Israel’s leadership is pushing the allegations that Hamas fighters raped Israeli women during the October 7 attacks for its own political objectives while the government’s ongoing refusal to allow the United Nations to conduct a full investigation into the matter threatens to hinder any evidence, advocates have warned.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Since I already cited a few entries out of the UN report to you, I’m gonna make this one into one of those “exercise for the reader” type of things. Like teaching a man to fish. In what entry in the table of contents to the report do you think the answer to this question might be contained?

      I realize you will have to read most of the whole first page of the document to find it, but I believe in you. Hold your focus. Persevere.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You didn’t cite any evidence you just posted the summary.

        What information is used to come to those conclusions in the summary? It’s in the report surely you’ve read it right?

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I sent you a link to the full report. Maybe that needs to be the first part of your challenge then: Finding the link to the report, and then finding the table of contents, and then identifying which entry in the table of contents might contain the answer to your question.

          Do you really not want to take on the challenge of finding it? I am trying to help you become more capable with sources and verification procedures. I wasn’t expecting finding the report that I sent the link to to be the hard part, but I honestly don’t think any part of it should be altogether super-challenging.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I already read the report and stated what is in it. You are the person claiming differently so link the part where they had anything other than witnesses to present.

            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              What page of the report did you read that dealt with hostages?

              Not that I don’t believe you; I just have forgotten, and I want you to remind me so I can reference it really quick so we can continue the conversation.

                • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I’m gonna quit being a sarcastic dickhead for a second to take this question seriously.

                  I already gave citations of evidence – a link to the report with some criticisms of what the article was saying was literally my first comment here, and then after that, I responded to questions usually with page numbers or section citations or quotations (examples here, here, and here).

                  But that made absolutely no difference to how you reacted. You continued to make 100% wrong claims about what was in the report, and didn’t react substantively to the demonstrations that what you were already saying were wrong.

                  As I said, I don’t feel like simply continuing that cycle of me providing citations and you continuing to blandly argue wildly wrong things like this. I decided to try a different tactic of asking you about the citations, providing enough hints that you should easily be able to find them in the report you claim to have read. I’m actually pretty happy with it, since it breaks the cycle of “duck season” “rabbit season” “duck season” and so on, and throws it into sharp relief when you’re pointedly ignoring some kind of evidence that disproves your case.

                  Honestly, I’m happy with the result so far. I think it’s a lot more effective at highlighting the fact that you’re not actually interested in looking up information, or checking these wild claims you’re making against some kind of objective basis.

                  So. Are you sure you don’t feel like looking in the table of contents of the link I sent you, and locating the specific section which might possibly contain the answer to your question? There is, really, only one entry that qualifies. It should be very easy.

                  Of course, you could also pretend that someone me sending you the link and telling you to look in the table of contents near the bottom of the first page and you will probably find the information you seek, represents me not giving you a citation. You can claim that. It is your right. I will not stop you.

                  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Once again a wall of text without evidence. I am wondering why I am taking the time to even read this.

                    You seem to be unable to discern between a conclusion and the evidence for said conclusion. One cannot come to a conclusion without evidence for it.

                    What information is used to come to the conclusion in the UN paragraphs you are linking?