This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly
Edit: I’m convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.
This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly
Edit: I’m convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.
Not peer-reviewed, not relevant.
Don’t use anything non-peer-reviewed as evidence. It’s disingenuous.
We will not have any evidence until after the war is over and bodies can start being dug up from under the demolished buildings and infrastructure.
If you look at their wording they make it clear it’s not “implausible” to believe the current toll including starvation etc is up towards or above 180’000.
Likewise the toll can be less than what it is currently. Your point has zero evidence, so stop saying that it’s 180k. It’s disingenuous.
Our only evidence is from the Hamas-run ministry, which says 40k. However, it’s unclear whether or not they include their own forces as civilians, or even how accurate it is, considering they regularly make mistakes.
Gaza had an estimated population of about 2 million people.
We know that 35% of the buildings in Gaza is severely damaged or destroyed. Very little aid is reaching their target, hospitals are destroyed.
There is nothing disingenuous about me agreeing with them that it’s plausible that an estimated number of deaths as a result from the war is up towards 180 thousand.
But it’s not based on any evidence.
It is based on evidence.
Evidence that very little aid is reaching Gaza. Evidence that clean water is difficult to come by. Evidence that 35% of their builds are severely damaged or destroyed. Evidence from previous wars and how the population were affected by similar conditions.
With those points of data. Qualified people can make estimations of what they think the number of dead might look like.
But there is no evidence to prove the estimation is correct right until after the war is over.
What you want to say, is that there’s no proof. Which is correct. There is no proof for the figure. Because again. It’s an estimation. There is a war. We can’t go dig up the bodies just yet
You’re exactly like an antivaxxer. Ain’t nothing going to convince you to stop using bullshit.
Too far gone for sure
“Hey, there’s no evidence of that number.”
Yikes, you really want to strawman this as hard as you can.
Not sure what you’re quoting but it ain’t me.
There is evidence to draw the conclusion that an estimate of 180k dead is plausible. Everything from the length of the war, the documented lack of aid reaching the region, the documented destruction of medical facilities to the The documented destruction of habital areas.
I understand fully that there are ~40k deaths reported from within. I think it’s entierly plausible that the real number of deaths as an indirect cause of the war are far higher than that. Personally I think it’s more than plausible. I think it’s likely. But I’ll stick with plausible just for you.
you are straw-manning though, like actually. You don’t have evidence of 180k, absolutely nothing.