully’?
CMC fnord!
Who Cares? When I saw the thread had gone to a 3rd page* I clicked just to see what all the fuss was about.
(I didn’t check the antecedent reference to lead exposure 
but) WTF does Ilhan Omar’s marriage have to do with anything anyway? If some cowardly right-wing whingers want to quarrel with her politics then quarrel with her politics! If she broke the law, telephone ICE or whats-his-fuck and then shut up! (Present company excepted of course!)
In the unlikely event any of Omar’s detractors has the slightest shred of morality, let’s ask them what they think of Trump’s alleged child rape, or that Hastert (once two heartbeats from the Presidency) had raped little boys.
Sorry to butt in — but this is the Pit! And, no, I didn’t read the first 400 pages of the thread because … Who the Fuck Cares? Just a bunch of fucking racist evangelists, I’ll bet, who would happily rape Ms. Omar if they had some crooked cop friends along to hold her down.
No, I’m not in a bad mood! Just pounding the keyboard, as now, relieves my stress!
With you. A dumb guy who was trolled by people that spinned sources towards a stupid conclusion, that is all.
Again, there is very little rationality on your research, frankly you are here just adding another layer of stupid, besides thinking that how you confirmed who the father of Omar was a great feat, when it was really your dumb misunderstanding of what I said. That explains a lot of why you fall for the trolling of the detractors of Omar. Here you seem to think that I was thinking that I was saying that all the bait presented to you was false information. (OK, 2 layers of dumb from you besides. ).
The stupid now is still to miss why the examples of how they proceed in a place like The Antiques Road Show were mentioned, it was to underline that like in real life, even when you say that images or sources show real people or facts, they are presented to the mark as part of the complete bait so as to hook more like you, it is very similar to what pseudo scientists do to their followers.
So, you can have pictures of the real Buffalo Bill, but as the example showed: 2 of the pictures that were identified independently by others as being Buffalo Bill, but they were not taken by the older relative of the current owner, they were found to be promotional copies made to sell at the traveling show and hence of little value. But there was an image that showed Buffalo Bill in a business suit and together with the testimony and signature of Bill and the name of the lady that owned the pictures it was then good news for her as that picture had lots of value.
And so it was for your evidence so far, it is worthless really, and as showed, even the one you thought it was so important is still no evidence showing Omar being married to an invented brother or lover of her husband or that Omar committed any other immigration fraud.
And the entire argument boils down to she probably did something wrong, whatever it was.
Evidence for what? I’ve made no argument and I’ve presented no evidence. My statements, to date, are that one shouldn’t make any assertions of anything one way or the other that isn’t provable, that evidence can be and should be interpreted into as wide a set of possibilities as possible, though always within the restraints of what is provably true.
This is like if I came up to you to ask the weather and you started crying out that I was trying to murder your dog.
What did you read at any point that got you to where you are from anything that I have written?
The fallacy is that if something is likely then the person uses that to argue that it is true.
The fallacy is to ignore the probability. If the simple presence of a probability was sufficient to make something a fallacy, you would essentially be unable to talk on any subject without being fallacious.
Ignoring the probability in the other direction is also a fallacy.
Do you advocate “ignoring the probability” for the supposition that Omar married a space alien disguised as her brother, and she’s reticent to answer questions about it because she wants to hide the upcoming invasion of the human race from alien lizard shapeshifters?
The fallacy is to reach a conclusion, no matter how improbable, simply because said conclusion has not been ruled out as impossible. Your conclusion is based on scant evidence coupled with a lack of evidence to the contrary.
Do you still believe these obvious distortions of the truth?
Sure, reach for the idiot excuse, those links must had been posted by the sheep fucker that posted impersonating a different poster once in the past.
And dismissed when it is shown that they are worthless for the accusations attempted, whereas incest, or illegal immigration.
Projection; you had to, even with gestures, told me to fuck off. Only because I showed how stupid you were by pointing out at the evidence about who the father of Omar was, it showed how trolls can point at neutral evidence and led you to trust them to swallow the bait that they had for later.
You are trying to evade that when you try to apply the chain of possession and direct testimony I mentioned to the pictures that you started blabbing, that show alleged relatives of Omar, is than then you should realize how dumber it was to accept the spun applied to them before.
It was time then to consider the source of other non picture evidence too, but you are too coward to accept that other “evidence” presented by them is even more suspect (regardless if it is real, you are only willfully missing the point I was making, you need original witnesses and interviews that offer context for real pictures or other evidence that is missing still) and once again: you are still pushing theories based on a peculiar interpretation that misses many other more logical interpretations than the ones you are using.
Finding how worthless the sorry evidence you have on my own *, and finding that you are still continuing with worthless evidence.
The assessors in The Antiques Road Show would also had said that they need the evidence and the witnesses of the chain of possession and context, anyone that would say that they have digital pictures of the Rembrandt (that a wealthy man is accused of having the original stolen painting) has to come forward to point at the place, time and context when the accusatory digital picture or other evidence is coming from or the proper contex.
You were (or still are, as your sorry replies showed) still demanding that worthless evidence be considered*, as I noted. In the Antiques Road Show the police would had escorted you out if you had continued to explain ad nauseam the childless ways you looked at the evidence of anonymous guys that do have a lot to hide for not coming forward.
*And again, demonstrating how you found about the father of Omar was dumb. It is not valuable evidence for the issue of finding if Omar married an invented brother or committed any other immigration fraud. Not all evidence is the same and still not noticing that real images or evidence can be spun to claim bad things. So, you swallowed the bait and it makes me think that you are not even a rat then. 
Neglecting probability is a cognitive bias, not a logical fallacy.
I myself don’t believe she’s racist. I haven’t heard any blatantly racist remarks. I think she has a strong dislike for Israel’s government, because she has openly and repeatedly said as much. And I think she’s said some stupid comments that sounded bad, and she was properly criticized for them. But adding those together and getting “anti-Semitic” is bad math.
Again… the man gave us:
- his birth certificate - valid in every courtroom in the entire world as proof of birth
- public statement from the head of his State’s vital records bureau that the certificate was accurate
- public statement from the Governor of his State, a person not of his party and actively campaigning for his opponent, that the certificate was accurate
- a certified copy of the internal documentation, a level of certification never heretofore required for anyone for any purpose.
And still over 50% of the population wasn’t sure where the dude was born.
All because… some dude made up a ridiculous story of Obama’s mother flying to Kenya to give birth. A story with literally zero facts supporting it.
As I said before, it’s twisted. It’s a plague upon our society, where actual information is ignored, and fantasies are believed. We as a society either stand up against this plague, and demand facts from these story tellers, or we feed the sickness by giving them the attention they don’t deserve.
Not according to whoever wrote the particular wiki page, but I’m not strongly opinionated on which is the better classification.
What evidence? Give an example. I’ve showed you two evidentiary items and your stance on one was that “water is wet” and the other was to go off on a tangent about marriage while looking at a business license. That makes no sense.
If you believe that I am using some particular piece of evidence:
a) Identify what you’re talking about.
b) Ask whether or not I am.
Unless you have some form of counter-evidence that I should consider? Asserting that I’m wrong in my assessment isn’t a defense of Omar. I would completely open to swapping the direction I lean on the topic given more information. That is not a topic that I have done any particular deep dive into.
As it is, though, she made a statement that came across to many as racist. Her compatriots talked to her about the matter and, as an outcome of that, opted to perform an act of public shaming. That is an exceptional reaction on their part. The only other theory that I can think of to explain that sort of reaction is if we say that, for example, “The Democratic Party has been bought out by Israel and they will force their minions to punish anyone who speaks against than, whether it was with ill intention or not.” Between one person being racist or a few hundred people being the brain washed minions of a foreign state, the former theory seems a lot more reasonable.
I do grant that I wasn’t privy to whatever all discussions took place with her, I can only observe the external impacts. From that, as said, the simple explanation would be that she is racist. That could be wrong but minus counter-evidence or a third hypothesis that better explains what we can observe it’s the position that I would lean to.
Maybe she wasn’t intending to be racist and maybe the DNC overreacted for who knows what other reason. Perhaps the public shaming will have served its purpose, has successfully chastised her, and she’s found the error in her ways and reformed.
I can’t read minds, I can look at what evidence exists and go with what the evidence supports.
If your position has evidence behind it beyond, “How can you be so mean to that poor girl!” You are free to post it and I will genuinely consider it. But this is a forum for evidence-backed realism not “being kindly, loving, and trusting souls”. In reality, some people are racist. There are Republican racists and Democratic racists. None of them are liable to do anything other than deny that point if you ask them and, in that sense, it’s effectively impossible to ever definitively say that they’re racist, but it is possible to be pretty sure if all signs point that direction.
Being a Democrat, a woman, and a person of color doesn’t prevent you from being a racist. If you somehow believe that it does, you might want to ask what logic there is behind that sentiment.