you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Your evidence supports that there are members of the IDF who are enthusiastically engaged with what they're doing. I am not debating that- i think you're right.

But it's important to remember this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you haven't seen interviews of IDF members objecting to what they are doing does not mean those members do not exist. I would expect the IDF to have systems in place to minimize the external visibility if any such objections, which makes a generalization like that dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It would be a logical fallacy to jump to such a conclusion without interviewing a randomly sampled and much larger population. It is possible you may be correct or incorrect, but you are jumping to a conclusion about a topic with insufficient data to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If your sample is heavily biased, then the data from it is worthless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nah, I'm not going to argue science and statistics with someone who clearly understands neither.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Going through these comments you've not presented one scientific or statistical argument. You're basically going on vibes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    They haven't made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone's methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying "Facebook research don't count". I don't know what statistical evidence you need for "Facebook research don't count".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn't be arguing with someone who didn't understand the core concepts of the conversation.

    The vibes thing is quite the projection, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment