Elizabeth Warren Releases DNA Test Showing "Strong Evidence" of Native American Ancestry

[Cubo de Sangre]

So make your position clear. Are you saying, straight up and once and for all, that she never claimed to be a full-blooded NA and that she was clear that the basis for her designation was family lore about a NA ancestor?

I compiled it for you.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...rican-ancestry.3849819/page-51#post-145865663

Put together an entire argument using my quotes instead of operating in soundbites. Otherwise...

 

[Jack V Savage]

I compiled it for you.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...rican-ancestry.3849819/page-51#post-145865663

Put together an entire argument using my quotes instead of operating in soundbites. Otherwise...

So, to be clear, you're refusing to answer the direct question about your position while insisting that I'm getting your position wrong?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So, to be clear, you're refusing to answer the direct question about your position while insisting that I'm getting your position wrong?

I'm weary of agreeing with you over things that don't matter to what's in dispute. Any fool should be able to see you're not addressing the statements you've made that I am contradicting. That's why I keep going back to quotes and you only provide unsubstantiated assertions and red herrings.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm weary of agreeing with you over things that don't matter to what's in dispute. Any fool should be able to see you're not addressing the statements you've made that I am contradicting. That's why I keep going back to quotes and you only provide unsubstantiated assertions and red herrings.

So, yes, you are refusing to answer the direct question. OK.

The reason I ask is because that's both the heart of the dispute between us and because that's central to your claim that I've misrepresented you. I've tried to figure out your position, but other than your usual peevishness, I don't see any. Since my position is that the basis for her claim was stories about her distant NA ancestor, and you're saying it's wrong, my natural assumption is that you're suggesting that the basis was a stronger claim about ancestry. When you got peevish again, I asked you, sincerely, to clarify. It's not my intention to misrepresent you the way you've been consistently misrepresenting me. I hold myself to a higher standard. But you simply refused to do so. If you were me, what would you think of your approach here (misrepresent me, accuse me of misrepresenting you, but refuse to explain)?

 

[sickc0d3r]

lol at JVS and cubo arguing about this for a week across several threads.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In my mind it's been closer to this.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So, yes, you are refusing to answer the direct question. OK.

The reason I ask is because that's both the heart of the dispute between us and because that's central to your claim that I've misrepresented you. I've tried to figure out your position, but other than your usual peevishness, I don't see any. Since my position is that the basis for her claim was stories about her distant NA ancestor, and you're saying it's wrong, my natural assumption is that you're suggesting that the basis was a stronger claim about ancestry. When you got peevish again, I asked you, sincerely, to clarify. It's not my intention to misrepresent you the way you've been consistently misrepresenting me. I hold myself to a higher standard. But you simply refused to do so. If you were me, what would you think of your approach here (misrepresent me, accuse me of misrepresenting you, but refuse to explain)?

I can't make it any easier for you than this. Find that part that proves you're not the liar I'm calling you.

You

True statements like Warren only claimed to have a distant NA ancestor.

Me

Your own link/quote early on in the thread said she allowed UPenn to list her as a minority based on said ancestor.

You

Um, OK. Does that contradict what I said?

Me

Since you included the word "only", yeah. Unless I missed where you stipulated some specific context that would omit that misrepresentation.

You

No, it doesn't contradict anything I said, unless you can find evidence that she claimed to have more NA ancestry (look up "contradict").

Me

lol at me looking that up when it was in your link on like page 3. Your link claimed Upenn listed her as a minority. Claiming to be enough NA to be a minority is far more of a claim than saying there was this one ancestor a few generations ago or so.

You

So you're taking "UPenn listed her as a minority" to mean "Warren claimed to have a higher percentage or NA ancestry than her other comments suggested and what the test shows." And then you're suggesting that my own unwillingness to make such an uncharitable, and I'd argue wacky, reading is out of bounds. I'd recommend some reflection here.

Me

Unless you're claiming the test shows she's a minority it's you who should be reflecting (on why you're so reticent to acknowledge a fact your introduced). UPenn doesn't make that shit up.

You

Again, her claim (the very same one that was used to label her a "minority") was that she heard she had a distant NA ancestor. The test backs that up. I'm not reticent to acknowledge any facts; I'm just not *interpreting* facts in an unreasonable way to infer a claim that wasn't made and that was explicitly disavowed. It seems to me that you're just upset that I'm not putting words in her mouth (something you're normally quick to accuse others of doing, I should note).

Me

You keep repeating that claim as if it's the only one. I'm talking about her other claim (i.e. listing herself as a minority at UPenn based on her having one relative in her lineage generations prior). For her not to be making a false claim in this particular instance you would have to believe one of the following. Either UPenn themselves chose to embellish her ancestry or that believing you have one great-grand parent of NA blood (that you've never met) is enough to claim minority status. The first could be true but there's no evidence to suggest it and Warren herself says she was listing herself that way for social reasons. The second is simply ridiculous and no honest person would claim minority status based on such a small percentage of ancestry. They would say they have x, y, or z blood, but they wouldn't claim to be x, y, or z.

You

The second is actually true, especially since she was very clear that she only had a remote ancestor. It might enrage you, but it's the truth. The first might also be true.

It was pretty clear, actually. Your argument is based on assuming things that she didn't say, while you ordinarily denounce that, even in cases where it is more reasonable.

Me

I'm willing to bet most would disagree.

My argument is based on what was in the link you provided for evidence and the claim (made by you as well as others) that to her knowledge she has one relative of Native American heritage that she's generations removed from. Not sure how you can be honestly confused over that. Surely you can point out which things she didn't say that the validity of my argument relies upon?

You

The thing she didn't say that the validity of your argument relies upon is that she had more than a distant NA ancestor. I'm not confused at all. She said that she'd heard she had a distant NA ancestor and based her listing on that fact.

Me

Never said she said that. And yes, she based her listing on the stories she was told about having this one distant ancestor. With that out of the way, let's boil this back down. The claim you made originally (that I'm disputing) is that she never claimed anything more than having this one distant ancestor. So all that really matters is this. Did she in fact claim in places to be of minority status, and is it a stronger claim to say you are of a certain heritage than it is to say you have one distant relative of that certain heritage?

The answer to the first one is that she did. The answer to the second one, as someone fluent in the English language, seems pretty obvious. But go ahead and convince us readers that folks would be unreasonable to infer more from on claim than the other.

You

But the validity of your claim rests on believing it even though she didn't say it. Hence my point.

If it's accompanied by the claim that the basis of the designation is having a distant ancestor, it's the exact same claim.

Me

These are the exact same claims?

• I have a distant relative who was Native American.
• Because I have a distant relative who was Native American I am Native American.

Ignoring how ridiculous that is, where's the evidence that in these places where she claimed to be a minority that the basis of that designation was stipulated? We have to deal with her actual claims here, dude. Not some hypothetical shit that could change things if they were actually true. The screenshot of her cookbook entry said she claimed to be Cherokee. Not relative of Cherokee from multiple generations prior. Hard to believe UPenn, Harvard, and the law directory included any such further information either. Unless you can show she wasn't responsible for the claim of being Cherokee in the cookbook it's already shown that she made a stronger claim than what you're admitting to.

You

In terms of substance, how are they not?

And this last question was ultimately answered with a very simple deductive proof.

Premise 1: Warren has and was told about a distant relative who was Native American.
Premise 2: Anyone who has and was told about a distant Native American ancestor is a minority.
Conclusion: Warren is a minority.

It's valid, but it's not sound. Why? Premise 1 is agreed upon, but premise #2 has not been shown to be true. If you can't show it then you've lost this debate and we both know it.

If you see in there where you acknowledge that claiming to have a distant relative of Native American ancestry is one thing, and that claiming to be a minority because of it is another, please quote it.

 

[Morning Star]

I can't believe this thread is still going. I must admit this was one of the most entertaining threads in recent memory. The level of delusion one must have to think .10% is some kind of victory just had me coming back and laughing over and over.

Jackie is the most stubborn person on Sherdog, it wouldn't shock me if this dead horse of a thread made 100 pages. Warren made such a bad gaffe even the leftist media called her fake ass out. I've never seen someone on this site shill so hard for someone that made such an utter ass of themself.

 

[Gandhi]

That's absolutely correct and was never in dispute. Nowhere was it suggested, stipulated, asserted that she considered anything else when claiming to be a minority.

Did you read the post I've linked below? It'll take all of two minutes. People seem to be wanting to chime in on this without taking any time to understand what Jack said that I'm disputing (and that he's steadfastly defended). He's misleading everyone by reasserting a truthful claim over and over, as if that's my bone of contention.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...rican-ancestry.3849819/page-51#post-145865663

I just went to the link and did not see a post from you or JVS on that page. Anyway you seemed happy to have me chime in when I was taking your side on this, so forgive me for trying to better understand some of the nuance here. Anyway I won’t chime into your love fest with JVS anymore. I pretty sure it’s clear where me and JVS, and you agree/disagree. If not I’m happy to at least clarify my position

I still think the overall jist is that she is claiming something without a good basis, so it’s foolhardy for her to come out swinging with that dna test. Hardly matters that she was telling the truth when the conclusions drawn are nonsensical.

I think her best play would have been to take the DNA results and admit she was lily white, contrary to what she'd always thought based on family lore. Had she been willing to eat a little humble pie and endure a few memes, she'd likely have killed this story.

But her stupidity from a political stand point was allowing herself to be feted as Harvard's first woman of color law professor and not expecting that to come back and bite her in the ass. Just because everyone is willing to wink at the obvious racial lie in elite academia doesn't mean the country as a whole is similarly willing.

Sort of agree but I don’t think she should have gone down that road at all. She can prove her basis for the claim is true but she can’t make out the basis for her claim to be logical. The dna test just highlighted it.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

That's still distinctly different from "using minority status" as a racial-legal classification, which we know definitively from the Boston Globe report that she did not do. She listed herself as white/Caucasian in college admissions, law school admissions, and job admissions. While I would agree that permitting the school to bold and italicize her name as if she was a minority was wrong, that is not the same thing as claiming the legal status of a racial minority to take advantage of things like affirmative action programs.

Also, the cookbook is a nonissue as far as I'm concerned. It was a family recipe that was passed down with the express statement that it was a Cherokee recipe. With each contributor having an ethnic group listed as the source for the recipe, I find no fault that they didn't take the time to drop a footnote that she was a white person with generations-removed Cherokee ancestry.

There aren't any Peruvian Cherokee.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I’m not going to review 30 pages of posts. @Jack V Savage and I basically agreed around page 1 on the matter.

@HomerThompson perhaps she didn’t initiate the “minority” claim that appeared next to her while teaching, but, at the very least, do you feel like it’s an unsavory look upon her integrity that she didn’t feel uncomfortable with the listing?

I don’t think it benefitted her career with the claim, but at some point she told them of the “lore” of her background and they ran with it. Is it not at all a concern that someone with such little credence to a claim was cool with her name being associated with “minority” status? I feel like it’s an integrity thing. Minor obviously, but if it was someone I worked with the amount of eye rolling by colleagues would be palpable.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I just went to the link and did not see a post from you or JVS on that page. Anyway you seemed happy to have me chime in when I was taking your side on this, so forgive me for trying to better understand some of the nuance here. I still think the overall jist is that she is claiming something without a good basis, so it’s foolhardy for her to come out swinging with that dna test. Hardly matters that she was telling the truth when the conclusions drawn are nonsensical.

Link works for me. It's the same as what's in post #1587 (two above yours).

Forgive you? Hell, I'm all but begging you to better understand. First and foremost you have to quit listening to Jack say what I'm arguing against and take my word for it. It's in the post I'm directing you to, but here it is again. Jack said this.

True statements like Warren only claimed to have a distant NA ancestor.

I'm saying that's false because her claim went further than that when she listed herself as a minority. I'm saying it's inaccurate to say she "only" went so far as the claim of distant NA ancestor. Jack is refusing to agree with that. Jack's argument is that his statement is accurate because she's using the agreed upon claim of ancestry to justify her minority listing. I say that's true, but it doesn't make his statement true.

All he's been doing is repeating what actually isn't in dispute and claiming victory when I agree with those things. That and making unsubstantiated accusations.

In the bet thread I just challenged him to debate the veracity of "True statements like Warren only claimed to have a distant NA ancestor.". You think he'll accept?

PS. I also called him a liar in the bet thread and challenged him to prove one of the misrepresentations he's made here. The nonsense he came back with was stunning.

 

[Gandhi]

Link works for me. It's the same as what's in post #1587 (two above yours).

Forgive you? Hell, I'm all but begging you to better understand. First and foremost you have to quit listening to Jack say what I'm arguing against and take my word for it. It's in the post I'm directing you to, but here it is again. Jack said this.



I'm saying that's false because her claim went further than that when she listed herself as a minority. I'm saying it's inaccurate to say she "only" went so far as the claim of distant NA ancestor. Jack is refusing to agree with that. Jack's argument is that his statement is accurate because she's using the agreed upon claim of ancestry to justify her minority listing. I say that's true, but it doesn't make his statement true.

All he's been doing is repeating what actually isn't in dispute and claiming victory when I agree with those things. That and making unsubstantiated accusations.

In the bet thread I just challenged him to debate the veracity of "True statements like Warren only claimed to have a distant NA ancestor.". You think he'll accept?

Look I think his logic is that she claimed something based on something. Since her basis was disclosed, if the basis was true, then the claim is not factually false. Do we agree on that being JVS’ perspective?

To be honest I don’t see any problem with that logic. I just don’t think it makes a difference. I doubt that every one reading those listings knew her basis and the basis is a horrible from a logic perspective. Statements that draw on facts combined with horrible logic kind of end up in the same place as lies to me. Would she or would she not get a Pinocchio? I dunno but again I don’t think it matters.

 

[Gandhi]

I’m not going to review 30 pages of posts. @Jack V Savage and I basically agreed around page 1 on the matter.

@HomerThompson perhaps she didn’t initiate the “minority” claim that appeared next to her while teaching, but, at the very least, do you feel like it’s an unsavory look upon her integrity that she didn’t feel uncomfortable with the listing?

I don’t think it benefitted her career with the claim, but at some point she told them of the “lore” of her background and they ran with it. Is it not at all a concern that someone with such little credence to a claim was cool with her name being associated with “minority” status? I feel like it’s an integrity thing. Minor obviously, but if it was someone I worked with the amount of eye rolling by colleagues would be palpable.

Well said. It’s gettting way overblown but she has only helped it along.

 

[HomerThompson]

I’m not going to review 30 pages of posts. @Jack V Savage and I basically agreed around page 1 on the matter.

@HomerThompson perhaps she didn’t initiate the “minority” claim that appeared next to her while teaching, but, at the very least, do you feel like it’s an unsavory look upon her integrity that she didn’t feel uncomfortable with the listing?

I don’t think it benefitted her career with the claim, but at some point she told them of the “lore” of her background and they ran with it. Is it not at all a concern that someone with such little credence to a claim was cool with her name being associated with “minority” status? I feel like it’s an integrity thing. Minor obviously, but if it was someone I worked with the amount of eye rolling by colleagues would be palpable.

Extremely minor. Not relevant to discussion in the current political landscape. If this is her biggest integrity issue, she's the most honest politician in Washington today. And it's not very close.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Extremely minor. Not relevant to discussion in the current political landscape. If this is her biggest integrity issue, she's the most honest politician in Washington today. And it's not very close.

Agreed, if however, she DID list it in an application you would take issue with it?

 

[HomerThompson]

Agreed, if however, she DID list it in an application you would take issue with it?

On an admission application, or a job application?

Absolutely.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Look I think his logic is that she claimed something based on something. Since her basis was disclosed, if the basis was true, then the claim is not factually false. Do we agree on that being JVS’ perspective?

To be honest I don’t see any problem with that logic. I just don’t think it makes a difference. I doubt that every one reading those listings knew her basis and the basis is a horrible from a logic perspective. Statements that draw on facts combined with horrible logic kind of end up in the same place as lies to me. Would she or would she not get a Pinocchio? I dunno but again I don’t think it matters.

He seems to be saying that.

It makes a difference for two reasons. One is that particular way of stating it (or narrative) soft-peddles her claims to make it look less damaging to her credibility. The other is that Jack claims to gracefully take correction when new info to consider is presented. He's using every trick in his book to avoid acknowledging something so simple. So simple you're ready to dismiss the inaccuracy of it, and his defense of it, by basically saying "well if he thinks so then it's good enough".

Can you honestly say that if the only claim you made was to have a distant NA ancestor that you'd expect folks to know, or even assume, that you view yourself as a minority because of it? Can you honestly say that by subsequently claiming to view yourself as a minority that doesn't further the original claim? It's painfully obvious to me that it does.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Extremely minor. Not relevant to discussion in the current political landscape. If this is her biggest integrity issue, she's the most honest politician in Washington today. And it's not very close.

1/1024

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Jack V Savage is officially declining two bets in the bet thread I've offered. One is that he can't prove his statement in dispute to be true and other is to prove his claim that I said Warren claimed to be full blood NA.

As they say, talk is cheap.