- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,117
- 47,274
- 2,180
But Lizzy Cheekbones made the claim, the burden of proof falls on HER!
Ummm, no. No such claim was made as a point of debate. That would be y'all.
Ya see, claiming one's ancestry contains some element can go a lot of ways. As you found out when you had to ignore 32,754 people so you could focus on two. Could be ancestor number 46. Could be number 117. Could be both, and/or others.
Claiming the negative though, that there's an absolute. That's a far higher standard, because now you have to eliminate everybody. If a single exception slips through, your point falls like a house of cards in a tornado.
Whooooosh.
The only thing we have to eliminate is Lizzie's credibility if she can't support her claim that she's a Cherokee Indian.
You can't prove the negative, so that ain't gonna happen.
I'm not required to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, and likewise I'm not required to prove that Fauxcahontas has no Cherokee blood in her. She's required to prove that she does, and she has been emphatic on refusing to do so.
You obviously don't understand how science and logic work.
If you declare that "Bigfoot doesn't exist", then yes you are required to prove it -- if you don't you have no claim. Because you just stated a negative: "doesn't exist".
Wrong. You aren't required to prove it since there isn't a shred of evidence that it does exist.
That is exactly the morass you step into when you declare "she lied".
Compare these two statements:
What's the same about both of them? Just take a wild guess.
- "Bigfoot doesn't exist"
- "Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry doesn't exist"
Logic 101, jellyface.
Neither one of them require me to prove a thing since neither fiction has a shred of evidence to support it.
Fauxcahontas claimed she was Cherokee Indian. She's required to prove it. Sceptics aren't required to disprove it.