News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
...
Please show the source of this claim.
So, please prove a negative? No.
You can just read news articles that quote Hamas leaders anytime there is an airstrike and next time you see it maybe you'll spot it now that you know what to look for.
What negative? This was your claim:
Please show the source for this claim.
"Just read news articles" is not a source.
The claim is "Hamas doesn't admit when its soldiers are killed because that would defeat their martyrdom and human shield strategy to gain western sympathy."
It's a negative.
That is a lie. I pasted your claim. I will paste it again:
If you can't back up this claim, fine. I guess it also a lie.
Dated 12/15 from Reuters: Hamas has not said how many of its fighters have been killed. Israel's military has said it has killed at least 7,000.
So they didn't say three.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/world/middleeast/hamas-commander-northern-gaza-killed.html
Now stop sealioning.
Yes, expecting evidence for a specific claim is totally sealioning.
I'm sorry that you don't like it that the person made a claim that neither of you can back up. That's not my fault.
Again- this was the claim I asked to be backed up.
You have not proved they have said that and neither have they. That article is from November 26th of last year. It is also not saying that Hamas is claiming that the total number of Hamas soldiers that were killed was four. Just four in that specific instance. And you either knew that when you pasted the article and didn't expect me to read it or you didn't read it yourself. Either way, you're being highly dishonest.
But sure, be that dishonest and accuse me of sealioning as well. Why not? Easier than just admitting that the claim is false, right?
The claims are simple:
1 - Hamas has not released any statistics about the total number of Hamas fighters killed.
2 - Hamas has acknowledged a small number of specific, individual deaths
Claiming that either of these statements are false - now that you have been presented with evidence of both - is precisely sealioning. Claiming that someone is being dishonest - in presenting evidence that does not fit a pedantic standard beyond the scope of the discussion - is precisely sealioning. For example, suggesting a source that reads "Abu Anas al-Ghandour and three others had been killed" as being semantically incompatible with "number of its dead soldiers is like three" is sealioning.
If you would like to present any evidence of counterclaims, that is perfectly fine. Perhaps Hamas has published losses of soldiers in the time since these articles have been published. I and the rest of the world would certainly like to see those numbers.
However, continued requests for further evidence or insistence that the evidence does not say what it says, or pedantic claims that deliberately misinterpret a statement will only be evidence of bad faith.
while i tend to be on your side about this, i hate that link you gave for sealioning. it smacks of twitterati circlejerking. it's the kind of thing that shocked me when i joined mastodon: being called a "reply guy" for participating in a public conversation. casting doubt on unevidenced claims is an essential part of intellectually honest conversation.
The original source is a comic that demonstrates it fairly well, although the current definition is a bit broader. I look out for:
i have often been accused of trolling, and while i do like to argue with strangers on the internet, i don't really think of myself as a troll (most of the time). i think i'm just intellectually honest, and demand others i share space with practice intellectual honesty.
i will say that i have found that just avoiding interrogatives is a great help in my "crusade". i will do everything i can to avoid answering direct questions as they are ALL TOO OFTEN bad faith, and i extend the same courtesy, almost never asking anything of my interlocutors.
but i feel that the entire topic of trolling is overblown and possible entirely fictional. it seems like a thought-terminating cliche or an ad hominem meant to not-deal with the substance of what is being discussed and attack the speaker.
i caught a 2-day ban for discussing whether people are owed genuine discussion about bad ideas under the accusation that i was trolling.
i'm starting to ramble and have already resisted the temptation to start over twice, so i'll leave this just reiterating that
Neither of those claims were the ones I was challenging. I have pasted the claim I was challenging that was false.
Now you're gaslighting me as if I hadn't pasted it twice.
No that's my inference based on the lack of evidence.
The claim and the evidence is that Hamas hardly ever admits to casualties.
The evidence that Hamas doesn't distinguish it's fighters is the lack of evidence of Hamas admitting to its fighters being killed. I can't prove a lack of something that doesn't exist.
You made absolutely no indication that it was an inference. It was just a statement, as if it were fact.
You have provided no evidence.
What the fuck does this even mean?
Since I'm not very well educated or experienced, please explain how the lack of something can be the same as the presence of something.
If your neighbor claimed that teenagers were racing their cars outside of his house, the absence of teenagers, cars, and tire marks, on the street would be negative evidence against his claim.
This is honestly not that complicated.
Well, I may be uneducated and inexperienced, but it seems to me that those teenagers could have just driven away and not left any tire marks. So stupid me doesn't understand how that explains how the absence of evidence is the same as the presence of evidence.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how accusing me of conspiratorial thinking explains how the absence of evidence is the same as the presence of evidence either. Perhaps you could illuminate me.
Well I say that I'm not a troll or stupid and the absence of evidence that I am not a troll or stupid is the same as evidence that I am a troll or stupid.
Ignore that person; they don't play well with others.
those two deserve each other. let them have this.
No they don't. Check their comment history -- one of them posts generally productive ones; the other does not. (And that's an understatement.)
I think they are both tools