Birthers scare the fuck out of me

[Elder Iptuous]

Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

please bear in mind that i side with the 'birthers' simply because it pleases me to do so.  i haven't looked into the issue even superficially. (although i intend to, so that i can do the talking points well)
the response would be that since there are requirements for the office (natural born citizen, 35 years of age, resident for 14 years), that implies the burden of proof.  if a job position opens up that i desire to fill, and it requires some degree, i can't expect that they hire me simply because i say i have it, or even less so that they must prove that i don't have the degree to disqualify me.....

[Jenne]

Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

please bear in mind that i side with the 'birthers' simply because it pleases me to do so.  i haven't looked into the issue even superficially. (although i intend to, so that i can do the talking points well)
the response would be that since there are requirements for the office (natural born citizen, 35 years of age, resident for 14 years), that implies the burden of proof.  if a job position opens up that i desire to fill, and it requires some degree, i can't expect that they hire me simply because i say i have it, or even less so that they must prove that i don't have the degree to disqualify me.....

translation:  I'm an asshat.

Sorry, but I'm not buying.  Like I said--your card is expired.  Also--you're trying to shoehorn the argument, clearly.

Pick on something else, Ippy--there's plenty to choose from.

(May I call you Ippy?  I've been calling Fomenter "Fomie" and Thurenz Isa "Thornie" all week...I think I need to ask permission before I commit a 3rd felony of this genre.)  eta:  after the fact, of course

[Elder Iptuous]

translation:  I'm an asshat.

Sorry, but I'm not buying.  Like I said--your card is expired.  Also--you're trying to shoehorn the argument, clearly.

Pick on something else, Ippy--there's plenty to choose from.

(May I call you Ippy?  I've been calling Fomenter "Fomie" and Thurenz Isa "Thornie" all week...I think I need to ask permission before I commit a 3rd felony of this genre.)  eta:  after the fact, of course

Sure, you can call me that.  (better than asshat )  it saves three keystrokes, i guess....
i'm not quite sure what you're saying.  you're not buying what?  the 'birther's' arguments?  i wouldn't expect you to, if that's what you mean.
what do you mean, my card is expired?  i'm not allowed to hang with people that have put forth one crazy idea or another even if i agree with them on a larger issue? (that being the leviathan is too big, and i support anything that would help it crumble under its own weight)
There's definitely plenty more to choose from, but if it's no more effort than simply checking a box, i will put myself down in the 'support your local birthers' category.... (incidentally, 'no more effort' would preclude sullying my irl self with the association... i'm not putting a bumper sticker on my car over it or anything...)

[Fuquad]

Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

please bear in mind that i side with the 'birthers' simply because it pleases me to do so.  i haven't looked into the issue even superficially. (although i intend to, so that i can do the talking points well)
the response would be that since there are requirements for the office (natural born citizen, 35 years of age, resident for 14 years), that implies the burden of proof.  if a job position opens up that i desire to fill, and it requires some degree, i can't expect that they hire me simply because i say i have it, or even less so that they must prove that i don't have the degree to disqualify me.....

The student offered a videotape of himself passing the test without cheating but that proof is a fraud therefore he's still a cheat.

I'm well aware of the argument.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

Hahahahahaha!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Their response is retarded.  The Sec State of Hawaii has certified that he is an American citizen.  This legally certifies that he is, in fact, a natural born US citizen.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this one is just fucking stupid.  It's banal to the point of ass-aching boredom...IOW, it's not funny.  It's fucking retarded, and so is anyone who believes it.

[Iason Ouabache]

At least it keeps the really stupid people focused on something completely inconsequential. It's like giving a retarded person one of those ball and paddle games. You can leave them alone for hours to do their own thing, then come back hours later and they are still doing the same old shit.

Plus it is a good litmus test on who is credible and who isn't. If I find out that some one is a Birther I can confidently surmise that they have zero critical thinking skills, are easily sway by propaganda, and know next to nothing about politics. I can safely ignore everything they say after that.

[Triple Zero]

i'm not allowed to hang with people that have put forth one crazy idea or another even if i agree with them on a larger issue? (that being the leviathan is too big, and i support anything that would help it crumble under its own weight)
There's definitely plenty more to choose from, but if it's no more effort than simply checking a box, i will put myself down in the 'support your local birthers' category.... (incidentally, 'no more effort' would preclude sullying my irl self with the association... i'm not putting a bumper sticker on my car over it or anything...)

huh what do you mean? now I'm confused as to what a "birther" is?

i thought it might be some religious or political movement but wikipedia on "birther" redirects to a page specifically about conspiracies on Obama.

so I suppose "birther" means exactly what the name implies, people who believe there's something fishy about Obama's birth?

in which case,

1) what has this to do with the Leviathan being too big and helping it crumble under its own weight. assuming by Leviathan you mean something like the Machine, basically you're doing the discordian sacred task of destructive disorder, great. but supporting the birthers cause it causes disorder is not really agreeing with them on a larger issue. I mean the actual birthers are all probably doing this because they really want a reason to get rid of Obama and really believe this because he's not white and/or republican enough.

2) what is this about checking a box? do you get to check a box for any crazy conspiracy you believe in in America?

[Rumckle]

Dear government,

I am very (tick all that apply):
[] shocked
[] upset
[] angry
[] amused

that you could deceive the American public to such a large extent.
I am of course referring to:
[] the supposed moon landing
[] Obama's nationality
[] the black helicopters you use to spy on us
[] the flouride in the drinking water
[] letting corporations use dihydrogen  monoxide

We of course will not stand for it. be prepared to have every:
[] mother
[] republican
[] god-fearing patriot
[] crazy guy who yells at people on the subway
[] /b/tard

be called to action to bring the truth to the people.
Thus we give you an ultimatum, call a press conference to address the issue, and tell everybody the truth, by next week, or prepare to face:
[] mass protests
[] strikes
[] boycotts
[] a nude march
[] a mass death stare

Do not try to contact us, we will be in touch.

Sincerely,
_____________________________

[Elder Iptuous]

so I suppose "birther" means exactly what the name implies, people who believe there's something fishy about Obama's birth?

in which case,

1) what has this to do with the Leviathan being too big and helping it crumble under its own weight. assuming by Leviathan you mean something like the Machine, basically you're doing the discordian sacred task of destructive disorder, great. but supporting the birthers cause it causes disorder is not really agreeing with them on a larger issue. I mean the actual birthers are all probably doing this because they really want a reason to get rid of Obama and really believe this because he's not white and/or republican enough.

2) what is this about checking a box? do you get to check a box for any crazy conspiracy you believe in in America?

yes. they say he's not born in america, therefore ineligible to be the pres.  Of course, it's a crock of shit from everything i've seen, and they're grasping at straws, just like the moon hoaxers..... no matter what you present them with, they will dismiss it and move onto some other little detail.  I'm thinking they will eventually decide that the ratification of Hawaii's admission into the Union was unconstitutional or void for some reason....
What amuses me is that there are so many that buy this line.  and the foundation of a govt's legitimacy is the faith of the people in it.  I don't care what other ideals the 'birthers' have that sets them against the pres.  that's incidental to me. however, the majority of them (that i have encountered) seem to believe that the govt. in general has gone out of control under both parties and don't support either.  maybe it's just because the majority of people that i discuss with are pretty fringe, i dunno.  i would also point out that i supported the illegitimacy of bush's 'victory', even though i was certainly not aligned with many of the positions of others who chanted that line either....
at any rate.  it's just funny.

regarding the checkbox thing, yes.  Acorn came to my house with an RFID GPS retinal scanner asking me what i knew about FEMA black sites as a precursor to the 2010 census, and they had a conspiracy checklist, which i assumed was a test to see if i would use it as a dot-to-dot for drawing the compass and square.....  that's the fourth acorn this squirrel has had to bury in the back yard!

[Bruno]

Iptuous, where have you encountered these birthers? At work, perhaps?

[Triple Zero]

What amuses me is that there are so many that buy this line.  and the foundation of a govt's legitimacy is the faith of the people in it.  I don't care what other ideals the 'birthers' have that sets them against the pres.  that's incidental to me. however, the majority of them (that i have encountered) seem to believe that the govt. in general has gone out of control under both parties and don't support either.  maybe it's just because the majority of people that i discuss with are pretty fringe, i dunno.  i would also point out that i supported the illegitimacy of bush's 'victory', even though i was certainly not aligned with many of the positions of others who chanted that line either....

have you seen that documentary "right america feeling wronged" that someone linked here a few weeks ago?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7294526473944146040&ei=0RlrSoSGNZLW-AbOh4nUBQ&q=right+america+feeling+wronged

may shed some light on why there are so many that buy this line. they're grasping straws, but that documentary was an eye opener for me as to why. something about the divide between city and rural culture in the USA, they feel Obama is just representing the intellectual elite city people, I nearly even felt sorry for the people in that documentary, they seemed so help/hopeless. very alien, kind of like the religious fundamentalism in the middle east, but not entirely religious, also just .. a very particular kind of americanness.

maybe I'm all wrong about this and got a wrong idea from this documentary, I don't try to judge foreign culture too much if I don't understand it, and that includes American.

[Kai]

I think one of the biggest problems I have with this "intellectual elite" talk is that it vilifies intelligence and people who are quite intelligent, not because of what they do with it but simply because they ARE intelligent. Its in the same line as making sexuality unclean. Just puritain group think ethic.

Really, the oddest thing to me. Its bad to be intelligent and use it? Does that mean its good not to think well, its BAD to be intelligent.

Its good to be stupid? O.o

[Cain]

Its a usage that is dated back the French Revolution.  In particular, Joseph de Maistre.  The thinking was intelligence + political ambitions = social engineering = The Terror.

IOW, "intelligent" urban elites will attempt to create artificial and unsustainable political systems and communities and, when they fail, will resort to killing people who dissent to defend their idea, because the only truly sustainable communities are natural, traditional ones.

There is a modicum of truth to this charge, at least on the extremes of the political spectrum (ie Communism), but all political systems involve social engineering, to one degree or another, and if you put it like I did above to people who use the term, most people would go "watchoo talkin bout?"

[Elder Iptuous]

Iptuous, where have you encountered these birthers? At work, perhaps?

mmm, i've ecountered some birther sympathy and sentiment atwork, but not really conviction.  which is to be expected as i work in the MIC...

i've encountered it with some friends and one or two family, and quite a few online...
then there's some birther propaganda everyso often on peoples bumperstickers.

have you seen that documentary "right america feeling wronged" that someone linked here a few weeks ago?

no, i haven't watched it, but i get the understanding based on your description.  There are cultural divides which largely fall upon rural/urban demographics, but i believe that is simply because it coincides with what i believe is the primary split, being individualism/collectivism.
i'll have to watch it.


Re: what Kai said, what Cain said.  however, i think there is more that a modicum of truth to it...  and i believe that you are undeservedly discounting the intellect of the rural communities which you are referring to.  you are seeing what you want to see, and what those who you listen to what you to see.  (as we all are, of course...)