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

[Bubba]

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?

No Silly. I think it is easier to refer you...

Bubba said

It only took searching obama dunham history

It's easy as pie to click read and draw your own conclusions

 

[Mojo]

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?

The Obamas have 8 legs, therefore they are not a dog, which is circumstantial evidence that they are undercover agents.

 

[JayUtah]

No Silly. I think it is easier to refer you...

But who's going to argue for why it's plausible evidence of the Obamas being undercover agents?

 

[Mojo]

No Silly. I think it is easier to refer you...

In other words you have no evidence that you are willing to link to.

 

[JayUtah]

In other words you have no evidence that you are willing to link to.

Depends on whether you count an encapsulated general Google search. But no, the "Do a Google search and draw your own conclusions" argument does not support a claim of plausibility.

 

[Mojo]

Depends on whether you count an encapsulated general Google search. But no, the "Do a Google search and draw your own conclusions" argument does not support a claim of plausibility.

Telling people to search the internet for your evidence (AKA "I'm not going to spoon feed you") is a common ploy used to avoid scrutiny of claims. If someone follows it up and reports that they saw no good evidence, he can just claim that they weren't looking at the right results.

 

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
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?

Wait....I said that?

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.

I've seen some stickbound here and there. (Have I coined a new word?)

Yes I see your perception of equivocation.

Yet sometimes we must deal with truth's protective layers.

Movie "Merchants Of Doubt" is an example. They showed how the same crowd manufactured doubt benefiting big oil vs climate change after manufacturing doubt benefiting big tobacco vs doctors.

plausible that the Obamas are undercover agents, will you then be prepared to present the evidence on which you base this opinion?

See 581.

Thats all I got for circumstantial.

 

[Mojo]

See 581.

Thats all I got for circumstantial.

Then you have nothing.

 

[Bubba]

Telling people to search the internet for your evidence (AKA "I'm not going to spoon feed you") is a common ploy used to avoid scrutiny of claims.

Agreed.........thats why I posted everything I got on this.

Again...its mostly on the first page.

Bubba said

It only took searching obama dunham history

It's easy as pie to click read and draw your own conclusions

 

[JayUtah]

Telling people to search the internet for your evidence (AKA "I'm not going to spoon feed you") is a common ploy used to avoid scrutiny of claims. If someone follows it up and reports that they saw no good evidence, he can just claim that they weren't looking at the right results.

Exactly. There is no way to know what parts of the searched material the proponent found valuable or probative. And there is no search that reveals why the proponent found the material plausible toward a hypothesis -- whether the hypothesis is averred or not. I can certainly read the material and draw my own conclusions, but that doesn't mean I have tested the proponent's line of reasoning.

If the claim is that the Obama family were undercover agents, then the burden to prove it falls on the claimant. Simply proposing it with no evidence creates no obligation to disprove it. It may be summarily dismissed.

If the claim is that it is plausible the Obamas were undercover agents, then that's a judgment made by the claimant. We can either dismiss it as differing opinion, or we can wait for the claimant to demonstrate that his estimate is rational. If he will not demonstrate that, then we can summarily dismiss the claim of plausibility.

 

[JayUtah]

Agreed.........thats why I posted everything I got on this.

But who will argue in support of the claim that what's in the material is plausible evidence of the Obama family being undercover agents?

 

[Bubba]

But who will argue in support of the claim that what's in the material is plausible evidence of the Obama family being undercover agents?

Why is that a thing in your mind anyway?

Give it a shot, then try give it a shot from the other side.

I do that all the time.

 

[Mojo]

Why is that a thing in your mind anyway?

Begging the question. But it's a thing in yours (or at least you claim it is):

I claim I think it is plausible they were undercover.

 

[Bubba]

Begging the question. But it's a thing in yours (or at least you claim it is):

Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Why is that a thing in your mind anyway?

Begging the question. But it's a thing in yours (or at least you claim it is):
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
I claim I think it is plausible they were undercover.

Opposite is also plausibe.

 

[JayUtah]

Why is that a thing in your mind anyway?

Because it was first a thing in your mind.

 

[Bubba]

But who will argue in support of the claim that what's in the material is plausible evidence of the Obama family being undercover agents?

So what.


Proved that wrong lately?

 

[JayUtah]

Opposite is also plausibe.

Not according to you.

We know such agency families exist. His mother's activities in Indonesia and elsewhere fit profile of foreign student/activist/agent gathering political info and passing names along. The family's travels and activities fit possible undercover profiles. Especially in their era. Mid east, africa, indonesia, pakistan, hawaii, United States Agency for International Development, etc.

All bets are off until that is shown to be false.

 

[JayUtah]

Proved that wrong lately?

Proved what wrong?

 

[Bubba]

Proved what wrong?

the Obama family being undercover agents

 

[JayUtah]

the Obama family being undercover agents

Why would anyone have a burden to disprove speculation on your part that you won't even stand behind?