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.

  • goatM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Atomic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • goatM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        But it’s not based on any evidence.

        • Atomic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

          • goatM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.”

            “Oh yeah. Well I’m still going to use it because it makes me feel good.”

            • Atomic
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • goatM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                you are straw-manning though, like actually. You don’t have evidence of 180k, absolutely nothing.

                • Atomic
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  No. I’m really not. And as I’ve explained so many times. There are evidence available to make that conclusion plausible.

                  The word you are looking for is proof. But you not understanding the difference between evidence and proof is another issue.