The results are in

#176
#176
LouderVol said:
what is unequivocal about 6th to 10th generation? They don't know where she falls in that range. plenty of ambiguity there. also that 6th-10th range is within their margin of error. so again plenty of stuff to be equivocal about in that report.

I didn't know equivocal was actually a word, I thought it was one of those words that only means something in the negative ie: disgruntled. you can't be gruntled but you can be equivocal.

unless she is 1/16th (4th generation) she can't claim it to the government. and at least when I looked into it I could only claim to be part of a tribe if I knew the name of the relation, which if she had a test means she doesn't know.
Click to expand...
There is nothing "unequivocal" about her "report". I mean..6 to 10 generations isn't ambiguous at all is it?..
 
#177
#177
Septic said:
You guys need to listen to @Grand Vol, her claim was that she had Indian ancestry. This is clearly the case and as I stated earlier, attempting to quantify that which only needs to be qualified makes you folks look silly.

stevie-wonder-deal-with-it.gif
Click to expand...
Do you claim African ancestry?
 
#179
#179
FLVOL_79 said:
There is nothing "unequivocal" about her "report". I mean..6 to 10 generations isn't ambiguous at all is it?..
Click to expand...

giphy.gif



“The facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree,” replies Bustamante, who was also captured on film by Warren’s team.

Bustamante is considered one of the leading DNA analysts in the world. When several DNA experts were asked by the Globe, earlier this year, how they’d recommend Warren go about taking a DNA test, his name came up repeatedly.
Click to expand...
 
#182
#182
Septic said:
You guys need to listen to @Grand Vol, her claim was that she had Indian ancestry. This is clearly the case and as I stated earlier, attempting to quantify that which only needs to be qualified makes you folks look silly.

stevie-wonder-deal-with-it.gif
Click to expand...
no. it is not clearly. if her percentage falls within the margin of error it is not proven. at this point its even money on her being Cherokee. and this makes the racial question real interesting. Heck I can probably claim to be African now.

I am more Cherokee than her, and I am white AF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#188
#188
LouderVol said:
no. it is not clearly. if her percentage falls within the margin of error it is not proven. at this point its even money on her being Cherokee. and this makes the racial question real interesting. Heck I can probably claim to be African now.

I am more Cherokee than her, and I am white AF.
Click to expand...

What is a "margin of error" when talking about DNA?

Please elaborate.

She won the game and you're arguing about how much she covered the spread by.
 
#189
#189
Septic said:
What is a "margin of error" when talking about DNA?

Please elaborate.

She won the game and you're arguing about how much she covered the spread by.
Click to expand...
the test done has a margin of error. why else would they give a range? and at that point a four generation gap is fricking significant AF.

because under no existing metric could she use this test to claim to be Cherokee IRL.
 
#191
#191
LouderVol said:
yeah. no margin of error there. completely 100% defined exactly what she is.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand that the "does she have Indian ancestry" argument is settled, there is no "margin of error." You and everyone else are trying to move the goal posts by applying your personal subjectivity's by inserting the "but how much?"
 
#192
#192
Septic said:
What I claim is irrelevant to the strawman you're setting up.
Click to expand...
No strawman. Just curious as to where you draw the line for spiking the football or sliding feet first, since you are championing her ambiguous claims as being unequivocal, when it comes to claiming ancestry. Like 1/1024 is ok but maybe 1/2048 isnt? Because we all have genetic markers for African descent..so.....

I get it though. Warren is able to wipe the sweat from her headdress in relief that she actually has less than 0.0% native American blood. She dodged a tomahawk and rolled the dice and was Cherokee NC lucky. So now the dims can celebrate a 0.09% claim of indian ancestry and throw it in Trumps face. They finally got a victory over Trump!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Carl Pickens, Obsessed and 2 others
#193
#193
Septic said:
I don't think you understand that the "does she have Indian ancestry" argument is settled, there is no "margin of error." You and everyone else are trying to move the goal posts by applying your personal subjectivity's by inserting the "but how much?"
Click to expand...
Yes. Words like maybe..and suggest..those are absolute. What also is absolute is the physical evidence. But I know...Blaisey Ford time..no evidence is really required...
 
#195
#195
FLVOL_79 said:
No strawman. Just curious as to where you draw the line for spiking the football or sliding feet first, since you are championing her ambiguous claims as being unequivocal, when it comes to claiming ancestry. Like 1/1024 is ok but maybe 1/2048 isnt? Because we all have genetic markers for African descent..so.....

I get it though. Warren is able to wipe the sweat from her headdress in relief that she actually has less than 0.0% native American blood. She dodged a tomahawk and rolled the dice and was Cherokee NC lucky. So now the dims can celebrate a 0.09% claim of indian ancestry and throw it in Trumps face. They finally got a victory over Trump!
Click to expand...

or 1/32.

If you want to claim to be African American, that's your prerogative.
 
#196
#196
Septic said:
I don't think you understand that the "does she have Indian ancestry" argument is settled, there is no "margin of error." You and everyone else are trying to move the goal posts by applying your personal subjectivity's by inserting the "but how much?"
Click to expand...
Describe the controlled environment in which this testing took place.
 
#198
#198
LouderVol said:
the government decides. you have to be 1/16th to claim it. she is no where close to that.
Click to expand...

No, the Tribes themselves get to decide if you have the proof. You can "claim" it on a census all you want, but you darn sure have to be able to produce proof if you are looking for any government benefit. Only the recognized Tribes can do that.

As much as I hate agreeing with Septic (leaves a taste in the mouth) he's correct here.
 
#199
#199
Grand Vol said:
No, the Tribes themselves get to decide if you have the proof. You can "claim" it on a census all you want, but you darn sure have to be able to produce proof if you are looking for any government benefit. Only the recognized Tribes can do that.

As much as I hate agreeing with Septic (leaves a taste in the mouth) he's correct here.
Click to expand...
Warren is not getting a tribal membership even if she tried. That is 100% fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#200
#200
Grand Vol said:
No, the Tribes themselves get to decide if you have the proof. You can "claim" it on a census all you want, but you darn sure have to be able to produce proof if you are looking for any government benefit. Only the recognized Tribes can do that.

As much as I hate agreeing with Septic (leaves a taste in the mouth) he's correct here.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the cherokee is 1/16th for tribal membership.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top