Merged Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion Part II

[Bubba]

You seem especially reluctant to tell us whether you're actually making a claim. How are your critics expected to treat you fairly on a point you have deemed so important? I asked you a simple yes or no question that you seem strangely reticent to resolve. A reasonable person might come to believe you're being deliberately ambiguous so you can exploit the ambiguity for rhetorical effect. I'm sure you wouldn't want that impression.

Very well. Why is it necessary to know more than: I think it it is plausible but cannot know yes or no?

 

[Bubba]

Then you'd still be stalling instead of answering a question designed to preclude a situation you have rebuked your critics for.

Go ahead. Follow your co-worker's lead. I know you want to.


Whats wrong with "I don't know" ?

 

[JayUtah]

Very well. Why is it necessary to know more than: I think it it is plausible but cannot know yes or no?

Because it doesn't tell anyone whether you're making a claim. You rebuked your critics for mistaking your statements for having made a claim. Hence the need to resolve ambiguity. Are you claiming the Obamas were undercover agents? A simple yes or no will prevent your critics from holding you responsible for something you're not claiming.

 

[Bubba]

by sts60 View Post
For a while there, it looked like Bubba ...

BTW, I thought your keffiyah-pocketa-pocketa piece was pretty good

 

[JayUtah]

Go ahead. Follow your co-worker's lead. I know you want to.


Whats wrong with "I don't know" ?

You don't know whether you're making a claim?

 

[Bubba]

Because it doesn't tell anyone whether you're making a claim. You rebuked your critics for mistaking your statements for having made a claim. Hence the need to resolve ambiguity.

My position has been made clear. Go throw some darts or something.

Are you claiming the Obamas were undercover agents? A simple yes or no will prevent your critics from holding you responsible for something you're not claiming.

 

[JayUtah]

My position has been made clear. Go throw some darts or something.

No need to be snarky. Just answer yes or no the question: Are you claiming the Obamas were undercover agents?

 

[Bubba]

You don't know whether you're making a claim?

Oh ! For goodness sakes. Dang. Why didnt you ask sooner?

I claim I think it is plausible they were undercover.

Are you getting this down? Do I get footnotes, at least?

 

[JayUtah]

Oh ! For goodness sakes. Dang. Why didnt you ask sooner?

I claim I think it is plausible they were undercover.

Are you getting this down? Do I get footnotes, at least?

That wasn't the question I asked. I already said I'm not interested in your estimate of plausibility. Are you claiming the Obamas were undercover agents?

 

[Mojo]

I claim I think it is plausible they were undercover.

That's a rather odd claim. What evidence do you have to support it?

 

[Bubba]

That wasn't the question I asked. Are you claiming the Obamas were undercover agents?

Darn time flies. Its 3:30 already.

 

[JayUtah]

That's a rather odd claim. What evidence do you have to support it?

He already admitted there's "no evidence either way," so none.

 

[JayUtah]

Darn time flies. Its 3:30 already.

We would have been done half an hour ago if you had just given the one word answer to the question I asked.

 

[Mojo]

He already admitted there's "no evidence either way," so none.

That was a comment about evidence that the Obamas are undercover agents. His claim is about his own state of mind.

 

[Bubba]

Pretty sure I also said is circumstantial evidence.

It only took searching obama dunham history

 

[JayUtah]

Pretty sure I also said is circumstantial evidence.

Evidence for what, exactly?

 

[Mojo]

Pretty sure I also said is circumstantial evidence.

Yes, what you have posted on the forum is circumstantial evidence of what you think. The fact that you keep Asking Questions about outlandish conspiracy theories is strong circumstantial evidence that you think they are plausible.

If we accept your claim that you think that it is plausible that the Obamas are undercover agents, will you then be prepared to present the evidence on which you base this opinion?

 

[Bubba]

Evidence for what, exactly?

(circumstantial evidence)



IIRC I said circumstantial evidence for profile of an agency family's history, travels, roles, per era etc.

 

[JayUtah]

If we accept your claim that you think that it is plausible that the Obamas are undercover agents, will you then be prepared to present the evidence on which you base this opinion?

You see the equivocation I'm trying to get around. The indirect expression of a claim allows assertions to be made with the expectation that the opponent should counter them, but absent any proffered hypothesis, the assertions don't have a burden of proof. Then it becomes easy to complain about being forced to support a hypothesis one has technically not made. That sort of game is not really productive at getting to the truth, so I tend not to play it.

 

[JayUtah]

(circumstantial evidence)



IIRC I said circumstantial evidence for profile of an agency family's history, travels, roles, per era etc.

So when you said there was no proof either way on the point of the Obamas being undercover agents, how exactly does this "circumstantial evidence" fit in?