International Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. VII

[Hog-train]

Search function:

I recall posting a statistical analysis on why those numbers as they were a mathematical impossibility and you refused to engage with the source because the author's publication was published in a "Zionist" journal.

You're not interested in dialogue, you're interested in posting propaganda.

We already went through this a while ago. I do not believe a conservative Jewish magazine to be objective on this issue. Tablet magazine is a conservative publication. I'm not conservative.

You don't trust Al Jazeera as "proof" of anything, so why would I trust a conservative Jewish source on anything to do with Israel?

I asked you to explain in your own words why you think the Ministries figures are not accurate. Then you didn't answer.

Stop rehashing the same issue over and over if you're not going to introduce anything new.

 

[Samjj]

We already went through this a while ago. I do not believe a conservative Jewish magazine to be objective on this issue. Tablet magazine is a conservative publication. I'm not conservative.

You don't trust Al Jazeera as "proof" of anything, so why would I trust a conservative Jewish source on anything to do with Israel?

I asked you to explain in your own words why you think the Ministries figures are not accurate. Then you didn't answer.

Stop rehashing the same issue over and over if you're not going to introduce anything new.

You just love being dishonest and bad faith but you can't handle being called out.

The analysis was published in a number of publications with the author being a statistician, senior lecturer and professor of statistics at U Penn.
He and those publications are definitely more reliable sources than your randomly selected pieces of twitter propaganda which you love posting and take for face value.

You're a tremendous hypocrite in asking me to accept your wonky ass sources.

Similarly, acknowledging that Al Jazeera is state run propaganda has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[Hog-train]

You just love being dishonest and bad faith but you can't handle being called out.

The analysis was published in a number of publications with the author being a statistician, senior lecturer and professor of statistics at U Penn.
He and those publications are definitely more reliable sources than your randomly selected pieces of twitter propaganda which you love posting and take for face value.

You're a tremendous hypocrite in asking me to accept your wonky ass sources instead.

Similarly, acknowledging that Al Jazeera is state run propaganda has nothing to do with this conversation.

You just love saying you successfully called me out when you didn't do anything of the sort.

I do not believe Tablet magazine to be objective. They are a self purported Conservative Jewish magazine. That's not "proof." Stop banging your head on the wall with the same argument.

"But but you have to believe this one article!" No I don't. You're not even articulating the argument in your own words. Explain in your own words.

 

[Samjj]

You just love saying you successfully called me out when you didn't do anything of the sort.

I do not believe Tablet magazine to be objective. They are a self purported Conservative Jewish magazine. That's not "proof." Stop banging your head on the wall with the same argument.

"But but you have to believe this one article!" No I don't. You're not even articulating the argument in your own words. Explain in your own words.

No, Tablet was one of a few publications to run his piece.

Listen up buddy - the argument is a simple one which I have already reiterated to you on numerous occasions but you prefer putting your fingers in your ears and pretending like this hasn't been rehashed numerous times already.

The thesis of that article is that the pattern of the appearance and reporting of the methodology which you claim to be authentic, produces patterns of numbers which are statistically impossible to occur in nature and are therefore man made.
Hamas is obviously running a PR war with their casualty lists and taking them at face value, as you have and continue to do and support - makes you a useful idiot.

 

[Hog-train]

No, Tablet was one of a few publications to run his piece.

Listen up buddy - the argument is a simple one which I have already reiterated to you on numerous occasions but you prefer putting your fingers in your ears and pretending like this hasn't been rehashed numerous times already.

The thesis of that article is that the pattern of the appearance and reporting of the methodology which you claim to be authentic, produces patterns of numbers which are statistically impossible to occur in nature and are therefore man made.
Hamas is obviously running a PR war with their casualty lists and taking them at face value, as you have and continue to do and support - makes you a useful idiot.

Listen up buddy. Media fact check bias literally says they're "right-center based and favors the pro-Israel nationalist right."

I'm supposed to believe that's objective on issues of Israel? LMAO.

 

[Samjj]

Listen up buddy. Media fact check bias literally says they're "right-center based and favors the pro-Israel nationalist right."

I'm supposed to believe that's objective on issues of Israel? LMAO.

So, a statistician does a statistical analysis which supports Israel's claim that Hamas' numbers are not to be believed. Obviously "Pro-Israel" publications are going to want to publish that. That has literally no bearing on the accuracy of the statistical analysis but you prefer to disregard it because you can't engage with it - but please keep posting bullshit social media propaganda links.

 

[Hog-train]

So, a statistician does a statistical analysis which supports Israel's claim that Hamas' numbers are not to be believed. Obviously "Pro-Israel" publications are going to want to publish that. That has literally no bearing on the accuracy of the statistical analysis but you prefer to disregard it because you can't engage with it - but please keep posting bullshit social media propaganda links.

" pattern of the appearance and reporting of the methodology " - WTF does this mean. You're not articulating this well.

Regardless "statistician says this!" means jack shit if the source is biased.

Think tanks gets reported "experts" to say all sorts of bullshit. "There are no side effects from gender affirming drugs to kids says experts" "scientists say smoking is good for you" "climate change isn't real according to climate scientist." "Giving tax cuts to the rich will trickle down!" Blah blah blah.

 

[Samjj]

" pattern of the appearance and reporting of the methodology " - WTF does this mean. You're not articulating this well.

Regardless "statistician says this!" means jack shit if the source is biased.

Think tanks gets reported "experts" to say all sorts of bullshit. "There are no side effects from gender affirming drugs to kids says experts" "scientists say smoking is good for you" "climate change isn't real according to climate scientist." Blah blah blah.

Lmao, you are bad at English.

Durp. Remember that time you totally straw
manned me because you attributed a less common use definition to a word that I used which made zero fucking sense in the context of what I was writing!?

Cope harder.

 

[Hog-train]

Lmao, you are bad at English.

Durp. Remember that time you totally straw
manned me because you attributed a less common use definition to a word that I used which made zero fucking sense in the context of what I was writing!?

Cope harder.

Less common use definition of what word?

 

[Samjj]

Less common use definition of what word?

Don’t play dumb, rat.

 

[Hog-train]

Don’t play dumb, rat.

WTF are you talking about. I'm supposed to understand this cryptic word salad with no context?

"Remember that time you totally straw
manned me because you attributed a less common use definition to a word that I used which made zero fucking sense in the context of what I was writing!?"

 

[HereticBD]

That is so general and vague - how the hell am I supposed to address that?

Drones used as traps? I don't know what you're referring to. Show the post.

...

Ok I posted a Twitter showing drones used as traps. So?

This guy in a nutshell.

 

[kflo]

So, a statistician does a statistical analysis which supports Israel's claim that Hamas' numbers are not to be believed. Obviously "Pro-Israel" publications are going to want to publish that. That has literally no bearing on the accuracy of the statistical analysis but you prefer to disregard it because you can't engage with it - but please keep posting bullshit social media propaganda links.

i don't believe this penn professor. i will therefore rely upon hamas. but trust me, i'm posting in good faith!

 

[Anewt]

Oh ffs talk about the conflict not posters

 

[kflo]

Oh ffs talk about the conflict not posters

you want to be next????

 

[Strychnine]

Stay on topic please and throttle back on the flaming.

Thank you.

 

[Halifax]

Stay on topic please and throttle back on the flaming.

Thank you.

Sorry lol.
I'm not sure what I did but I'm sure I did it

 

[Strychnine]

Sorry lol.
I'm not sure what I did but I'm sure I did it

Not pointed at anyone specifically, just a reminder for the entire thread.

 

[Strychnine]

It's not that Israel "can't".

It's that they're not "allowed" to win.

 

[ferrisjso]

Search function:

I recall posting a statistical analysis on why those numbers as they were a mathematical impossibility and you refused to engage with the source because the author's publication was published in a "Zionist" journal.

You're not interested in dialogue, you're interested in posting propaganda.

The numbers are mathematically impossible because the Hamas run health registry has no capacity to accurately do a death toll at this point. Yes the numbers are wildly inaccurate. They aren't an overcount they are a massive undercount. It wouldn't surprise me if theres been a 6 figure death toll at this point.