"you would expect to see..." - this is about the percentage of adult male deaths you would expect to see in a given age range.
"It's 72% in that age range" is the actual percentage seen in that age range.
that's how I understand the quote, mechanically.
in that understanding, Todd isn't lying. he may be wrong and horrible about everything else, and if you want to call him out on those I won't even have a comment. but in my reading of that quote and his reference to it, your accusation that he's lying about it is a cheap and incorrect shot and it doesn't inspire onlookers to take you seriously.
that is the extent of my position here so don't take this as an endorsement of anything.
Replies (3)
You're posting word salad
Peter Todd said in exact words "the deaths are 72% males aged 13 to 55" and he implied an attached link supported his statement
The attached link didn't say 72% of the deaths are males aged 13 to 55, it had the number 72% in a different context
I didn't mention this before, but Peter Todd also said the source was Hamas and implied the link would support him on that too. But according to the link, the source was Andrew Fox, associate fellow at the UK-based think tank Henry Jackson Society, speaking to Euronews; so, unless he's saying Andrew Fox and/or Euronews are Hamas, I'm not sure how you're having a difficult time understanding the differences between Peter Todd's statements and the link he attached.
I also can't imagine being retarded enough to need to click Peter Todd's link to know whether it's a lie, hundreds of days into the genocide. Any adult by now should only be clicking Peter Todd's link with the intent of showing that it doesn't match what he said, because it can't, because every sane adult knows the majority of these deaths in Gaza have been civilians and Hamas would never say otherwise.
It is a confusing quote. It says one thing, then new sentence asserts what Wigit is saying if taken alone. After multiple readings, my understanding is, arbitrary killing should be close to 50% males, half adult (since they're 50% under 18). That's where you get 26% expected adult males if indiscriminant. They then move to a different window and assert its 72% male there. Kind of a bad way to present data, but any window should be 50% male if random, and here it skews male, thus more likely fighters. But we don't get a clear idea of what portion of total deaths that is, and have to assume it's opportunistically chosen to make a point imo
this is what a reasonable discussion looks like, thank you.
